Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

This isn't sexist at all.

999 replies

PiperIsTerrysChoclateOrange · 20/03/2015 17:55

In my DH works on night shifts each of the wives/partners cook for all the men on shift.

I'm happy with it and so are all the other women, we have been doing this for years. It means they all get a hot home made meal.

The 1 partner of a new man who has started has pulled a strop and said it sexiest and very 1950.

The reason we all enjoy cooking them as we can step away from cooking 'kids' meals and kick up the heat on curries and jerk chicken ect.
While I accept that children do eat these kind of meals within our friendship group all these are always done mild.

IABU to think it is not sexiest.

In able to do this many years ago with the Christmas bonus they brought a George foreman, slow cooker, pressure cooker and a rice cooker. Due to H&S the only thing they haven't got is a deep fat fryer. But all the others have been PACT tested.

OP posts:
ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 20:27

I don't think the SAHM issue has any relevance to this.

I'm astonished that anyone doesn't see this whole set up as demeaning quite frankly.

SilverBirch2015 · 22/03/2015 20:28

This is your issue Bumbley, not ours. I have been both a WM & SAHM parent, in my humble opinion neither is a perfect solution to parenthood. Sexist assumptions in either set-up make either role more difficult. A partner and society that works from the premise that the responsibilty of parenting is the role of both parents, makes it much easier to manage in either case.

AlternativeTentacles · 22/03/2015 20:32

I think it's an example that makes some people uncomfortable though because there are clearly parallels but people don't want to be seen as SAHM-bashing.

And those parallels are?

Or are you just doing this to try and deflect and protect your corner as nobody would bash SAHM?

bumbleymummy · 22/03/2015 20:32

ilovesooty - I think if people are referring to cooking for a group of men as a '1950s style' arrangement and calling it sexist then SAHM role is comparable because it could also be deemed a '1950s style' arrangement.

Silver, not sure what you think I'm saying.

AlternativeTentacles · 22/03/2015 20:33

So could having backcombed hair - it still isn't relevant to this actual issue is it?

SilverBirch2015 · 22/03/2015 20:33

Parenting and household tasks would make my comment more realevant to this thread.

ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 20:35

Yes of course it's a parallel. Lots of things were evident in the 1950s. Are you going to bring all of those in as well?

bumbleymummy · 22/03/2015 20:36

'protect my corner'? Why do I need to protect anything? I have an opinion which some people share and which you happen to disagree with.

No, people wouldn't usually tell SAHMs that they were in a sexist arrangement and compare it to the 1950s. That's why I think it is unfair to criticise the OP for being part of this cooking arrangement. (I've already said that I don't think she should have texted the newcomer's partner etc etc - I just think people are being unnecessarily rude about/dismissive of the women in this arrangement)

RandomFriend · 22/03/2015 20:36

I'm ridiculously fascinated by the logistics and history of this.

Me too. It would be nice if Piper could provide some more information on how it started.

No question of those payments being considered family money or being up for discussion - just a unilateral decision taken on behalf of 20 families.

We don't know that. I think it can only have been a cooperative decision, involving the women and perhaps even initiated by them. Otherwise the arrangement wouldn't have begun to work, and certainly couldn't have continued to work for several years.

ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 20:37

For example smacking children was a common 1950s arrangement.

Now perhaps you could find a relevant argument.

bumbleymummy · 22/03/2015 20:38

Alternative - No, I can't see the relevance of backcombed hair. Not exactly comparable to certain jobs being considered 'women's work' is it? Grin

ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 20:39

Point taken Random but I'm struggling with the notion of all these women happily agreeing to that

SilverBirch2015 · 22/03/2015 20:42

Bumbley, you do seem to have some axe to grind about the role of SAHM mothers. I am not quite clear why it has relevance here at all. Your perception that 1950s women were all SAHM mothers is flawed. My own mother worked whilst she (and my father) brought up 4 children, as did many women throughout the 20th Century. It was not always a financially option for many women to go back to work before children started school or possible without the statutory right to maternity leave.

ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 20:45

Why engage in the SAHM issue with Bumbley and give her what she wants in terms of derailing the thread?

bumbleymummy · 22/03/2015 20:51

"Your perception that 1950s women were all SAHM mothers is flawed. "

Why are you assuming that is my position? Why haven't you previously objected to the comparison of the women in this arrangement to 1950s housewives?

It's not derailing at all ilovesooty - it's very much on the same track. If you are criticising women who are in a group cooking arrangement and calling it sexist and 1950s-esque then, by the same logic, you should also be criticising SAHMs for taking on that '1950s-style housewife' role. But you won't do that so I can understand why the similarities make you uncomfortable and you want to move away from it. :)

SilverBirch2015 · 22/03/2015 20:55

You are right Sooty got sucked in there. Will try and sit on my keyboard hand on this specific aspect from now on Blush

Enormouse · 22/03/2015 20:56

Ffs, being a SAHM now is not the same as being SAHM in the 50s. Or it shouldn't be at any rate.

Anyone who can't grasp that, is frankly a fool.

ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 20:58

No I don't consider them similarities and would rather move away from them in favour of discussing the issue at hand which is the fact that to me there are still many unanswered questions in this scenario.
We don't know how it was decided that the women do this mass cooking. We don't know who made the decision to spend the men's bonuses. We don't know how many of the women are really on board and to what extent the men are making sure they are, or indeed if the men are doing some of the cooking but no one's saying. We don't know why it was considered appropriate to put this woman under pressure to comply by conducting communications through the men's phones.

bumbleymummy · 22/03/2015 21:03

Not saying it's exactly the same Enormouse :) I don't think the newcomer's partner/wife was suggesting that all 1950s housewives cooked meals for 20+ men on a rota system either when she made her comparison.

Yes, ilovesooty(and others), I can understand why you're keen to move away from it. It can be uncomfortable.

OrlandoWoolf · 22/03/2015 21:04

I'm also a bit confused about the cooking goods.

Apart from the fact the bonus was spent on it. Where are they kept?

The goods can't be transported between houses everynight - so does the wife come in and cook using them? This may have been discussed on here - but this thread is a long one.

I also really don't see why Bumbley needs to keep making the SAHM comparison. As she has pointed out - it's all about expectation. If this OP is true, I bet there was a lot of pressure exerted to join in (as it would make the men folk look bad if their wife didn't cook ). That's wrong. Or the bloke is doing it.

There is nothing wrong with being a SAHM or for being part of this cooking arrangement. It's just very surprising that 19 women are all perfectly happy to cook a hot meal for their husbands and his 20 work mates - especially these days when women work as well.

But there's a lot about this thread that's surprising.

ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 21:06

Oh for goodness sake. It's not uncomfortable. It's irrelevant and tedious.
Now if you can engage with the actual issue I'm prepared to debate with you. Otherwise I won't waste my time.

ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 21:07

Orlando I think the OP said they were brought home for the next person to use.

SilverBirch2015 · 22/03/2015 21:07

The thing is [Bumbley] is that working women in the 1950s would have been expected to be the key homemaker too, cooking, washing, cleaning, or arranging and managing domestic help.

Feminism has given us choices and other options, including shouting sexist when we feel a woman (or a man) is being pressurised into becoming a redundant stereotype.

JillyR2015 · 22/03/2015 21:08

She should tell the husbands they have to come round to the work places of the wives' work and cook for all the women once a week.

Original poster
PiperIsTerrysChoclateOrange · 22/03/2015 21:10

It started over a discussion about microwave meals.

We worked out that between the families it was costing £60 a night on microwave meals.

It cost on average £30-£35 to cook.

I do a chicken curry.

15 chicken breast in which I chop up myself.

2 packets of mushrooms
10 onions
4 birdeye chillis
Then I use curry paste
Naga chilly paste
I do cheat with the sauce and gets the cheapest jars possible as I only need it for the best due to the spices I add.

Due to it slow cooking, I don't fry off the veg just chuck it in and do seal the chicken which takes the time.

While I am doing this DH is in bed so he can sleep before going into work.

I'm not an idiot or got a boring life.

Cooking is my hobby.

Regarding the other wives/ partners ( only 4 are married the others have got long term partners apart from fry up bloke)

OP posts: