This isn't sexist at all.

[PiperIsTerrysChoclateOrange]

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.

Alternative, so women who do housework/cooking as well looking children are 'muppets'. What lovely opinions you have.

Clearly not the only thing I feel comfortable talking about but I think it shows up the flaws in your logic quite well. Keep being aggressively defensive about it though - that'll hide it.

Orlando - I haven't said that being a SAHM is a sexist role. I'm wondering why some people will vocally condemn certain 'stereotypical women's roles' (eg cooking for men) as sexist but they won't follow through with that when it comes to criticising a SAHM looking after her kids/cooking/cleaning in that 'stereotypical women's work' way.

You forgot to mention the Spam, Tondelayo.

Me, I'm just confused why Pipers DH makes them both sarnies when he's on nights. I thought the whole "women cook for 20 men" thing was because they wanted a hot home cooked meal? Yet Piper said he makes himself sandwiches too.

Does have two meals? Or is this whole cooking thing fallen by the wayside, only nobody's told Piper?

And how long is this night shift if he's only got time to go home and sleep? Oh, and make two lots of sandwiches?

Another epic bumbley derail.

This is nothing, the abortion threads hit 1000 posts in minutes. You've got to have grudging respect for that kind of tenacity.

I think you'll find most people do housework and cooking, bumble.
It's like a part of life.
Unless you're the Queen.

I was a bit confused by the sandwiches thing as well.

I feel the need for a song.

"A woman who automatically cooks for men - I think she has accepted a gender role without thinking. "

So a woman can never cook for a man because otherwise she is accepting a gender role?

Janine, not at all. We're still on track :)

Piper, I think you've had a hard time here. It is not that unusual for one partner to do lots of cooking and the other to do lots of something else. What is unusual these days is for the obvious assumption to be that the woman does the cooking, particularly when it's acutally for her husband's work. You now know that from this thread.

For the new bloke's partner, I would reply via text saying somehting like "My apologies for coming across as sexist, I really didn't explain that very well. Could I take you out for a drink to apologise and get to know you better? I am not so good at phonecalls". If she says yes, I'd then explain that hitherto it has been the wives doing a lot of the cooking, but she is under no obligation to join in. if her Dh wants to eat the food he probably needs to provide - how he does that is up to him.

For the new bloke, I'd text him and say something "Sorry for accidentally insulting your wife, issue of poor communication on my part. Hope we can all make amends." THen whoever actually organises the rota contacts new bloke (not his wife) and asks first if he wants to be involved, and then, when he'd like to be on the rota.

I find the setup very sexist and 1950s, but if everyone's happy, hey ho. Many years ago I worked in a lab where the sexist twunt who ran it declared that whoever was presenting their work at Thursday lab neeting also had to provide lunch, in order to "keep up group morale". Wonder why there wasn't any group morale with him as a boss He would then, while stuffing his face with food provided by his employees, openly laugh at any men in the group who had cooked the lunch "for being suckers"; and openly criticise any women in the group, first for being bad cooks, and then straight after for being "like all women, too distracted from their research because they had a meal to cook, demonstrating that women shouldn't be in science". In his view, the only acceptable version was a male research group where the unemployed wives did all the cooking and had no ambitions of their own to get a PhD faster than their husbands and tell their husband's boss to f* right off

So a woman can never cook for a man because otherwise she is accepting a gender role?

If a woman automatically cooks for a man every night without thought or hesitation because she thinks that what a good wife must do, then I think that's an issue.

Do you?

Maybe the man pulled a sicky, because his wife put her foot down.

Orlando - it depends on the circumstances. Automatically coming home and cooking because your DH works later/more hours/doesn't cook as well/does something else instead is a bit different to automatically cooking because you think it makes you a good little wife.

Bumble, either that was a deliberate misapprehension or you honestly can't understand there is a vast difference between a woman cooking for a man and a woman cooking for men.

But just in case, here's a clue: singular versus plural.

But you are still bent on ploughing your own track and bringing in SAHMs when you are the only person going off on this irrelevant tangent.
OP says she works so do try to stay on the topic or start your own thread.

It does sound a similar place, doesn't it Silver? This was a soft-drinks manufacturer, famous for their bottles of squash and fruit shoots.

How to be a good wife from Good Housekeeping magazine

www.j-walk.com/other/goodwife

An excerpt:

Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have be thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they get home and the prospect of a good meal is part of the warm welcome needed.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf - if the sandwiches being different to hot food comment was to me, my point was that whilst my work colleague was at home with a friend visiting she thought it completely normal and acceptable to rustle up a last-minute picnic for her husband and his work colleagues at about 11pm and also leave her friend in her home while she went to deliver it to his work.

Automatically coming home and cooking because your DH works later/more hours/doesn't cook as well/does something else instead is a bit different to automatically cooking because you think it makes you a good little wife

But that's not "automatic". That's a sensible decision for the family.

You said a wife automatically cooking for her man. Do you see the difference?

One is a thought out decision. One isn't/

You must be a bit of a muppet if you do everything in the house whilst your husband sits on his arse yes. Unless he is abusive in which case they need to leave/ kick him out as soon as possible. Or her, in the case of a lesbian relationship of course.

Bumbly you have opened my eyes to a whole new low level of self esteem in women that i just never knew existed. Being a bumblymummy must be such hard work. Have you even thought of getting a name that reflects you as a person rather than how you are as a mother?

Katie - yes, I realise in this case it is plural.

What I'm saying about SAHMs is relevant. I've explained why and it has nothing to do with whether or not the OP is a sahm herself. It's to do with people criticising a certain arrangement for being sexist because it is 'stereotypical women's work' but not criticising other arrangements where women are also doing stereotypical women's work (eg being a SAHM).

Sorry Anne - it wasn't to you really. I find the idea that there are women like that depressingly realistic.

But the specific situation the OP describes with the hot meals and the George Foreman grill and the cooked breakfast bachelor and the 20 men extremely odd and unconvincing.

bumbley

You've said it yourself.

People are not criticising the fact that women cook for their husbands. It's the expectation they cook. The arrangement is sexist if the women are expected to cook. You've acknowledged that.

The arrangement is not sexist - unless the arrangement has the expectation that the wives do it.

You do see that?

Orlando - I think I see where this misunderstanding came from.

'Women Cooking for men' automatically equals

Not 'women cooking for men automatically' equals.

"The arrangement is not sexist - unless the arrangement has the expectation that the wives do it."

Yes, we seem to agree on this. Other people are suggesting otherwise though - that the arrangement itself was automatically sexist because it involved women cooking for men.

I am sure you would also acknowledge as sexist if the women was expected to be a SAHM. Not being a SAHM but being expected to be a SAHM.

In fact, I think you have acknowledged that. No one would criticise someone for being a SAHM. They would take issue if someone thought they had to be a SAHM or if someone told them to be a SAHM.

I agree that it's depressing that there really are women prepared to jump when the man clicks his fingers. I note the OP said that I'd she were ill her husband would get someone else to do it or order a takeaway.

That's depressing too.

I think everyone agrees that the expectation was sexist.
And that the phone call was inappropriate.