Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
KatieKaye · 24/03/2015 07:58

Lots of oeople disagree and have told you do.
You might not agree with that assessment but you have to acknowledge there were many comments made about how your continued posting about SAHMs was derailing and irrelevant as OP works .
Disagreeing is one thing. Ignoring and denying other people found this derailing is another .

bumbleymummy · 24/03/2015 08:03

How strange that you still think it wasn't relevant. I mentioned this cooking arrangement to some of my friends at lunch yesterday and said that some people thought it was sexist and 1950s and my friend actually asked, 'so do they think my arrangement is sexist too then?!' (She's a SAHM). I Grin at that. Clearly the few MNers on this thread who can't understand the comparison aren't representative of society as a whole.

BitOutOfPractice · 24/03/2015 08:08

I think there's a chance you might be overinvested in this thread bumbly! Grin

bumbleymummy · 24/03/2015 08:09

Grin perhaps. It did lead on to a nice discussion about one pot meals though. A few new ideas to try out!

ilovesooty · 24/03/2015 08:26

Yes the OP mentioned when she did it. She does this cooking on her day off. I wonder when the other women do it? I wonder how the men spend their days off?

Pagwatch · 24/03/2015 08:27

I am a sahm.
There is no comparison between cooking for ones family as part of a give and take ,loving relationship built upon shared responsibility and mutual respect , and being expected to cook for 20 blokes because that's what the women do.

Any woman who sees no difference should go and sit a while on the thinking step . A long while

Runningupthathill82 · 24/03/2015 08:33

Trying, and failing, to imagine ever having a "nice discussion about one-pot meals".

ilovesooty · 24/03/2015 08:34

Neatly summed up, "Pagwatch

Enormouse · 24/03/2015 08:42

Grin pagwatch.

I can't believe this has run on for almost 40 pages. What is actually left to say?

ilovesooty · 24/03/2015 08:47

Well not all the discussion has been relevant of course. Only one person thinks it has been but of course persistent derailing by people who are obtuse is very difficult to address really.

I still really want to know how long the arrangement has been going on, how it was decided and whether or how it's reviewed. Also whether the OP got any reply to her text and whether this refusal has any ongoing effect on the group dynamic, whether that of the men or women and whether it causes anyone to rethink.

Bambambini · 24/03/2015 08:54

Bumbley - if your friends had actually read this thread rather than your take on it (considering the majority haven't agreed with you) - I think they might possibly have come to an other conclusion or at least had more viewpoints to consider.

Now wondering how you put it over to them.

DrinkFeckArseGirls · 24/03/2015 09:00

It's 'potato' and 'tomato'.

bumbleymummy · 24/03/2015 09:08

Pag, as I explained upthread, it's not that cooking for large numbers of people is the same as being a SAHM (unless you have a huge family!) and it's not about the expectation that the newcomer's partner would want to join in (which I have agreed several times was the main issue). It's about people thinking that cooking = stereotypical women's work therefore the arrangement is open to being called sexist/1950s.
But SAHM role could also be considered stereotypical women's work yet isn't open to the same criticism of being sexist/1950s. It's about the OP being given an unnecessarily hard time for an arrangement that she enjoys being part of because some people consider it sexist. (She has already acknowledged that she shouldn't have contacted the NC's partner/expected her to get involved)

Running, isn't it lovely that everyone is different? :)

bumbleymummy · 24/03/2015 09:10

Bambini - just said hat some people thought it was sexist/1950s because cooking is considered stereotypical women's work. I didn't ask them to come to a conclusion about it. She just asked outright when I mentioned the stereotype bit. It occurred to me fairly quickly when I read that opinion so I guess I have like-minded friends :)

Pagwatch · 24/03/2015 09:14

Bubbly

I was responding to the rather dim witted observation of your sahm friend

it's difficult enough modelling for my children and explain to the world that being a sahm is sometimes a sensible and pragmatic choice to a particular family situation without other sahms equating that with being a fucking skivvy to the helpless, 'far too busy with manly things' men

Pagwatch · 24/03/2015 09:16

And bumbly, with respect telling me what this debate is about is a little arrogant.

I don't particularly care what arrangement the op has made.
Anyone equating women cooking for 20 blokes with being a sahm should stop it.

SilverBirch2015 · 24/03/2015 09:22

Pagwatch is spot on.

Christinayang1 · 24/03/2015 09:24

Bumbley

You are missing the point...cooking isn't sexist, but assuming the op ( because she is female) should cook for 20 men on her day off

Whether you realize it or not you are actually belittling the role of sahms by comparing the two. Being a sahm is as a result of a joint decision about sharing tasks, responsibilities etc not because dh sits on his arse refusing to cook whilst I feed his mates

ilovesooty · 24/03/2015 09:35

I'm not at all surprised you have like minded friends.
The trouble is bumbley you've insisted on your rude attempts to derail despite others disagreeing. You've accused people of feeling "uncomfortable" and "cognitive dissonance" If they've persisted on disagreeing. Loads of PA smilies. The likes of you unfortunately despite your rudeness are difficult to report for a breach of the guidelines and you know it which is why you continue to post as you do.

JanineStHubbins · 24/03/2015 09:37

Exactly ilovesooty I've seen bumbley do it on countless threads. With all the little passive aggressive smileys littering her posts.

BaronessEllaSaturday · 24/03/2015 09:40

please read carefully bumbly

Not sexist - the men getting together and deciding it would be worthwhile to each provide the food for one nightshift in turn, the men then going home and discussing with their partner how it will work in their individual circumstance whether that be the man produces it, the woman does it or they order something in. As it happens it ends up by choice within each individual household that the women cooks the food.

Sexist - the women get together and decide that the men need this, the women decide that the women are the ones to provide the food. All women are expected to toe the line and produce food.

Same result but the intention and the way it is done is what makes it sexist or not, in the second instance the men are treated as incapable of doing anything or organising anything, the women are treated as if it is their place to be doing things like this for their menfolk. It is demeaning and diminishing to both men and women. In the first instance there is mutual respect. It is not the result that makes it sexist it is the attitudes that get to that result.

SAHM because that is what is expected is sexist, SAHP because it is a mutual decision and a position that is valued is not sexist (note the change of letter because in the non sexist position it could be either parent).

ilovesooty · 24/03/2015 09:56

Well said BaronessElla
I'd add also that it's not the result or the activity, it's the attitude, the social expectations and the stereotyping.

This and the other points in your post is what bumbley is persistently misunderstanding and wilfully and rudely trying to derail debate as a result.

JillyR2015 · 24/03/2015 09:57

What is pretty clear though is that there is a lot of sexism still around and women need to fight hard against it and men for that matter as they can be disadvantaged by it too.

ByTheWishingWell · 24/03/2015 10:58

As has been (repeatedly) said, deciding to cook for others as a nice gesture out of free will- not sexist.

Assuming that for the new colleague to take part in communal meals, it should be his wife who contributes- sexist.

However, this thread has been very funny, and OP, you have taken a lot of criticism very gracefully. The sexist twats reply is exactly what I would have thought in my head, or possibly even said out loud, but I do think it was rude to send it. I also suspect that it was intended for the DH.

worksallhours · 24/03/2015 11:34

The OP talked about how/when she did it earlier in the thread.

Bumbley, I know. She mentioned she uses two slow cookers.

The fact is, for a curry, she will still need to prep her ingredients, and sweat onions, spices and brown off meat before she puts it in the slow cooker. That's a pretty substantial job for 20 portions. Again, with something like jerk chicken, you are really looking at marinading; who has the fridge space to marinade enough chicken for 20 people?

When I cook for 20+, I hardly ever do a one-pot because the risk of screw-up is just too great (something goes wrong and the whole lot is wasted) and it gets tricky in a domestic kitchen with domestic oven/hob to cook that kind of volume in one go. I could only brown four thighs at a time on my hob, so it would require ten batches for me to brown 40 thighs -- that could very well take me nearly three hours and I would need to be continuously present at the hob.

I would also query the chap that does the English breakfast. I once, in my younger years, worked for a greasy spoon. Believe me, frying 20 eggs so 20 people can eat at roughly the same time is not easy. And you would have had to do your bacon, your sausage, your beans, whatever beforehand -- and toast ... toast for twenty people? The risk of it getting soggy if you are not in a commercial kitchen is high (you need a lot of racks and a commercial metal toaster). Some small greasy spoons can't even sit 20 people. Grin

I guess what I am trying to say is that cooking for 20 people kinda falls into the realm of a "catering job" more than anything else. There is a reason you always have to book if you are a party of this size in a restaurant and you want to eat together. The only time most people do this type of food is with Xmas dinner, and even then, most families do not cook for 20 -- and stress levels tend to go through the roof.

To me, the circumstances the OP describes are almost beyond the issue of sexism because cooking for 20 on a fairly regular basis is simply not something that has ever been particularly expected of one woman on her own within a traditional framework. It is specialised work, work that cooks and chefs do ... usually with help.

I am trying to think of traditional situations in my and DH's cultures (and DH is from the Middle East so it can be very different in terms of expectations) where ordinary women would be expected to do something like this, and all the scenarios (hatch, match, despatch, festival days etc), all the women of the family would get involved -- and to be fair, the men would help as well, particularly if it involved grilling meat. It would never be expected for one woman to do it on her own.