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.

Pag, you're being rude. You don't know my friend at all and she certainly isn't dimwitted.

The comment about it being 'stereotypical women's work' made her ask that because as a SAHM she is doing 'stereotypical women's work' too. She wasn't equating it to being a skivvy or equating being a SAHM with cooking for 20 blokes. I've said that several times now so, with all due respect, maybe you should read my posts more carefully.

Christina - I'm not missing the point. If you read my other posts you will see that I have said from the outset that the OP shouldn't have assumed. You're assuming that I'm comparing being a sahm to cooking for a bunch of men. I am not. Reread my posts.

The smileys are just smileys. I'm a smiley person and I think they brighten up the posts :)

Sooty - I don't see you complaining about detailing on other threads that you and I are both posting on at the moment that have gone waaaay off track.
Anyway, it takes more than one person to derail. Maybe you should have a go at the poster who had a little PA jibe about derailing and ended up bringing up the SaHm stuff again.

Baroness, read carefully - nothing I've written disagrees with what you've said.

I think some of you need to go back and read my earlier posts to see that I've actually agreed with most of what you've said! The only thing I've disagreed with (and was only actually put forward by a couple of posters) was that the idea of cooking for the men was a sexist/1950s idea in general. Most of you actually agree with me that it isn't.

the idea of cooking for the men was a sexist/1950s idea in general

cooking for the men in the way that the op put it across is sexist and a 1950's idea, texting the wife asking if she wanted to join in was a sexist 1950's idea. Talking about the text did anyone else notice that the op asked after the husband but did not ask after the wife who was the person the text was supposedly for which is also a sexist 1950's idea because it implies that only the man is important and everyone else is around to cater to him.,

context is everything Bumbly and you have constantly tried to derail the thread, this is nothing to do with sahm, nothing to do with cooking for a family, nothing to do with how an individual family arranges things. The idea/expectation that the women cook for the men is sexist

She is right! Why didn't you text the new night shift worker to ask him if he wanted to cook but assumed that his partner will be doing the cooking and asked her?!

Despite still having the will to live I have read some of your posts again...you said " surely sahm should be open to the same criticism"...so not me assuming...you brought sahm into this thread and have compared it to this situation

WOW - the OP is getting a really hard time yet the woman she sent the text to was so incredibly rude!

Yes - but don't worry, DF, someone has come up with the idea that she sent her reply to her dh. No evidence whatsoever for this, or explanation of how OP came to see it, but there you go.

Doesn't matter how rude you are if you're standing up for your right not to do something nice for your husband if you want to.

I thought we'd got beyond all this, that people were free to make their own choices, without other women telling them they were sexist, or Stepford wives or skivvies or letting the side down.

The woman received a text. Well it was sent from the husbands phone to her husbands phone asking if she would like to join the cooking rota for the men. I think most people can see why her reaction was at it was. If she had posted that situation on AIBU she would probably have got ruder rdplies to post.

Bumbley.

How would you have reacted? The wife may be incredibly busy. Put yourself in her shoes and think about how some people may be pissed off. And if it had been a new woman who joined. I bet there would be no way her husband would have been texted.

And if he had been rude i bet that would be acceptable

Oh good lord Bumbly
If your views are being misinterpreted by everyone else on the thread then maybe you should write better rather than asking me to reread every thing you have posted.
You quoted your friend as linking being a sahm with the situation described on here. You said

"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 "

You are doing sahms a great disservice by endlessly linking the scenario in the thread with the way most sahms view their role and are regarded by their family.
I honestly don't know why you are doing it, it's extraordinarily disappointing to hear someone acting as if they are advocating for sahms but promoting such a ridiculous and negative idea.
It's as if you are indulging in some sort of intellectual exercise the upshot of which is that you are creating the entirely opposite impression.

Thank you to everyone who has do eloquently explained why bumbly's repeated posts about SAHMs are irrelevant to the discussion and are derailing it.
I fear your words of wisdom are falling deaf ears sadly. Hey hi, let's just stay on topic .

OP, do you do a special supermarket shop when it's your time to do the communal meal? It must be quite a big shop.

I'm a smiley person and I think they brighten up the posts

They don't. If you are having a discussion with someone and they sit there smiling at you whilst discussing things, what do you think of them? That they are smiley person, or someone taking the piss? If you want a discussion, and are serious about your point - smileys just make you look like a pisstaker. Unless you are a pisstaker of course.

^See what I did there?

I wonder who'll get the last word on this thread

Will we get a part 2? It's been such fun

Applauds AT.

Pity there isn't a clappy icon because I'm a clappy person. Not happy clappy, although I can be happy and clappy at the same time, which is different,
I think.
Anyway, just pretend there is a wee face clapping [here]

But the comparison with a traditional 50's domestic set-up is only a negative idea, if you have an entirely derogatory view of the 50's.

As I tried to say, much earlier in the thread, it wasn't all bad. It suited some women. It would suit some women today, if the economics of the housing situation allowed them the choice.

On Mumsnet, however, the 50's are referred to as something out of the middle ages. Thank goodness there's been progress since on the work scene, with equal pay and maternity leave and educational aspirations. But domestically? I'm not so sure.

From what I read on here, so many women spend their time rushing around, finding childcare, arguing with their partners about emptying the dishwasher. There doesn't seem to be much nurturing going on, wives doing nice things for their husbands and vice versa.

Which is why OP's standpoint seemed so refreshing. She's not a SAHM, but probably working fewer hours than her OP. If she wants to spend some spare time occasionally making life easier for him, why the derision?

f she wants to spend some spare time occasionally making life easier for him, why the derision?

That was not the OP. The OP was about the text to the wife about her wanting to be involved. That was the sexist assumption as the OP herself has said.

Having read some of the other posters opinions on how being a SAHM as part of a mutually respectful and equal partnership (I.e. not a drudge) has been interesting. I do feel quite a bit better about being a SAHM. Despite bumbleys repeated assertions …which are a bit like white noise now.

So thanks pag, ilovesooty and everyone else.

But the comparison with a traditional 50's domestic set-up is only a negative idea, if you have an entirely derogatory view of the 50's.

It's quite hard to explain this yet again but here goes.

It's not the issue of the work. it's the issue that the expectation is that women do that work. THAT is what the 'are you from the 1950's?' comments refer to.

Again. NOT the actual work. But the EXPECTATION that it will always be the WOMAN that does that certain work.

In this day and age, women are not automatically expected to be SAHMs. In the 1950s, they were. In fact many were kicked out of their jobs when the men came back from the war because it was EXPECTED that MEN needed the money to support their families. And that WOMEN would not work, apart from do EVERYTHING in the HOUSE/HOME.

If I get the last word I want it to be 'bollocks.'
Or 'pulled pork'

The word is:

expectations

There are much worse last words there could be Pag. I'm having pulled pork for tea tonight.

What about 'George Formby'