“If Most People Think of Chefs as Male, Why Is Cooking at Home Thought of as Woman’s Work?” Here’s How People Responded.

Stereotypes are strange and misogyny is nothing if not insidious. There’s no reason for people to associate the job of “chef” with “man” these days, but I would venture to say that most people probably do.

There’s less reason for cooking at home to be seen as something women do, but ask the majority of two-person households out there who cooks most nights.

This guy wants to know why those two stereotypes co-exist and honestly, I’m pretty interested in these 15 answers, myself.

Why is it that being a chef is a male stereotype but cooking at home is a female stereotype? I don’t get it? from NoStupidQuestions

Let’s take a look…

15. Men would like change, too.

If given the chance to have a stay at home husband look after the kids, I’d imagine many more women would go on to have professional careers in the arts.

But that’s more of a cultural shift that would be needed I feel, maybe in the future it will shift more

14. It’s all about the money.

Because cooking at home doesn’t pay!

For example knitting used to be a sole male profession back then since it was highly paid. As machines were introduced in the industry the pay plummeted and guess what? It became a female craft.

That’s how society traditionally worked for ages. What is profitable is man’s work and women work for nothing or little pay.

13. Time to change the default.

It’s like that for many things.

Gardening and flowers are girly but landscaping and top experts in the field are men.

Fashion is girly but top fashion designers are men (Gucci, Ralph Lauren).

Child rearing is for women but top childcare experts are men (dr. Gerber, Dr. Sears).

I think it goes back to when women didn’t work so all the professionals in every field were men out of default.

12. That’s not right.

This goes with a lot of professions. Teachers vs professors, nurses vs doctors.

Also interesting observation: once women started becoming secretaries, the profession started getting paid way less and being taken less seriously. Same with teachers.

11. Nailed it.

One is a position of power, one is a position of servitude.

10. Chefs vs. cooks.

other answers here are pretty simplistic so basically:

women were the primary cooks up until the concept of going to a place specifically to eat a quality meal (i.e., a restaurant) became popular. remember that the concept of restaurants (as we know it today) didn’t really exist until the late 18th century.

once people realized that this was a potentially lucrative business, women were pushed out. and, in many places, women were not allowed to hold property or control their own money (there were exceptions to this but usually only for already upper class women). therefore, there was no real way for women to wrench this business back from men. the label of “chef” helped the men distance themselves from what was otherwise considered domestic work ,or “women’s work”. women were “cooks” in the home, men were “chefs” in business.

this distinction has only recently began to go away.

tl;dr: the advent of the modern restaurant forced women out of their traditional work because of the opportunity for men to make money. those men became “chefs”, and the women stayed “cooks”. only now just starting to shift.

9. The only answer we need, really.

Sexism bro.

The patriarchy is one hell of a drug.

8. It’s not for family.

Cooking at home is associated with caregiving. You care for your kids, partners, etc.

Cooking in a restaurant is associated with making money, and is well known to be a high stress environment.

Caregiving stereotypes are directed at women, while men’s stereotypes surrounding being a breadwinner and dealing better with stress.

7. That about sums it up.

Women are expected to be able to cook because it’s their duty to their families.

Chefs are supposed to be artists, something traditionally male oriented. It’s a career.

It’s stupid.

6. Men don’t do chores.

I assume it’s because home cooking is seen as more of a chore, and being the head of a prestigious restaurant is a respected profession.

Back in the day people used to believe women shouldn’t work, but should instead be taking care of the home while the men went off to work.

5. But it doesn’t have to be true.

It’s a stereotype because it’s true. According to the first Google result I lazily pulled up whole searching “percentage of female chefs”, only 18.7% of chefs and executive chefs were female in 2012. That’s four out of five chefs being male, a huge discrepancy.

Why? That’s more speculative, but being a chef is a very different skill-set to being good at cooking. I love cooking at home (I’m female), but would loathe running a commercial kitchen. Because the cooking’s only part of it, and the rest is managing staff, running a physically demanding, high-pressure, competitive, somewhat physically dangerous job with write an aggressive culture (lots of shouting, swearing and general motivation-by-abuse) with hours that don’t mesh well with having a family life. I imagine it psychologically appeals to men more than women on average, just by the nature of the beast. And that’s OK.

As for cooking at home being a female-dominated activity, 70% of women cooked a home in 2018 as opposed to 46% of men (again, first result of low-effort googling). So the stereotype is less accurate – men cooking at home is on the rise – but still not entirely wrong.

The reason for that is probably historical – throughout history women tended to stay around the house more, taking care of the children, while the men worked inside or outside the home at a more specialised task (being a cobbler, lawyer, blacksmith or what-have you). It just makes sense that the person who was in proximity to the kitchen, and had the time to prepare food, would do it.

And in many cases, historically, it wasn’t a simple as home cook vs chef. Farming women would often earn money though food preparation, making cheeses and preserves to sell, winning prizes for their signature dishes at the county fair, or taking in boarders.

As women entered the workforce the idea that a wife ‘should’ cook has persisted, even when it makes little sense because she’s out of the house as much as her husband. But that’s changing, and fairly rapidly, these days – although it’s worth mentioning that even working women generally work fewer hours than working men, on average.

4. Because more women stay home.

Women traditionally stay at home, hence being a home cook. men traditionally get a profession, and being a chef is a well paying profession. edit now that this got big: i should have worded it better.

It pays well for the type of profession it is.

It’s a profession that a lot of people love doing. for example, being a plumber pays better but nobody wakes up in the morning happy to be plumbing, ya know.

3. It’s all in the gender roles.

Read that somewhere, gist was: because the cooking are different roles here, at home it’s the serving (the family/husband) in a restaurant that role is the server (which is stereotypical the female part in a restaurant) while the chef (cooking) is the leader in a kitchen/restaurant.

2. Who has the power?

This is a pattern across many different art forms.

More girls than boys take art, music, theater, etc in school, but more men than women become professional artists, musicians, broadway actors, etc.

As others have said, it comes from gendered power structures.

1. Not all men are chefs.

I’m going to replace the word “chef” with “cook” to answer part of this question.

The majority of cooks, myself included, come from rough or self-destructive backgrounds. Addicts, alcoholics, convicts, etc. The majority of these cooks are male; not entirely sure why, but I like to think that its a community that is more welcoming to those who have been through the same shit and are just trying to get through life while females in the same boat tend to have other options. Also, the background check to be a cook is almost non-existent. Statistically there are a lot more men with criminal records than women. A lot of these cooks do fall in love with it and end up going on to become chefs with a good salary instead of living paycheck to paycheck.

That’s just my guess though.

As far as women in the kitchen at home: 1950’s TV and years and years of women being told “you don’t need to work, stay at home and raise the kids and make dinner” is my best guess.

We need to stop all stereotyping! Root it out in yourselves, people – that’s the best place to start.

If you’re a man who likes to cook, tell us in the comments whether anyone in your life thinks it’s strange, or gives you a hard time.

The post “If Most People Think of Chefs as Male, Why Is Cooking at Home Thought of as Woman’s Work?” Here’s How People Responded. appeared first on UberFacts.

Many Christmas traditions…

Many Christmas traditions come from the Roman holiday Saturnalia. During Saturnalia, work and business came to a halt. Schools and courts of law closed, and the normal social patterns were suspended. People decorated their homes with wreaths and other greenery, and shed their traditional togas in favor of colorful clothes known as synthesis. Even slaves […]

The post Many Christmas traditions… appeared first on Crazy Facts.

People Talk About the Question: How Are We Supposed to Save The Planet When It’s Cheaper to Trash It?

Reddit has a forum called “No Stupid Question,” and this one is pretty great.

The OP (original poster) points out that even if a person wants to do the right thing for the environment and the planet and such, the fact that it’s literally cheaper to like, throw out your entire printer instead of buying a new ink cartridge make it hard.

How are you supposed to do what’s best for the environment when it’s cheaper to purchase a whole new printer than it is to buy ink cartridges? from NoStupidQuestions

That’s just one example of course.

Let’s see what these 16 folks had to say in reply to his not-a-stupid question, shall we?

16. Be the bigger person.

Same way you expect governments and corporations to spend money to protect environment – you do what you know is best even if it costs more or is less convenient.

Also last I heard you can refill the cartridges instead of buying new ones

15. You might just have to work harder.

Assuming you’re using printers and cartridges as an example, that’s the point. Environmental damage exists because it is in general easier and cheaper to do things that are worse for the environment.

This ranges from throwing recyclables away instead of recycling, to chemical plants throwing unprocessed waste away directly into rivers.

At some point, you have to evaluate whether the damage to the environment of some action is “worth” the alternative.

In your case, this would be the cost of buying ink cartridges rather than new printers (buy a laser printer).

14. Make a choice.

If you’re concerned about the environment, you do the thing that’s better for the environment… If and when you can.

You’re not compelled to do the cheapest thing possible all the time, to the detriment of your values.

13. A fair alternative, at least in this case.

I guess the best you can do is recycle the old printer, but even then, you can’t guarantee that any of the components will actually be put to use.

12. They’re trying…sort of.

Fortunately, manufacturers have started bringing refillable ink tanks to their printers. Canon G2000 for example, comes with a full tank of ink that should last a home user a couple of years.

And refilling it is quite reasonable. 40$ gets you all the colors you need and lasts another couple of years.

It has it’s drawbacks though. For example if you don’t print that much, air can get into the ink tubes which is easily fixed by a printer cleaning but it’s troublesome.

11. The more you know.

Here. From PC World:

Costco inkjet refills ($8 to $10, plus sales tax where applicable; HP 60 refill for black or tricolor cartridge, $8) Vendor URL: Costco Inkjet Refill Service

10. You’re probably wrong.

I simply stopped using a printer. I have “needed” to print something exactly 4 times at home since 1999.

When I need to print, I go to Staples/FedEx/whatever is nearby somewhere I will already be anyway.

You may think “that’s ridiculous, I cant stop printing?!?”… Well tbh, you’re probably wrong, and if you think about it very little of what you’ve printed has needed to be printed, or at least been printed immediately at home, on demand.

9. If you want to get technical about it.

The best thing you can do for the environment is elect a government that will enact systemic reforms forcing corporations to pay the cost of repairing the damage they do to the environment.

The printer isn’t particularly relevant.

8. Yeah, man. Totally.

Planned obsolescence is the enemy of the environment.

7. Damn the man.

You’re not. The idea that any individual person can significantly impact the environment—by reusing bags, by buying a Prius, by turning down the AC in the summer, by buying organic—is a myth propagated by large corporations to shirk responsibility for modern climate change.

Within the current dominant economic system (i.e., capitalism), not only is it completely impossible to live in an eco-friendly way, but even if you could do that, you’re only 1 person out of 7.5 billion (and counting). You have no power to help the planet except by fighting capitalism. Capitalism’s only way to exist is to grow, extract, grow, extract, grow, extract, ad infinitum, which is not sustainable. Capitalism can never coexist with widespread, genuine care for nature.

Also, capitalism is inherently both racist and imperialist (look up “mlk three evils”).

We gotta change this sh%t up.

6. Invest in quality.

As people point out there are better lasting printers out there, but a lot of people think affordable rather than long term.

In terms of printers, i’ve rarely needed one so buying a new one has literally been every 7 or 8 years.

But its the same for a lot of things people buy. Why is it cheaper to buy a heap of junk food instead of eating healthy? Because junk food tastes nice and people will buy more of it than health food.

I once bought shoes from Kmart for $30 and in a month became so uncomfortable, they were torture to stand/walk in. Saved my pennies and bought them from a proper shoe shop for $180 and 6 years later they are still going strong.

Those who make cheap things with shoddy quality dont care about the environment.

5. Well maybe you can make a difference?

This isn’t entirely true, I’m actually studying sustainability and climate change and thought it is true that an individual’s chooses have less of an impact that that of a large company it can still have a significant effect. People indirectly control the industry if 10% of people stop buying beef that’s a 10% drop in profit for beef producers. That can have a serious effect on how a company operates so while it is important to change the policy regulating large corporations it is still important for individuals to live more sustainability especially since the implementation of new policy is painfully slow.

If anyone wants advice on some minor changes you can make to live more sustainability here are some of the best things you can do.

fly only when absolutely necessary. Flying is one of the most environmentally damaging things an individual can do if possible drive or take a train/bus.
reduce your consumption of beef and dairy products. Cows are responsible for a significant amount of global warming due to their emission of methane which is a much better greenhouse gases than CO2. Cows are the biggest offender but generally meat is the worst offender the least environmentally damaging meat that is available is chicken.

try to repair devices and applications whey they have broken and simply buy less stuff especially if it is single use this reduces your impact as you will consume less and will cause you to produce less waste.

4. I think it’s the walking that’s the key.

Personally, I walk to the library or the UPS store.

This is one of the reasons cities are a pretty eco way to live—strangers can share instead of buying their own shit.

3. Just wait for evolution to catch up.

We need to evolve as a people. It has to do with consumer demand. We need to demand longer lasting or products.

Maybe have our government s subsidize the good stuff. And tax the single use type crap.

2. Even that’s a scam.

Recycling has so much better of a reputation than it deserves. It’s just one small step above throwing stuff straight in the garbage.

“Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” is in priority order. Recycling is a last ditch option before throwing stuff away. The best option is to just use less stuff.

1. We can only do so much one person at a time.

Doing what’s best for the environment isn’t really about what you and I do day to day. On an individual level, we could be vegan as fuck and be completely carbon neutral without making a dent on the vast, global environment. Even that #TeamTrees thing on YouTube will do next to nothing, as great as that was.

What needs to happen is companies and governments need to take immediate, drastic action. That’s the only way we can save the planet. If you still want to do something yourself, then the best thing to do is get involved in politics and campaigns, and make sure to vote for people who genuinely want to tackle the climate crisis.

Of course consumers are gonna pick the cheapest options that are worse for the environment. Especially if they have to pick between the environment or feeding their kids. It’s up to companies and those in charge to make the more environmentally friendly options more accessible.

It’s kind of depressing when you lay it all out like that, don’t you think?

What are your thoughts on companies making it harder than it should be to do the right thing?

Let’s talk about it in the comments!

The post People Talk About the Question: How Are We Supposed to Save The Planet When It’s Cheaper to Trash It? appeared first on UberFacts.