New job opportunity, from The New York Times, no less: Pay People to Cook At Home.
THE home-cooked family meal is often lauded as the solution for problems ranging from obesity to deteriorating health to a decline in civility and morals. Using whole foods to prepare meals without additives and chemicals is the holy grail for today’s advocates of better eating.
Cunning lede, wouldn’t you say? Who among us can disagree with that? For my own account, I harp on it all the time: eat real food you source yourself and cook at home.
So since people don’t seem to be doing it, like, on their own, as something pretty obvious…
But how do we get there? For many of us, whether we are full-time workers or full-time parents, this home-cooked meal is a fantasy removed from the reality of everyday life. And so Americans continue to rely on highly processed and refined foods that are harmful to their health.
…”this home-cooked meal is a fantasy removed from the reality of everyday life.”
Got that, alls yooz out there ‘living a fantasy?’
Those who argue that our salvation lies in meals cooked at home seem unable to answer two key questions: where can people find the money to buy fresh foods, and how can they find the time to cook them?
1: The same place they find the money to drive a big SUV, buy gas and Starbucks at $4 a pop, have every premium cable or satellite channel on offer, and the average 5 meals per week they eat out per week, et cetera. And the list goes on, and on. Look, Americans are pampered, now, and consume far more of the non-essentials than any country on earth by far. It’s only politicians and their whores clamoring for the victims sos they can tell you different. Go visit a mexican market where the “poor” go to shop. They can a lot more about food quality than you do, in fact. Go visit one in Mexico and be ashamed. They fucking rival Whole Foods (which isn’t even so that great, in my opinion).
2: Watching TV, surfing the internet, checking in on Facebook and Foursquare…to mention just a few.
In other words, this is simply a mater of priorities, not inability and certainly not victims of anything but perhaps their own twisted sense of such priorities.
The failure to answer these questions…
Just shut up, Kristin Wartman, you strawman peddler. I easily answered those questions and moreover, the answers are fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain.
I believe the solution to getting people into the kitchen exists in a long-forgotten proposal. In the 1960s and ’70s, when American feminists were fighting to get women out of the house and into the workplace, there was another feminist arguing for something else. Selma James, a labor organizer from Brooklyn, pushed the idea of wages for housework. Ms. James, who worked in a factory as a young woman and later became a housewife and a mother, argued that household work was essential to the American economy and wondered why women weren’t being paid for it. As Ms. James and a colleague wrote in 1972, “Where women are concerned their labor appears to be a personal service outside of capital.”
Why stop there? I’d like to get paid for walking the dogs. How about that? Taking a shower? How about stopping at red lights? Why don’t we just toss all production right into a big cannibal pot and watch the hysteria over who’s going in, and who gets to feast?
She argued that it was a mistake to define feminism simply as equal pay in the work force. Instead, she wanted to formally acknowledge the work women were already doing. She knew that women wouldn’t stop doing housework once they joined the work force — rather they would return home each evening for the notorious “second shift.”
Indeed. And I for one want to get paid for taking out the trash, fixing the faucet the other day, watering the plants…and oh yea, there were those two loads of laundry last Friday evening while Bea was out partying it up with friends from school.
Many feminists at the time ignored the Wages for Housework campaign, while some were blatantly antagonistic toward it. Even today, with all the talk of the importance of home cooking — a huge part of housework — no one ever seems to mention Ms. James or Wages for Housework.
…Because it’s the most moronic idea ever, fucktard; that’s why. It’s an Occam’s Razor kinda thing, you see? Leave it to an idiot to sit and wonder over the obvious and why ‘people aren’t talking about it.’ Look, I’m as much a fan of nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public as the next guy, but there are limits, even for half brains.
…Since women first began to enter the work force, families have increasingly relied on processed foods and inexpensive restaurant meals.
Oh bullshit. They haven’t “relied” on any such thing, dumbshit. People eat out because it’s relatively cheap, and even when they do “cook” at home it’s often “instant” or “quick” packaged crap, both of which frees them to catch up on the DVR while the kids play xBox.
It’s nearly impossible for a single parent or even two parents working full time to cook every meal from scratch, planning it beforehand and cleaning it up afterward. This is why many working parents of means employ housekeepers. But if we put this work on women of lower socioeconomic status (as is almost always the case), what about their children? Who cooks and cleans up for them?
“It’s nearly impossible…” Which actually means it’s possible; which is to say that Kristin Wartman merely thinks its wiwy, wiwy haad. Poor child adults just can’t seem to figure out how to do something as basic as feed themselves real and good food. Jesus, it’s a wonder people even manage to show up for work showered, shaved and clothed. It’s wiwy, wiwy haad.
In the Wages for Housework campaign, Ms. James argued for a shorter workweek for all, in part so men could help raise the children. This is not a pipe dream. Several Northern European nations have instituted social programs that reflect the importance of this work. The Netherlands promotes a “1.5 jobs model,” which allows men and women to work 75 percent of their regular hours when they have young children. In Sweden, parents can choose to work three-quarters of their normal hours until children turn 8.
At whose expense? At the expense of those who don’t have small children—kinda like the commie equivalent of friends and relatives helping parents of young kids out now & then or even regularly; but in this case, you get the help from strangers, those helping are helping strangers, and it’s all managed by a middle man through forced taxation.
To get Americans cooking, we need to make it possible. Stay-at-home parents should qualify for a new government program while they are raising young children — one that provides money for good food, as well as education on cooking, meal planning and shopping — so that one parent in a two-parent household, or a single parent, can afford to be home with the children and provide wholesome, healthy meals. These payments could be financed by taxing harmful foods, like sugary beverages, highly caloric, processed snack foods and nutritionally poor options at fast food and other restaurants. Directly linking a tax on harmful food products to a program that benefits health would provide a clear rebuttal to critics of these taxes. Business owners who argue that such taxes will hurt their bottom lines would, in fact, benefit from new demand for healthy food options and from customers with money to spend on such foods.
Social engineering at its “finest.” Just a new government program. Here’s how we’ll sell it. We’ll tell women that the choice to get married, get a job, have children anyway wasn’t a choice at all and it isn’t their fault. They’re victims of a burden patriarchal society places upon them. It’s not real in the sense of natural. It’s a construct and they are victims. Their husbands are lousy, never help, are more of a burden…and what they wiwy need is for Obama the Messiah and his Immaculately Stupid Bitch to step in and replace husband, grandparents, good friends and of course, basic home economic accounting.
Hell, why not just make it easy and put a federal or state employee in every household?
If we truly value domestic work, we should also enact workplace policies that incentivize health, like “health days” that employees could use for health-promoting activities: shopping for food, cooking, or tending a community garden.
And of course, if you don’t advocate “enacting workplace policies,” then you don’t “truly value domestic work.” See how easy that was?
We can’t democratize good food without placing tangible value on the work done in the home. So while proponents of healthier eating are right to emphasize the importance of home-cooking and communal meals, we will never create an actual movement without placing a cultural and monetary premium on the hard work of cooking and the time and skills needed to do it.
Well I know that “democratiz[ing] good food” is certainly on the top of my list. No need for any concern over lowest common denominators or anything like that. I’m sure that when food, like health care, has been fully democratized (that’s euphemism for socialized, incidently)—from each according to his ability, to each according to his need—that like all other fully democratic measures in history, the laws of economics get magically repealed, the cream rises to the top, everyone lives in the lap of comfort and luxury—and two wolves and one sheep always vote circumspectly and with mutual respect on what’s for dinner. Pollyanna is a best seller in perpetuity.
Kristin Wartman is a journalist who writes about food, health, politics and culture.
I think she should go get an honest job.