# Do Women Belong in the Kitchen?

## Recommended Posts

I DO NOT support these views. My friend does. His essay is below. I was wondering if you people have any arguments agaisnt (or for) it?

WOMEN BELONG IN THE KITCHEN

“Yes, women DO belong in the kitchen, especially those in the tech field. Those are the true dullards...they can't program worth beans, and always get in the way, and always bring those hormone laced emotions to work and... need i say more? Please women...stick to the kitchen or teaching those preschool kids, because you just haven't earned it yet baby...”

“since when are women allowed in the workplace? …there ain't no bitches in my office, for damn sure. except the secrataries, of course. mmm... secrataries.”

--Vault Message Board

I believe that women should keep out of the office and stay in the kitchen. I will explain to you why I think this and then I will refute all the argument used against the subordination of women.

Firstly, women and men are different. They are not equal. There are obvious underlying biological differences between the two sexes, which is the reason for segregation of sexes in places like schools, toilets, and sports. Women are better at some thing while men are better at other things. In a firm you separate the accountants from the marketers, the economists from the engineers. You wouldn’t let a marketer do the job of an accountant because a marketer is not the same as an accountant. Similarly, you wouldn’t let a woman do the job of a man. For example, women are designed for childrearing. They have breasts. Breasts provide milk for babies. Women are better at childrearing than men are, so they should stay home while men go to work and do what they are good at, which is making money.

The statistics say that hardly any stay-at-home parents are male. The vast majority of them are women, which is good because it shows that most women know their role. However, because of the efforts of a powerful feminist lobby there has been pressure on this traditional system of female subordination. We are witnessing the crumbling of traditional roles. Women are trying to assert themselves in the office. The media is awash with feminist propaganda, portraying the career woman’s lifestyle as glamorous. This is bad because it effects an atmosphere of uncertainty. Young people start to get confused over their roles in society. This creates tension between the sexes. This creates the 50 divorce rates we see today. It is important for women to understand their role as homemakers and childcarers. If they accept these roles without question, society will be better off. It is important to stop women from getting jobs for their own good, to prevent them from being victims of their own savagery. It is important for the good of society.

Another reason why we should prevent women from working is because of the bible. Certainly the bible doesn’t say that women are inferior to men. That is not what I am trying to argue. But the bible does say clearly that roles for women are different to roles of men. The Holy Bible in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states that “as in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” The bible also understands the importance of hierarchy. If women and men kept arguing then there is conflict and chaos. For the sake of harmony there needs to be a clear idea of who is in power. Ephesians 5:22–24 says the following: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

Some people are prone to believe that whatever is in the bible is wrong. Just because something is in the bible, just because something is religious it doesn’t make it immoral. Atheists often go on about how it is wrong to use the bible to back up the segregation of women but why are the atheists criticizing our opinions when they have opinions themselves? Those who cry out for equality between male and female are just expressing opinions, just as those who cry out for inequality between male and female are doing.

Let me talk about some of the arguments feminists use. Often a feminist will say that it’s not important what happens to society. What is important is individual freedom. A woman is an individual and as such she deserves the freedom to do such things as pursue a career. It is not about what is good for society but what is good for the individual. Individual freedom is what matters. But why go on about freedom? Nobody has perfect freedom. Whenever you do anything in life you have to follow rules. You can’t just do anything you like. When you sign a contract with someone else for gas service or electricity service you are bounded by contractual obligations. You don’t have the freedom to just break the contract.

Men discriminate against women, which is good. Within society there are conventions and norms. The convention of segregating women and assigning them to certain tasks is deeply ingrained in our society. You cannot just ignore the power of these social influences. If a woman walks into a job interview wearing a suit and tie, she is breaking the rule of society and will be looked down upon for this reason. Social conventions are what most people generally believe is correct, and they are enforced on individuals to create harmony in the whole society.

I understand that what I’m saying is controversial. This is because many people have been brainwashed by feminism. I am just giving my opinion. If you give your opinion and disapprove of my opinion, then you are giving an opinion as well. How can you criticize me for giving my opinion when you are giving your opinion?

To conclude, a woman in the office is disgusting. It goes against God’s law. It goes against the laws of nature. It is unnatural. It is wrong.

##### Share on other sites

forget the women VS Men debate with regards to domestic duties.

the one that belongs in the kitchen is the one best suited to the job, in my relationship with my wife, that happens to be ME! the Male.

Im the better Cook by far and thats recognised as such, she does the washing of dishes (I cant stomach seeing cold food waste on plates).

I look after our child just as much as she does also, and I have no problem with housework either, basicly we operate as a Team!

any deviation from this would end in failure of some sort, ether efficiency or effectiveness.

whomever is best suited for the job should do that job, the Male/Female thing is just plain Dumb!

##### Share on other sites

I agree with YT. As I have said before, between me and my girlfriend, I am the better cook, hence, I do the cooking. There is no biological reason for women to have some of the roles they are traditionally assigned.

##### Share on other sites

to NOT funtion as a Collective (hence the words "family UNIT" singular) is to invite failure and inefficiency.

your friends "essay" is flawed.

##### Share on other sites

I love my wife dearly but she doesn't know a spatula from a spanner. I do all the cooking, and she brings home the bacon. (That's literally the deal -- I *hate* the grocery store. I don't know if it was just some kind of freak accident in my youth or what, but I loathe the place. Go figure.)

##### Share on other sites

Ku,

Speaking as someone who knows a thing or two about social contracts, moral obligations, philosophy of government, and feminist philosophy, that was seriously the most pathetic - laughably pathethic - essay I have ever read in my life - so much so it does not even deserve any further refutation.

He even refutes his own essay in the statement "those who cry out for equality between male and female are just expressing opinions", because he concedes that nothing in his essay is morally binding, because it is nothing but an expression his opinion.

However, Ku, as you requested, here are the arguments to against his essay:

• "Firstly, women and men are different. They are not equal. There are obvious underlying biological differences between the two sexes"

This is a superficial fact - that men and women are biologically different and have different general abilities, and therefore not "equal" to one another in the physiological sense. If this is his reason for refuting women's equality, then it is wrong for four reasons:

1) When people talk about being "equal", they dont care about the physical differences. The word "equal" means equal treatment before the law, equality of opportunity, and equal consideration of interests. So, the author completely misses the point of equality.

2) The authors reasoning is a basic example of what is called the "naturalistic fallacy". Its a fallacy that has a very strong philosophical tradition from David Hume to G. E. Moore. In general terms, it means you cannot logically deduce an "ought to be" from an "is". You see him commit this particular deductive mistake over and over again in his essay when he states that women are statistically more likely to be homemakers and calls women in the office "unnatural".

3) The whole argument begs the question, because he says that women and men are unequal, but never explained how this physical inequality implies that women should be lesser than men and not the other way around. Why shouldnt the physical differences imply men's subordinance?

4) Every individual man is different physically and mentally from every other individual man, it is pretty much undeniable that there are definite differences between the physical body and abilities of men between other men. The author argues that all men should be treated equally, despite the physical and mental differences between them; but he argues that women and men should be treated unequally, because of the physical and mental differences between them. This is an irresolvable contradiction that undermines his entire essay.

The whole first paragraph should be crossed out for those reasons.

• After talking about the crumbling of traditional roles, the author states "This is bad because it effects an atmosphere of uncertainty. Young people start to get confused over their roles in society."

Not only does the author refuse to explain why gender roles are such a moral imperative that they ought to be maintained, he does not explain why the crumbling of gender roles is a bad thing. He simply says the crumbling of gender roles is a bad thing because it confuses people about their roles - this is an obvious example of circular logic (actually I would not say this is circular logic because the author really just rambles without logically connecting his ideas, meaning he doesnt actually deduce anything. So its not circular logic, just a vacuous string of words).

• "Young people start to get confused over their roles in society. This creates tension between the sexes. This creates the 50 divorce rates we see today."

This is just smug. The author claims that the divorce rate is so high due to women not keeping their place, but he does not offer the least amount of evidence to or reason to back up this statement. There are lots of reasons people get divorced, see this page which names off at least 2 dozen reasons for divorce, including infidelity, loss of intamacy, failure to resolve important differences, unrealistic expecations, or just drifting apart - nowhere will you ever see on a psyche paper explain the reasons for divorce as something along the lines of "gender role confusion".

Furthermore, the author doesnt even explain why divorce is bad thing. In fact, it might be very good to allow two unhappy people to seperate and go on their seperate ways.

• "Another reason why we should prevent women from working is because of the bible."

Unfortunately, when people say "I believe such and such because of the bible", there is nothing you can say to reason with such a person. I've personally studied bible apologetics for years and years, and I've been able to persuade people that some of the bibles commands have no rational explanation. And, I've frequently noted that morality is zilch if it commands are left unjustified. But, I've never been able to persuade a bible-believer to say that the commands in the bible are wrong.

The closest I've ever seen is someone say that we should not follow some commands in the bible is when they argue that some commands are outdated or not applicable to the modern era, or that we humans are so simple that we couldnt possibly fathom the explanations whatever they may be. But I've never seen anyone say the commands are wrong.

At the very least, the only counter-argument to the "bible" argument is that there is no reason why the commands in the bible (or any holy text for that matter) ought to be considered morally binding without a reasonable explanation. If no explanation is given to obey the command, then obviously no explanation is needed to disobey the command, making the unexplained moral prescriptions in the bible completely moot.

• "Atheists often go on about how it is wrong to use the bible to back up the segregation of women but why are the atheists criticizing our opinions when they have opinions themselves? Those who cry out for equality between male and female are just expressing opinions, just as those who cry out for inequality between male and female are doing."

First, not all atheists believe everything in the bible is wrong. I personally find the bible gives practical advice sometimes, but if the bible cannot say the right things for the right reasons, the bible is not a reliable moral guide for anything. And given that, there are some Christians who believe that the men and women are equal despite what the bible says.

Second, by admitting that cries for equality are nothing more than expressions of opinions, the author refutes his entire essay. The point of his essay to provide reasons for why he believes women should be subordinate, by stating that he has nothing more than opinions then obviously the purpose of his essay is necessarily unachievable and outright defeated by the authors own admission. The persuasive influence of his essay is wisped away in a whirlwind of subjectivism.

• "When you sign a contract with someone else for gas service or electricity service you are bounded by contractual obligations. You don’t have the freedom to just break the contract."

What contract? I'd love to see the "contract" that woman signed or even tacitly consented to that says "we will make babies and never work in the office".

• "The convention of segregating women and assigning them to certain tasks is deeply ingrained in our society."

There is not an inkling of explanation why todays social mores dictate the moral way we should treat people. In fact, it could be just the opposite, it could be that certain societal mores are very very immoral (for instance, in some ancient societies, it may have been considered the right thing to do by sacrificing live infants in a fire, and in other societies it is considered acceptable to kidnap a pre-pubescent girl and make her your wife).

If I was that author's philosophy professor and I read his essay, I would have given him an F.

And if it makes any difference, I am happy to say that I am single, work nights investing in the stock market, I have yet to learn how to cook or apply makeups properly, probably make several hundred thousand a year more than the author of that essay, and never ever do what people command.

All the best

##### Share on other sites

I dont beleive there was a single substantiated fact in that entire essay. I hate it when people treat there own opinions as facts.

Do women belong in the kitchen, the answer is yes. But only if they want to. Men and women should be equal in the eyes of law, meaning they both have free choice to do whatever they want.

##### Share on other sites

yup i always cook the haggis in my house. everything else to do with cooking and i'm crap. i can also fix things with lots of duct tape.

<edit> oops forgot to put my point in. if people stick to their talents and drop the issue of biological differences then we would all get along fine.

##### Share on other sites

IMM, you are very impressive.

##### Share on other sites

The thing these people never seem to realise is that women have always worked, just not in specific professions. Wealthy women didn't work very much, but poor ones farmed and mined and worked in factories. Consequently, wealthy professions are the ones that women have been excluded from. Ironically these are the least physical professions.

##### Share on other sites

I stopped reading at, "Another reason why we should prevent women from working is because of the bible."

##### Share on other sites

The statistics say that hardly any stay-at-home parents are male. The vast majority of them are women, which is good because it shows that most women know their role.
Doesn't he get that some women might choose to stay at home?
If a woman walks into a job interview wearing a suit and tie, she is breaking the rule of society and will be looked down upon for this reason.
Is he seriously impling that anyone is more likely to get a job not wearing a tie?!?
##### Share on other sites

IMM said it perfectly.

Kudos to the men here that cook!

##### Share on other sites

I thought it was funny

They have breasts. Breasts provide milk for babies. Women are better at childrearing than men are, so they should stay home while men go to work and do what they are good at, which is making money.

I have a mouth, and that's for eating, so I should stay home and eat all day

If men or women tend to do something better than the other, then that's cool, it doesn't mean that individuals will strictly follow these tendencies. I don't think that women and men are exactly the same and I have a few reservations, but anyone who can think of their mother and hear that someone says that women are inferior in any way can turn into a die hard feminist pretty quick

##### Share on other sites

YT: I'm right there with you. I do the cooking. She takes care of the cleaning. There's no kids to speak of yet, but know it'll be a joint effort raising them.

In My Memory: /me applauds . That's one of the best written critisims I've seen in a great while.

ku: Your friend isn't a southern baptist by any chance?

I ask this because a few years ago I went to a panel discussion on women's roles in religion sponcered by Georgia Tech. One of my friends was coving paganism, so I had to go show my support. The panel conisited of several female speakers who participated in and represented different religions. It covered many different groups(judaism, Christanity, Hinduism, Islamic, Paganism...). Many of the speakers gave really enlightened and empowered views and it was really good until we got to the girl covering christianity.

The girl coving Christianity spouted off how a woman's role was first to be submissive to god and then to man. This was almost verbatum to what ku's friend said. She went on to say how the other speakers wrong (not directly mind you) and spent the rest of the panel cringing at many things the other speakers said.

I was raised in a catholic household, and had never heard of any of this, so you can imagine, my jaw droped after hearing what this girl had to say. It really was amazingly bad. I later found out she was a southern baptist and as such, she thought all christians shared the same view. Ugh. It really was scary and scarier still to think that there are people and religions who directly advicate this.

##### Share on other sites

if people stick to their talents and drop the issue of biological differences then we would all get along fine.
Exactly........the most logical post I've read yet.
##### Share on other sites

yep, that would get rid of the "affirmative action" probelm as well.

##### Share on other sites

Women belong in the Kitchen as much as men do. Telling women to be in the Kitchen and clean is just laziness on behalf of your partner.

##### Share on other sites

Now you're generalizing. What if I did all the work in my house. All the cooking and cleaning, and my wife never did anything but eat the meal I cook for her and leave. If I told her to get in the kitchen and do her share of the work, I would not be forcing her into a gender role.

##### Share on other sites

I'd say homicide is part of the natural order of humanity. Does that make it good?

The natural order is not necessarily moral...

##### Share on other sites

My GF belongs in the kitchen. But that's because the CDC and WHO have repeatedly issued warnings about my cooking, and my microwave oven was once declared a Superfund site. (In all seriousness, it just worked out that I hate cooking and suck at it, and she loves it and does it just for it's own sake, mostly to feed reptiles though.)

Mokele

##### Share on other sites

Where is the proof that women are, by nature, the cooks of a relationship, anyhow?

##### Share on other sites

I dont think it`s "By Nature" as such, it just turned out that way, the men would go out hunting, and the women would be left at "Home" in the cave community to look after the children (small childern would be a burden when sneaking up on dinner trying to stay quiet), and then when the men got back they would be hungry and tired wanting some food to eat.

I guess it kinda Stuck after that

##### Share on other sites

Where is the proof that women are, by nature, the cooks of a relationship, anyhow?

I would think the women probably took care of the veggie's while the men took care of the meat after a successful hunt. They both cooked.

##### Share on other sites

IMM: I did only scan your reply, but I think you missed one point; even if we ignore the possibility of bias in studies and the effects of enculturalization, and so accept that men and women do have different abilities in certain activities, the bell curves overlap. Some men are better than some women with babies and some women are better than some men at plumbing.

To OP:

I will agree to only two serious differences between the sexes: women can have babies, and men have greater upper body strength. I don't see that either difference has much importance; if men care for the babies they can bond with them as well as women can, and women can use levers and pulleys [and lathes and compound-miter saws and drills and detail sanders and routers and floor-sanders and bob-cats ...].

To most:

I can not believe how many responses address only the subject line; could you take the point that your partener is a lousy cook at little further, next time? Like point out that she is a hell of a good sheet-rocker or investment banker?

To add my anecdotal evidence, we have a very traditional division of labor in our marriage; the man puts food on the table and the women keeps the house. The man shops and cooks, and the woman rocks and muds the walls.

[Of course, he is not allowed to do the laundry, and she is not allowed to take out the trash; you have to draw the line somewhere.]

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account