A CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 223, 20 June 1925, Page 15

A CHARGE

’ ARE WOMEN “ABOMINABLE COOKS?"

(By

L. R.)

Yet another sin added to the long list of which woman would seem to be guilty in the eyes of man. She is an abominable cook 1

So at least an eminent surgeon hi London thinks, and he loses no time in informing the world of his opinion. Well! Well!

Possibly there are women who are “abominable cooks'.” ... I know'one or two myself . . . but why so rashly put all women into the same class? I also know some who are wonderful cooks, and their masterpieces little less than poems. It is a fault of man—to generalise about women. In his opinion, apparently, one woman is the key to all, instead of being, as they are in reality, as diverse as the sands of the sea. They are, you know, if you take a microscope to them—the sancis, I mean. Women don’t need the microscope, metaphorically speaking, to have that fact made plain to any man with the slightest discernment. However, to leturn to our “moutons.” It is very likely tint the statement applies with much more truth to women in England than to our New Zealand women. To the latter the kitchen is as much a part of their environment and training as is the sports ground, and that is saying a good deal. It has to be m a country where domestic help is mote precious than gold to the busy mother and almost as hard to get. It has been said by a local Solomon who deals in such profundities that the whole question is wrapped up in the nutshell of sex; that men as a rule think a great deal more of food than do women, and that therefore they appreciate good cooking more than do the latter. One does not feel disposed to disagree with that wise person in at least a"part of his statement. There is quite a fair amount ol evidence to support

And women T Who of ■ s has not heard them say—“Oh! anything will do me . . . anything at all.” And they mean every word of it and act up to it, too. It may be that if women did not have a hundred and one other things on hand in the way of housework they

might show a greater appreciation o. the subtler shades of the great art than they do. To do it full justice, time and leisure, things that the busy housewife longs for and seldom has enough of, are necessary. All the same, there are a few tilings about cookery that “give one furiously to think.” Here is one of them: All the great chefs of the world, from Esau, who provided Abraham with the savoury meats his soul longed for, down to the present day, have been Men! Yet it is supposed to be specifically out job—not only supposed to be, but ib. In England there have been some special schools established, in which courses of cooking are taken by botli bovs and girls, 1 and—this is where we should put on our thinking caps—it has been said that the boys on the whole are better at cooking than are the girls: that they show more initiative, "a quicker grasp, and greater interest. What do vou think of that? In the middle centuries famous chefs were wooed bv kings and emperors, and some of the most burning intrigues ot the day would rake place over the seduction of a famous chef from a nobleman’s household to that of a king, or vice versa. It has been said that when Louis XVIII and his maitre d’hotel, the D,uc d’Escars, were closeted together to meditate a dish, a daily habit"apparently, Ministers of State were kept waiting in the ante-chambers while the masterpiece was being evolved. We do not read of queens neglecting affairs of State for the sake of a dainty dish. , , Almost it would seem as. though to achieve national supremacy in the Art. we must turn our boys into cooks, and let the girls do their work (what say the feminists ?) or— Educate the palate of our girls to recognise and appreciate the subtler shades of cooking—as the French women do. That is, if we take it for granted that the eminent authority in London, also our eminent local Solomon, are right in their pronouncements. Are they ?