THE ART OF COOKING.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 17773, 8 October 1927, Page 10

THE ART OF COOKING.

RELATION TO WOMAN’S PRESTIGE. (By Sacha Loraine). When we consider primitive' man we find that bis chief concern and business in life was his food. He had to gather his fruits and nuts from (he trees, and snare liis meat and kill it whenever opportunity offered. This was entirely the man’s affair, As his diet was a raw one he had no need to consult his wife. Indeed, she was lucky if she had a few bones thrown at her after her lord and master had finished eating She had no say at all in the matter of- food, and consequently had little power or influence. Later on, when fire was discovered, we find the man bringing home his meat to be cooked. This was the first step in the feminist movement. The labour of preparing the food and cooking it was not to man’s liking, so woman took on the job. Her influence began from that moment. Sometimes she was allowed to choose the pieces to be cooked, and have a share, perhaps, in portioning them out to her family. This; certainly gave her a certain amount of prestige. Man was soon forced to realise that it. was to his advantage "to stand in with the. cook.”

With the advance of civilisation, man’s interests widened. I-Ie built dwelling-places, tilled the fields, and tended flocks; he had other things beside food to think about. Woman gradually became the custodian of the larder. Her influence increased more and more, until to-day she stands at the pinnacle of power, wielding her soup ladle and rolling-; pin with a queenly gesture. Man has relinquished his hold on his meat until the only say he has in the matter of diet is to bring home a pound of sausages once in a while, at the implicit order of his wife. It is the woman who does the ordering, determines what the menu is to be, cooks the food, deals it out to the household as she sees fit, in this way becoming the absolute monarch of humanity. Just as an army marches on its stomach and battles are fought and won on the strength of the food supply, so the ranks of civilisation advance and push forward on the same important organ. The old saying. “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,” does not bear investigation. Women have always borne children and rocked them in their arms or in hammocks or in cradles, hut their power has been commensurate with their control of food, not the bearing of children. In fact, it is the hand that holds the frying-pan that is no imperious! There is quite a strong movement abroad to return to the raw diet—uncooked vegetables and fruit. Whatever may be the merit of this reversion to prehistoric ideas, one may sense in it the revolt of man against his cook or feminine tyrant. One trembles to think what will become of the marriage tie (already loose) when the husband need not trouble himself to come home to meals, having a raw carrot, an apple and a box of raisins always . handy in his pockets. If modern women are wise they will hold on to- their cooking apparatus and incidentally their influence over their menfolk. Let us take the matter seriously and study the psychology of food. We are physically what we eat, they tell us. In eating, as in everything else, the balanced condition is the most successful. To be in good health we must choose a balanced diet, preserving the happy medium between the ideas of the roast-and-potato individual and the raw-food enthusiast. We could have meat (cooked), salads (uncooked), vegetables (strained), and fruits (uncooked), and still maintain the prestige of -woman. Society is divided into three groups, those who talk vulgarly of “feeding,” those who speak plainly of “eating,” and those who refer to it as “dining.” There are distinct degrees of culture in the designations—“grub,” “food, ’ and “viands,” as the case may be. With a little study it might be possible to judge character by what is eaten, how it is eaten and the quantity consumed. Those who eat fish and chips, tinned things, sausages and mince, have little time for preparing and devising fancy dishes. They are the working people, finding it hard to get along.in life. They take what they can get ready-cooked or at small cost. They read very little but gain their information from each other and from the pictures once a week.

Then come the middle-class people who are not difficult to please. They like a good meal, of course, well cooked, roast or meat-pie, two or three vegetables and a pudding. These are the dependable ones, a little uninteresting, perhaps, but. representing business and commercial circles. They read the newspapers, a few best-seller novels or autobio graphies, and go to church and political meetings. Next come the fastidious folk who “dine” in style; at home, with servants to wait on them, or at clubs and restaurants. They prefer dishes with French names, daintily served and highly seasoned. This discloses a superiority complex, ambition to live by their wits on the efforts of others. They frequent the theatres and the night clubs and pretend to adore Shakespeare'and classic music Woman’s prestige is highest in the middle class, for the cooking is done by the wife herself. The women who patronise the fried-fish shops and those who dine out in high society are losing ground. Do not despise the art of cooking. Therein lies the secret of success. Cook whatever appeals to your husband’s taste. If he enjoys his food he is more than likely to digest it. If he digests it, he is sure to be goodnatured and affectionate.

Do not be afraid that meat will make him ferocious and bad-temper-ed, as sincere vegetarians claim. Indeed, it is the other way about. In Cain, who brought grain and fruits as his offering, we have the world’s first murderer. Abel, the meateater, had a milder disposition. To go further back, it was the raw, uncooked fruit from the Tree of Knowledge that caused all the trouble in the Garden of Eden. Let us take warning and learn to cook. " ’