Is it okay for the cook to force everyone to eat healthy?

In My Humble Opinion
21

[QUOTE=robardin]
The cook controls the kitchen and thus the food. In this role, whatever the cook prepares is what’s for dinner. If you don’t like it, it you can go out and do your own thing for food, or stage a Kitchen Revolt and install a new Cook.
[/QUOTE]

I am not and have never been married, but this seems a little unfair. Relationships are about compromise. If one spouse controls the home front and one is the breadwinner, would you consider it any more fair for the breadwinner to control every financial decision? If the stay at home spouse or anyone else in the family doesn’t like it, they can get a job and make their own money? Maybe I am just different though.

22

If the breadwinner suddenly decided that rather than spending the money on food and groceries they wanted to get a bitchin tattoo would that be okay? You know, since it is their money and they earned it and all? :rolleyes: If this has been what has always been done and all of the sudden the cook decides that EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE RIGHT NOW that is wrong, just the same as deciding that the paycheck you brought home that should provide for your family should now be used to buy a motorcycle or something. If you are the cook and you want to make dietary changes, make small changes one at a time and sit down and discuss it with the other family members and make sure it is something that everyone is on board with before changing stuff around.

23

[QUOTE=pbbth]
If the breadwinner suddenly decided that rather than spending the money on food and groceries they wanted to get a bitchin tattoo would that be okay? You know, since it is their money and they earned it and all? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

Was this directed at me? If it was, I certainly didn’t say or mean to imply that.

24

Maybe make the changes more gradual and avoid a mutiny? My opinion is that the cook decides what to cook, but in the interest of keeping the house happy, make things that the rest of the family likes. It’s hard for people to accept change, and often they will put up a fuss just because it’s “different”. Perhaps making the same types of food to begin with but with healthier substitutions would be accepted more easily. Make the spaghetti, but use whole grain pasta. Continue to serve fries, but bake them instead of fry them. Gradually shift the family to healthier alternatives and they might not even notice.

25

Presumably since the word ‘spouse’ appears in the scenario, we’re talking about adult humans capable of reasonable communication with each other and committed to resolving their differences? There is and should be no predefined answer to the OP’s question - grown ups need to work this out for themselves.

26

I’m so happy that others have come out in disagreement with the idea that the cooking spouse has absolute control over the kitchen. I was starting to think I’d lost my mind or something.

27

Well, my mother used to complain that whole grain pasta can never be as good as white pasta blah blah…

until the day I said “the penne ok?” “Oh, yes, delicious!” “Really? showing her the package That’s interesting, seeing as they’re whole grain.”

I think the breadwinner should be open to trying new things (for real, without prejudice) and the breadraiser should be open to making the change gradual. Fried foods shouldn’t become “Sunday food” because then they’re understood as “reward food” - but while roasted chicken is healthier than deep-fried chicken, that doesn’t mean you should never have it fried.

My last blood tests came up with high cholesterol and the diet doesn’t have any forbidden dishes - it has “dishes to be favored”, “dishes to have occasionally” and “dishes to have once in a blue moon and not all on the same day.” And like I told the GP, period pain and the effect of chocolate upon it means a blue moon will happen at least once a month - if she doesn’t like that, I can come have my bad period day at her house :stuck_out_tongue:

28

This seems to be one where if two adult persons cannot reach a compromise, there isn’t a lot of hope for the family.

Maybe instead of going overboard on the healthy foods kick, the cooking spouse says “I’m going to start baking the chicken instead of frying it, fried chicken will be a special treat.” Instead of going for the cardboard whole wheat, go for the soft white/wheat blend. Banning soda at the dinner table. Starting fairly small and reasonable.

Maybe instead of reacting to this with some version of “you aren’t my Mom” the working spouse admits everyone’s diet could be better and that the motivation of the cooking spouse is love and caring and figures out what changes they would be willing to make.

We’ve done some of this and I’ve discovered that if no one eats it, and everyone fills up later of peanut butter sandwiches - it isn’t an improvement. So we need to figure out ways to add healthier options that get eaten. Whole grain pasta didn’t go over, spelt pasta did. Some brands of organics haven’t gone over, others have. My kids love canned fruit, so our diet may be a little heavier in the canned fruit packed in its own juice from the “fruit and vegetable group” than it should to be truly balanced, but they are eating from that end of the pyramid - and peaches are an improvement over potato chips.

29

[QUOTE=dgrdfd]
I am not and have never been married, but this seems a little unfair. Relationships are about compromise. If one spouse controls the home front and one is the breadwinner, would you consider it any more fair for the breadwinner to control every financial decision? If the stay at home spouse or anyone else in the family doesn’t like it, they can get a job and make their own money? Maybe I am just different though.
[/QUOTE]

I was speaking in principle; in practice, obviously compromise is necessary for a functioning social unit, especially if it is between two people in a marriage of equals.

I was not picturing a scenario between adult partners, though, but of children or teenagers who want to eat nothing but hamburgers or hot dogs on white buns with ketchup, or fried chicken tenders with ketchup and fries and soda. In which case yes, “the cook” (i.e., a parent) gets to dictate the healthier menu for 80% of the meals, leaving the 20% “ok you can have some fun food” meals as the compromise. (The 80% figure being given in the OP as well.) “Compromise” with one’s children is more along the 80% line than the 50% line drawn between adults.

I suspect many of the more unilateral responses to is it reasonable for the cook to set the menu for the whole family, refuse to cook the less healthy stuff 80-90% of the time, and tell the others to fend for themselves if they don’t like it? are coming from parents as well (others = more than one “other” = kids), while those without children are picking up on the use of “spouse” = “two person scenario”. The OP does sort of switch modes between the two, which really are very different.

30

Well, if I were the bread winner and my spouse was the stay at home cook, I’d eat the things my spouse made that I liked, but make myself a thick greasy cheeseburger or something if we were having something I didn’t like.

Yes, this way does lead to arguments, but no doubt there were arguments when the junk food spouse brought up their complaints about the healthy diet. If the healthy option cook is the only one doing the cooking, then I would assume that it’s their option on what to cook. The worker is (I assume again) an adult and should be able to make something else if they desire it.

31

[QUOTE=Omega Glory]
Is it reasonable for the cook to set the menu for the whole family, refuse to cook the less healthy stuff 80-90% of the time, and tell the others to fend for themselves if they don’t like it? Or, should s/he try to be more accomodating, and do a more even split, or make try and make two daily options to fit everyone?
[/QUOTE]

The cook should have final say, but he/she should solicit input from the diners. If someone else doesn’t like it, then they can abstain.

In my experience it can turn out badly when someone decides they’re going to take over the cooking job. It sounds good in principle, but in reality the original cook often does not take well to invaders encroaching upon their kitchen. The real reason they have the job is because they are most interested in having things one particular way. Anyone will get like this if they’re the sole cook for long enough.

This is one place where I have conflict with my wife… no matter what is going on, no matter where time may be crunched, no matter what the stress we’re under, she expects one of us to prepare a full-cooked meal and the other to do dishes. If it’s my night to prepare dinner, sometimes I’ll choose a sandwich and salad just as a timesaver. Next thing I know she’s up under my elbow chopping up a pound of vegetables and cooking a casserole. I know some will think I’m crazy for complaining about a home-cooked meal all the time, but when I get home from work at 7PM, I don’t always want to walk into a 2-hour experience of cooking, eating, and cleaning, followed by a rant about why she has to cook all the time.

So I guess this is a roundabout way of saying, if you have a single cook situation that needs to be addressed, tread lightly, address the mental health issues first, there’s probably a minefield under there.

32

I’m in the compromise camp, weighted toward cook’s prerogative. My wife and I both cook, and each of us has one or more foods that we love and the other doesn’t much care for (e.g., I don’t like cayenne in marinara sauce, which she loves, and I dislike eggplant in most forms; she can’t abide blue cheese, olives, or broccoli). Each of us sometimes cooks the stuff that the other won’t like, but we do it rarely: most of the time, though, we take each other’s tastes into consideration and voluntarily give up the foods we like in order to make a meal our spouse will like.

That, I think, is how it should work. The cook should get feedback from other household members, and try within reason to accommodate them; ultimately, though, the cook is the one who makes the final decision.

Daniel

33

‘im indoors and I cook separately - I’m a vegetarian, he’s not and he dislikes most vegetables so there are almost no meals we could actually share. We also do our own grocery shopping although we take turns to buy shared stuff (or rather, we’re in the supermarket together and I put stuff in his trolley!) and we both contribute towards the cats’ food.

As far as the OP goes, I think the final decision lies with the cook as that’s the person who does the menu planning and works out what the week’s food budget gets spent on. However, I do think it requires some degree of compromise particularly as some people like, for example, white rice but don’t like the taste/texture of brown rice.

For the sake of harmony, I think the cook would need to discuss with the family what changes were going to be made and who might have genuine objections to them. After that, it’s up to them to thrash out a reasonable compromise so that nobody feels they’re being ignored.

34

I’m inclined to think that the cook has the greater voice in what sort of meals get produced. Having said that, I don’t think that a marriage (or partnership) can work if one person is refusing any kind of compromise.

That having been said, I really don’t like the idea that healthy must mean flavorless. There are so many great dishes, foods and cuisines out there, there’s no need to suffer bland as the general run of things.

35

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I’m in the compromise camp, weighted toward cook’s prerogative. …

That, I think, is how it should work. The cook should get feedback from other household members, and try within reason to accommodate them; ultimately, though, the cook is the one who makes the final decision.

[/QUOTE]

Precisely how it is in my house. I cook, he doesn’t. He’s a damn picky eater, I’m not. In my psyche, food = love, whether I’m getting it or giving it, so when he rejects my cooking, he’s rejecting me. For a while early in our marriage, it became a battlefield - I’d unconsciously forget his preferences and make things I knew he didn’t like so I could get mad at him for refusing me - I mean, the food. I finally decided to knock that off and try to focus more on what he does like - I even write down notes on the recipe cards like a good little wifey so I can remember that even though he hates the texture of a whole steak, I can make this pepper encrusted steak if I slice his into strips before cooking them, and serve my son’s and mine whole. No problem, that’s a small change I’m willing to compromise on. (And the same recipe card bears the note that my son loves the steak, but not the bourbon gravy, so his gets served dry.)

I’m not a short order cook, and there may be the occasional meal I love that he doesn’t like, but I’ll also make the occasional meal that he favors which I’m not crazy about.

36

[QUOTE=robardin]

I suspect many of the more unilateral responses to is it reasonable for the cook to set the menu for the whole family, refuse to cook the less healthy stuff 80-90% of the time, and tell the others to fend for themselves if they don’t like it? are coming from parents as well (others = more than one “other” = kids), while those without children are picking up on the use of “spouse” = “two person scenario”. The OP does sort of switch modes between the two, which really are very different.
[/QUOTE]
Others was meant to mean spouse and kids. I think we’d all agree that the adult cook gets to make the final decision in the case of children. The poll’s more about whether being the family cook gives you more power over the meal plan* (especially if you’re attempting to do the “right thing”). We’ve had posts in the past where people recommend that the breadwinner set up monetary allowances for overspending home makers. This is basically the opposite scenario.

*and if s/he does get more power, how much more?

37

[QUOTE=Omega Glory]
Others was meant to mean spouse and kids. I think we’d all agree that the adult cook gets to make the final decision in the case of children.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think there’s something of a continuum.

It’s part of my job as a hypothetical parent and real-life food snob to develop my children’s palates, to help them develop an appreciation for both healthful foods and high-quality foods (which, as a food snob, I see as being closely connected). I want to help them appreciate strong and subtle flavors, whole ingredients, and careful preparation.

It’s not my job to help my spouse develop these traits. Fortunately she’s got 'em, but if she didn’t, she’s an adult, and I’m not my spouse’s parent.

That said, while I’m going to be teaching my child good eating habits and not teaching my wife good eating habits, I am going to be taking suggestions from everyone in my family about eating. And, having taken those suggestions, I am going to be making the final decision about what to make.

Other than the teaching aspect of cooking, the main difference between kids and adults is that adults have both more and fewer options for circumventing that final decision. Unlike kids, my spouse could, given a particularly vile meal, decide to order out for pizza. Both spouse and kid have the option of making their own damn dinner if they don’t like what I make. And my spouse is going to make me a lot more irritated if she refuses to eat what I cook than will my kid, just by virtue of being an adult who should know better :).

Daniel

38

Compromise, but if the cook opts for something healthier, the breadwinner should be amenable to the change. What I have a problem with is if the cook opts for something deliberately unhealthy, and adds stealth ingredients to foods against the family’s wishes. This actually happened to me with the only woman I ever lived with. She finally admitted that I would look “cute” if I were fattened up a bit, and so cooked for me accordingly. This was after I told her that I had made a conscious decision to lose weight.

We didn’t last long after that.

39

[QUOTE=Omega Glory]
Is it reasonable for the cook to set the menu for the whole family, refuse to cook the less healthy stuff 80-90% of the time, and tell the others to fend for themselves if they don’t like it? Or, should s/he try to be more accomodating, and do a more even split, or make try and make two daily options to fit everyone?
[/quote]
Yes, it is reasonable. It isn’t a restaurant, it’s a family home, and the “cook” isn’t doing short order cooking. It would be nice to take the other eaters’ preferences into account, and for religious/moral requirements, there should be food available for the objector to eat. But so long as it isn’t poisonous or allergy inducing the cook decides what to cook. This is especially true if the other eaters are adults (or near adults).

Requiring the cook to make two complete meals is ridiculous.

Nope.
FTR, I’m one of the most picky eaters out there, but I don’t expect an entirely separate meal made for me.

40

[QUOTE=Omega Glory]

*and if s/he does get more power, how much more?
[/QUOTE]

Well, though it is a continuum, I would say a fair bit more, because that person is doing the hands-on shopping and food preparation and I think it is too much to expect him/her to prepare two (or more!) meals on a regular basis.

All of the changes outlined in the OP seem pretty mild, to me. There would still be a lot of room for preferences in there – if there is a veggie that the spouse absolutely hates, it’s not hard for the cooking person to avoid that one or two veggies, and serve others instead. If the whole grain pasta doesn’t go over big with the family, maybe try a different brand and see if there’s an improvement.

In other words, the veto power is good if everyone uses it judiciously. Too much, and the shopper/preparer will simply ignore it. If it’s once in a while, on a very grave food issue like brussels sprouts, then the shopper/preparer should respect the seriousness of the request.

Are the unhealthier items banned outright, or is there still some room to have them prepared and served cheerfully on special occasions (birthday request, last day of school, holiday, etc)? Personally, I feel that even the most unhealthy foods out there are okay once in a while.

The kids issue is tricky (NB I don’t have kids). I think there are ways for another adult to accommodate his or her own preferences – eating out, keeping a bottle of creamy blue cheese dressing on hand to doctor up a salad, etc. However, I do think parents have some obligation to model healthy eating for their kids. Is the spouse grousing about healthy food at the table? I would put that in the totally inappropriate column. As an adult, you might enjoy having a root beer with dinner, but I think it’s hard on the kids when one parent is discouraging/prohibiting pop with meals, and then mom or dad cracks a cold one. I don’t even think it’s because root beer is so great (well, I do think it’s great, actually) but I think especially when one parent is at-home and the other is the bread-winner, that kids will try to play one parent off the other – “if mom is having a root beer, why can’t I?” – which can also mean on some level “if mom doesn’t listen to dad, why should I?”

So while I think there should a little negotiation between the adults, a united front for the kids would be a good thing, of course, mitigated by their age. With real little kids, you can eat ice cream after they have gone to bed, for teens, they can buy ice cream with their own pocket money when they are out with their friends.