In a day and age where the average person looking up a recipe is not turning to their handy-dandy cookbook. Instead, they tend to perform a quick Google search or just fumble around in Pinterest until they find the answers to life's cooking and craft mysteries. This is probably why it's taken so long for anyone, let alone the whole Internet, to realize that something very strange is going on with modern cookbook covers.
Mike Rugnetta is a sound artist based out of Brooklyn was minding his own business and researching Instapots online when he noticed a bizarre trend:
My wife (who is a very capable slicer of bell peppers) and I were thinking about getting an instant pot. I was searching through Amazon, trying to find which was the right one, googling around for advice. My guess is that since my history was lousy with instant pot searches, everywhere I went I got served ads and product recommendations related to it. Over a couple days, I started to realize that the cookbooks I was being shown had something in common.
What was it, you ask? Well apparently the individuals who publish cooking-related books are under some assumption that women cannot function in the kitchen without the help of a man, apparently. Photos consistently depict an awkwardly posed couple, a man haphazardly guiding or helping a woman. Rungnetta said:
It seems worth noting that people (understandably) react with frustration to depictions of dudes getting handsy while women only ever cook dinner. [They] also react with surprise to the homogeneity of the cover models; certainly many different kinds of people cook for two, maybe put a few more of them on these covers?
And now that Mike has brought it all to our attention via the wonderful world of Twitter, the Internet is erupting with debate, trying to find the logic behind the rampant consistency of these photographic themes in the cooking literature industry. One Twitter user suggested an explanation:
If a strong man does not stabilize a woman while she cooks, the recoil of a knife will lift her off the ground.
Clearly, we need to investigate, or laugh, or a little of both...
This is the sort of tomfoolery we are debating:
Mike has introduced us to the controversy we didn't know existed!
What on EARTH is going on?
A lot of them involve "why."
Honestly what the heck?
Where is the none of the above option?
HOW is this helpful?
I cosign this theory.