The Perceived Femininity of Kitchen Technology and its Consequences From essentially the beginning of time, gender has played a large role in the process of cooking food. As technology has improved, whether it be a using an open hearth to cook food or an enclosed stove, the expectations remain the same. Women are still expected to carry the brunt of household labor. Although household labor includes all tasks in a home such as cleaning, taking care of the kids etc. cooking and the appliances within the kitchen have historically been advertised primarily with women in mind. Appliances such as the coffee machine or stove have been improved to make life easier on those who use them (women) but in reality, have only freed them up to either perform more tasks or perform task at a higher standard or quality. Although men are not typically seen in the kitchen in a household setting, it’s important to mention that this was not done on purpose. Due to societal norms and advertising of kitchen culture and appliances men don’t feel pressured to contribute in the kitchen. This paper shows that if men had the same encouragement as women to be in the kitchen, they most likely would. In this essay I will argue that kitchen appliances are typically marketed towards women and as a result many men don’t end up contributing to household chores. However if more kitchen appliances were marketed with men in mind, it is possible that they may actually find joy in working in the kitchen which would make the division of household labor equally distributed. In doing so, the perceived femininity of kitchen appliances and the feminization of household labor would be reduced. Before diving into the different kitchen appliances and the role they have played in household labor expectations, it is important to first define what housework (household labor) is. Household labor consists of all tasks that are required to run a household. These tasks may vary per household but in general they include tasks like cooking, cleaning, laundry, and childcare. In most households, it is the woman or the mother of the house who does the majority of the household labor. The journal article “The Division of Household Labor” offers a short definition on housework, “Housework most often refers to unpaid work done to maintain family members and/or a home. As such, emotion work and other “invisible” types of work are typically excluded from analysis, although some studies mention the importance of this invisible labor” (Shelton & John 300). Shelton and John’s definition makes an important note of mentioning the fact that the work that is done in housework is unpaid. This is an important distinction to make because many women especially in recent years are expected to do most of the housework as well as work a paid job. Shelton and John also make note that although women are slowly doing less and their spouses are doing more, women still do the majority of the housework (300). This leads to the next point that women were expected to still be heavily involved in the kitchen, in terms of cooking, kitchen remodeling and selecting kitchen appliances. Even though women had just spent many years during World War 2 working in labor intensive factories, once the men had come back from the war, the expectations remained the same. The article “Look Who's Designing Kitchens: Personalization, Gender, and Design Authority in the Postwar Remodeled Kitchen” explains how even though women were expected to work since there was a shortage of labor, the perceived femininity of the kitchen as a whole was still common. The article explains this situation, “Situating women in the kitchen and presenting remodeling… were parts of a broader domestic revival in the postwar period. Domesticity advocates attempted to redirect women’s expectations and obligations form the factory of Rosie the Riveter toward the home; in return the postwar dwelling would be upgraded with new consumer goods and more open spatial configurations” (Randl 60). Randl explains how women were essentially lured from their jobs back into the kitchen with fancy new cabinets, sinks, cupboards, steel appliances etc. This is significant because it shows how men and the overall culture at the time believed that the femininity of a kitchen outweighed women’s desire to work a paying job and live a life outside of the kitchen. Furthermore, kitchen culture such as advertising inherently represents women in a way that makes it seem as though they should spend time in the kitchen. The article “Kitchen Culture in America Popular Representations of Food, Gender, and Race” explains how the culture especially in America frequently shows female figures in the kitchen cooking specifically for males, “Whether we are reading an advertisement for peanut butter that depicts a blissful woman preparing sandwiches for a bunch of ravenous teenage boys or going to the restaurant down the street that offers “mom’s cooking,” our culture is filled with values and notions about gender that stem from cooking and food” (Inness 3-4). Inness goes one step further and explains how women of all races and backgrounds or even income levels have the same expectation in terms of cooking food. This article highlights the fact that the role of women has historically been molded by the culture that takes place within the kitchen. One of the reason main reasons why the feminization of household labor is such a widespread concept amongst both men and women is the fact that from a young age, it is taught that girls should follow in their mother’s steps of being passionate of cooking, cleaning, and other housework. The journal article, “TRAPPED IN THE KITCHEN: HOW ADVERTISING DEFINED WOMEN'S ROLES IN 1950s AMERICA” explains how advertisements of kitchen appliances shaped the perceptions of household labor, “In the advertisements below, one can almost hear the little girls begging to help their mother unload the dishwater, sweep the floor, or iron one of her own dresses. By getting a sense of pride and enjoyment out of housework from an early age, young girls could then prioritize what exactly was needed to becoming a mother” (Catt 55). Catt explains how girls from a young age are indoctrinated into the belief that partaking in household labor was an obligation as a woman. As previously mentioned, one of the complications of advancement in technology is the change in expectations. Whenever technology improves the typical cause is to simplify the service that technology provides. For example, before the advent of a coffee machine one had to boil water over a stove and add ground coffee beans to the boiling water to brew coffee. The coffee machine now only required the user to fill the machine with coffee grounds and water, press a single button and it will notify the user when the coffee was finished brewing. The article “The Kitchen of Futures Past: Using Predictions About the Future of Housework to Teach About Gender, "Progress," and Historical Perspective” explains how although technological advancements did make the cooking process easier, it created a whole different set of expectations, “Cowan argues that improvements in household technologies have historically been accompanied by increases in expectations. While cooking with an enclosed stove might have been easier than an open hearth, expectations grew that meals should be more and more complex. No longer was a single-pot stew enough; now several separate dishes were expected” (Buchanan 336) Buchanan brings up an excellent point that even with great technological advancements, the division of household labor remained the same. Although women now had an easier, safer method of cooking, they were now held to a higher standard. Although household labor, specifically work within the confines of a kitchen is traditionally perceived as feminine, there are ways to change this. The easiest way to combat this is to simply change the perception of men. By acknowledging the fact that kitchen appliances are universally marketed with the hopes of attracting female customers, companies modify their marketing to entice men into purchasing their products. Electric coffee maker, Mr. Coffee did exactly this, “Mr. Coffee took up residence on American kitchen counters during a transitional decade, when middle-class women increasingly entered the paid workforce and needed men to contribute to daily household tasks. The visible presence of this masculine-branded coffeemaker (and by association, its celebrity endorser) in kitchens made this traditionally feminized space more welcoming to American men and encouraged them to use the product” (Shrum 273). The marketing department of Mr. Coffee knew that times were changing, and women now had to enter the workforce. Women who typically contributed the most to household labor no longer had the time to grind coffee beans make coffee on the stove anymore. By marketing towards men and using a professional baseball player as a brand ambassador they created a new market, kitchen appliances for men. With the introduction and success of the Mr. Coffee machine, it showed that men are interested in helping in the kitchen, but a little encouragement was needed. Historically in relationships between men and women, it is always the woman who does the bulk of cooking, but the article “Caring About Food: Doing Gender in the Foodie Kitchen” found that most men actually enjoy cooking. Matter of fact, women saw cooking as a task that had to be completed for the wellbeing of the family whereas men saw cooking as a fun activity, “Women tended to describe cooking for others through ideals of care that prioritize the daily nourishment of the family. By contrast, men’s narratives framed cooking as a leisure activity, even when they were also engaging in daily food preparation within the home” (Cairns et al. 605). Cairns’s research shows that’s although men aren’t the main contributors to household labor, the fact that they enjoy cooking, shows that with some encouragement this can be changed. This concept is proven by the example of the Mr. Coffee machine in the previous paragraph. Similarly to the Mr. Coffee machine, the Keurig Coffee Maker was another technological invention that made making coffee much easier. By simplifying a process such as brewing coffee, it freed up time for other work. The article “GENDER DICHOTOMIES IN THE KITCHEN: FEMININE AND MASCULINE QUALITIES OF SPACES AND ARTIFACTS” explains how simplicity and more specifically timesaving technology of kitchen appliances such as coffee machines, has enabled male figures to spend more time in the kitchen, “Hine (2007) states that the push button technology freed women from laborious work… Now, as in the commercial, the wife seems relaxed and has the ability to sleep in longer and spend more time with her children than stressing over meal and beverage presentation” (Johnson 70-71). This quote further supports the idea that both men and women would fully benefit from the advancement of technology in kitchen appliances. Although timesaving technology has been proven to change societal expectations of women in the kitchen, if this technology can be used to encourage men to complete housework in the kitchen it can change the division of household labor in a manner that is fairer to women. In conclusion, from essentially the beginning of time, the culture of the kitchen or cooking food in general has shaped society’s expectations of women. As technology has improved, whether it be a using an open hearth to cook food or an enclosed stove, the expectations remain the same. Women are still expected to carry the brunt of household labor. Although household labor includes all tasks in a home such as cleaning, taking care of the kids etc. cooking and the appliances within the kitchen have historically been advertised primarily with women in mind. Appliances such as the coffee machine or stove have been improved to make life easier on those who primarily use them (women) but in reality, have only freed them up to either perform more tasks or perform task at a higher standard or quality. Although men are not typically seen in the kitchen in a household setting, it’s important to mention that this was not done on purpose. Due to societal norms and advertising of kitchen culture and appliances men don’t feel pressured to contribute in the kitchen. This paper showed that if men had the same encouragement as women to be in the kitchen, they most likely would. The problem lies in the fact that kitchen appliances are typically marketed towards women and as a result many men don’t end up contributing to household chores. However if more kitchen appliances were marketed with men in mind, it is possible that they may actually find joy in working in the kitchen which would make the division of household labor equally distributed. In doing so, the perceived femininity of kitchen appliances and the feminization of household labor would be reduced. Works Cited Buchanan, Nicholas. “The Kitchen of Futures Past: Using Predictions About the Future of Housework to Teach About Gender, ‘Progress,’ and Historical Perspective.” The History Teacher, vol. 49, no. 3, 2016, pp. 329–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24810549. CAIRNS, KATE, et al. “CARING ABOUT FOOD: Doing Gender in the Foodie Kitchen.” Gender and Society, vol. 24, no. 5, 2010, pp. 591–615. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25741206. Catt, Courtney. “Trapped in the Kitchen: How Advertising Defined Women's Roles in 1950s America.” May 2014. Inness, Sherrie A. Kitchen Culture in America Popular Representations of Food, Gender, and Race. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Johnson, Margaret. “GENDER DICHOTOMIES IN THE KITCHEN: FEMININE AND MASCULINE QUALITIES OF SPACES AND ARTIFACTS.” 2012. Randl, Chad. “‘Look Who’s Designing Kitchens’: Personalization, Gender, and Design Authority in the Postwar Remodeled Kitchen.” Buildings & Landscapes: Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum, vol. 21, no. 2, 2014, pp. 57–87. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/buildland.21.2.0057. Shelton, Beth Anne, and Daphne John. “The Division of Household Labor.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 22, 1996, pp. 299–322. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083433. Shrum, Rebecca K. “Selling Mr. Coffee: Design, Gender, and the Branding of a Kitchen Appliance.” Winterthur Portfolio, vol. 46, no. 4, 2012, pp. 271–98. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/669669.
