It’s not a topic that would normally keep me up at night, but it keeps on coming up lately, so I just have to ask: Ladies, do you think a man has a right to walk over whether or not you can hold your own in the kitchen?
In a recent interview with Guardian newspaper in the UK, Jill Scott revealed that she knew her marriage to ex-husband Lyzel Williams was over when he stopped eating the meals she made for him.
“He was pissed off for other reasons, but the best way to show me was by leaving what I’d made for him uneaten for days,” Jill said.
Ouch! After six years of marriage to a woman who clearly knows how to speak her mind, was that really the only way her husband knew to communicate his feelings to her? It’s sad, but oddly not surprising. On the premiere of VH1’s "Single Ladies," a show based on true scenarios women have phased, Keisha (played by LisaRaye McCoy) has a date with millionaire catch Malcolm (D.B. Woodside) at his place. Malcolm tricks her into cooking for him just to see what she’s working with in the kitchen. When she fails to make him lobster and homemade macaroni and cheese “just like that,” he seems disappointed and refuses to eat the eggs she made for him instead. Say what? After she cooked for the man (in heels and a tight dress) he still felt he had the power to veto her meal, even if it was made with love. Now where’s the sense in that?
I’m sure Jill can cook, but rejecting her food was her ex’s way of saying “You’ve failed” at something important to me. Had Keisha not been able to cook a thing for Malcolm on "Single Ladies," would her character have been subsequently booted from his place and his heart?
It seems that a lot of men consider your cooking skills a compatibility test of sorts. If you can’t cut it in the kitchen, can you keep him happy? Ladies, and gents, what are your thoughts on this one?