Stupidity in the kitchen; woman as cook; the spine-chilling thoughtlessness in the feeding of the family and the head of the house! Women do not understand what food means: and yet want to cook! If woman were a thoughtful creature, then the fact that she has been the cook for thousands of years would surely have led her to discover the greatest physiological facts, and at the same time make the art of medicine her own!
😲😲😲😲😂😂😂
Nietzsche criticizes women’s bad cooking skills and lack of development in that area as critique of their lack of a scientific mindset
CHATGPT
Nietzsche is making a provocative critique regarding the traditional role of women as the primary cooks in households. Here's a breakdown:
1. **Stupidity in the Kitchen**: Nietzsche opens with a controversial statement that challenges the traditional assumption that women are inherently skilled at domestic tasks, such as cooking.
2. **Women as Cooks**: Nietzsche comments on the historical role of women as the main cook in families. By describing it as a "spine-chilling thoughtlessness," he implies that there has been a lack of innovation or progression in culinary arts and nutrition because of this.
3. **Physiological Facts and Medicine**: He suggests that if women were "thoughtful," their long-standing role in the kitchen should have made them pioneers in understanding nutrition and, by extension, medicine. He's implying that cooking is not just an art but also a science.
4. **Impact on Humanity**: Nietzsche boldly claims that poor cooking has hindered human development more than most might think. By saying "even today, things are hardly any better," he suggests that this problem is still prevalent.
5. **A Speech for Young Ladies**: This might mean that Nietzsche is suggesting these ideas be presented to young women, either as a critique or as encouragement for them to approach cooking (and perhaps their roles) with more scientific rigor and innovation.
It's important to note that Nietzsche often used hyperbole and polemic statements to challenge societal norms and provoke thought. He didn't always intend for his remarks to be taken at face value. This passage can be interpreted as a critique not just of women, but of society's narrow views on gender roles and the limitations such views can impose. However, from a modern perspective, many would find his remarks on women and cooking to be controversial and dismissive.
