
































Microsoft Word - Lead-Shultz-Digest 2018-2019-galley.docx


Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019): 3-18          ©  American Folklore Society 2020 
	

“She did what?!”: Married Women’s Renegotiation of Kitchen 
Mistakes through Narrative1	
 
SUE SAMUELSON AWARD FOR FOODWAYS SCHOLARSHIP 2018 
 
By: Sarah T. Shultz 
 

Abstract:  The act of preparing food the “right” way can be a source of tension 
between spouses. In interviews conducted with heterosexual married couples in 
rural Kentucky and rural and urban Pennsylvania, stories of stressful or 
disastrous cooking mistakes are reimagined by wives as being about times when 
they successfully “got away” with something or pulled one over on their 
husbands. In these reimaginings, the events in question are presented as 
humorous examples of the women’s resourcefulness. This paper explores these 
kinds of narratives and their ability to serve as opportunities for women to 
reclaim and reshape these experiences of kitchen mishaps and mistakes. 
 
Keywords: practical jokes; personal experience narratives; gender; cooking 
mistakes; kitchen fails; foodways 
 
 

In Baking as Biography: A Life Story in Recipes, Diane Tye explores the role that 
foodways played in the life of her mother, Laurene. Tye recounts an incident in which 
her mother accidentally used tea leaves instead of brewed tea while baking, noting: 
“And, as my father is still fond of telling, it was a neighbouring woman who gently told 
my mother after an early unsuccessful attempt at baking that recipes calling for tea 
required brewed tea, not tea leaves” (2010:11). After reading this passage, I called my 
mother and read it to her. While I expected her to share in my amusement, I was 
unprepared for her to reply with two similar stories of her own, one of which involved 
her attempt to make a coffee cake with coffee grounds rather than brewed coffee. 
 
This conversation got me thinking about the stories people tell about the mistakes they 
make in the kitchen: when and with whom do they share them, and what forms do their 
stories take? To answer some of these questions, I conducted group and individual 
interviews with men and women of various ages and backgrounds about their cooking 
mistake stories over a period of three months in the fall of 2016, work which eventually 
became my master’s thesis. After a process of trial and error I came to think of these 
narratives as “kitchen nightmare stories,” in which the events being recounted were 
stressful or unfortunate, but also potentially funny or silly.  
 
At the beginning of this project, I struggled to find a way to articulate what I was looking 
for to the people I spoke with. The term kitchen “mistake” felt too negative, while 
kitchen “mishap” felt too mild, and seemed more likely to elicit anecdotes about 
dropping a utensil while cooking than a full-blown narrative. “Kitchen fail” was effective 
at conveying both the scale and tone of what I was looking for to younger interviewees, 
but a lot of older people I interviewed had a harder time connecting to this term. In my 
first few interviews I went with the term “disaster.” This worked for my interviewees, 
who seemed to relish its potential to be used hyperbolically for the sake of humor. But in 



4     Shultz, “She did what?!,” Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019)        

	

discussing my project with other folklorists I was reminded that the term “disaster” has 
most commonly been used in the serious context of the study of the role of personal 
narrative in helping individuals and communities to make sense of and heal from 
serious traumatic events (Lindahl 2012 and Horigan 2010, among others). 
 
I ultimately settled on the term “kitchen nightmares” because I felt that it allowed space 
for both the humor and the unfortunate aspects of the events being related to come 
through in the narratives without the more serious connotations of a word like 
“disaster.” It is also worth noting that many times the interviewees supplied their own 
terms for their stories that they felt were a better fit. Some of these terms were “fiasco,” 
“catastrophe,” “calamity,” “shitshow,” and in a few cases, “disaster.” 
 
I attempted to speak with people who prepare food together in a variety of contexts, 
including several family groups, roommates, co-workers, and neighbors. I also spoke 
with a few people individually. Ultimately I recorded 13 interviews with 25 people 
altogether (10 men and 15 women) ranging in age from 19 to 70 years old.  
 
Because kitchen nightmare stories can be told by anyone, this project was not focused 
on a specific place or group of people. Instead I focused my research in western 
Kentucky, where I was finishing my master’s degree, and in my home area of central, 
southeastern, and western Pennsylvania, where I have family. I relied on friends, family, 
co-workers and professors for connections to prospective interviewees. Many of the 
people I spoke with early on in this project recommended I reach out to their own 
friends, family, and co-workers. This strategy made it possible to compare kitchen 
nightmare stories from two different regions of the United States, as well as those from 
rural areas with urban settings like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. 
 
This paper explores a specific type of kitchen nightmare story that emerged regularly in 
interviews with women 50 or older throughout the rural and urban areas of Kentucky 
and Pennsylvania that I investigated. All were married to men or in long-term 
relationships with them. They recount a time when the woman successfully hid a 
kitchen mistake from her male partner, only to reveal it to him later on. One of the 
interesting features of several of these narratives was a motif in which the women would 
explain the “food rules” of their husbands: the list of allowed food pairings as well as the 
cooking taboos that must not be violated during the creation of a meal. In the narratives 
discussed in the present work, the complicating action was the narrator’s violation of 
her partner’s food rules. During interviews, the women would explain how the rules had 
been broken, and then describe the actions they took to hide these violations, effectively 
“pulling one over” on the partner. 
 
In retelling these stories in the interview context, the women typically reconfigured the 
events of the narratives in more positive ways, transforming stressful experiences into 
both humorous memories and examples of their resourcefulness and ability to remain 
cool under pressure. These narratives thus took on elements of a practical joke, with the 
men playing roles of hapless dupes. This strategy of reconfiguring kitchen nightmares 
through narrative provided the storytellers with ways to resist traditional ideas about 
gender and domesticity.  
 



																																																																											Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019): 5	

	

After briefly exploring the gendered dynamics of the interviewees’ food experiences, this 
paper presents a few examples of this “violation of partner’s food rules” motif to show 
how the women employed it strategically to resist these gendered dynamics. I conclude 
with some complicating factors and suggested areas for further research. 
 
Because of its constant presence in day-to-day life, and its central status in many 
important ritual occasions and holidays, food carries great significance and emotional 
weight for many people. As Michael Owen Jones points out, food can be useful as a tool 
that helps people think about themselves and perform their identities for others (2007). 
It is not surprising, then, that food often plays a major part in gender role stereotypes.  
 
In European and North American culture, the social world has traditionally been 
divided into two distinct spheres, the public and the private (Habermas 1989), which 
have been understood to be segregated by gender. The public sphere, the realm of 
business and politics, is the world of men, while the private or domestic sphere is the 
primary domain of women (Berkovitch 1999, Elshtain 1981, Gavison 1992, Matthews 
1987, Nicholson 1984, Okin 1979).2  
 
As the male and female genders have been understood to have their own mutually 
exclusive spheres of influence and expertise, the skillful performance of tasks associated 
with either sphere became inextricably linked to gender performance as well. The 
procurement and preparation of food is intertwined with these notions of masculinity 
and femininity at a basic level: it is the man’s responsibility to provide the food, and the 
woman’s responsibility to prepare it well and serve it in a timely manner. This 
worldview solidified in the United States in the 1800s (cf. Hattery 2009: 97-104),3 and 
arguably reached its actual and ideological apex in American society in the 1950s 
(Inness 2001). While ideas about the appropriate roles for men and women have 
changed over time, these “traditional” nineteenth- and twentieth-century ideas about 
gender still hold significant sway in American society. Because of the cultural weight 
placed on providing and preparing food in the context of the performance of gender, the 
kitchen sometimes becomes a space of tension and negotiation for power between 
women and men in heterosexual partnerships. 
 
Folklorists have studied how women have developed strategies to cope with the pressure 
to be talented and cheerful providers of domestic equilibrium. Susan S. Lanser argues 
that women can sometimes escape from the expectations of their male partners and 
society at large by claiming incompetence in the kitchen. In the 1993 essay “Burning 
Dinners: Feminist Subversions of Domesticity,” she claims that, for some women, doing 
the cooking badly is not an actual lack of talent, but a subversive rejection of socially 
expected domestic responsibilities. Rather than a simple statement of fact, claiming to 
be a “bad cook” can be seen as a coded refusal of the traditionally feminine role of 
homemaker: 
 

Women claim incompetence when they assert that they cannot cook, bake, knit, 
sew, or keep a clean house . . . . Women demonstrate incompetence when they do 
one of these tasks poorly—leave it incomplete, neglect it, or spoil it in some way. 
Our hypothesis is that such performances may function as coded rejections not 
only of the task in question but also of a culturally constructed female role. Like 



6     Shultz, “She did what?!,” Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019)        

	

all coded phenomena, strategic displays of incompetence are inevitably double-
voiced and double-edged, but precisely for this reason they allow a woman to say 
“I can’t” when she means but cannot say “I won’t.” (1993: 42).  

 
In documenting narratives for this project, I heard accounts of women’s incompetence 
in the kitchen that I suspect may be examples of the kind of coding that Lanser 
describes. One woman told me a story about an aunt who once famously baked an 
unbeaten egg into a pie. When the pie was cut, one slice contained the still-whole egg 
baked under the crust. After that incident, the woman told me her aunt was “never 
allowed” to bake the pies for holiday gatherings again. 
 
I also found that there were other, more resistant strategies that women could use in 
order to cope with the pressures of domesticity—although these more aggressive 
techniques did not tend to offer the same long-term respite from food work as the 
coding strategies Lanser identifies. By reframing accounts of their disagreements with 
their partners over some aspect of cooking or serving food, or retelling a story of a time 
when they were able to “get away” with some cooking mistake, these women were able 
to relive the events in their narratives from a place of greater agency by presenting them 
as funny, even if there was nothing humorous about what happened at the time of the 
events they described.  
 
While the majority of interviewees in heterosexual relationships seemed to view their 
partnerships as happy and fulfilling, issues of power imbalances and negotiations 
involving food came up often. When asked to describe her early attempts at cooking, one 
older woman replied, “I started to cook when I got married because I had to. My 
husband certainly wasn’t going to do it.” Another woman described her late spouse as a 
man who refused to cook but felt entitled to dictate how different dishes should taste. If 
something did not live up to his ideas of what it should be, he simply would not eat it. 
Another told the following story about a time when she spent several hours preparing a 
new dish for her husband to try, only for him to refuse to taste it because it looked 
unusual: 
 

Rhoda4: I was fixing that [coq au vin]. We lived at the lake at the time. 
And Ben [her husband], ah, on the weekend he would be out on the boat a 
lot, and he would be drinking beer with his buddies. And he would come in 
all sunburned and not in great shape sometimes. But, I had spent all day 
making this. I even had Julia Child’s cookbook and everything. And I was 
really, really on the ball and I spent all day. Made this, he came in, and he 
sat down, and I set his plate before him, and he looked, “Mm, nuh uh, 
there’s no way I’m gonna eat that purple chicken.” It was good. I didn’t try 
it because I was so mad at him [laughs]. But, the people down the street 
really enjoyed it. [Laughs] I just took it down, I said “Here, you can have 
Ben’s purple chicken.” 
 

Many of these narratives about power imbalances dwell on the subject of what 
men will and will not eat, based on the set of food rules each man expects his wife 
to adhere to. A lot of these food rules have to do with what foods can be eaten as 



																																																																											Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019): 7	

	

accompaniments with other foods, the order in which foods will be eaten, and the 
desired standard of cleanliness in food preparation and serving. Occasionally the 
food rules were described to me by the men themselves, or collaboratively with 
their wives or girlfriends, as in the following example from Matt and Polly, a 
married couple from rural Pennsylvania: 
 

Polly: Well, here’s the thing. In Matt’s realm of food that he likes, there’s 
definitely, there’s definitely favorites. And we would probably have, at 
least three of the things would be in constant rotation. One of them being 
steak. And with the steak, you have to have this marinelli sauce which is 
like a marinara sort of. And you have to eat it with linguine and no other 
kind of pasta. Ever. He has rules in his food that are— 

 
Matt: That’s the way you ate it. 

 
Polly: —kind of ridiculous sometimes.  

 
Matt: That’s the way you ate it. 

 
Matt was unperturbed by Polly’s characterization of his food rules as “kind of 
ridiculous,” insisting twice, “that’s the way you ate it.” He went on to recite a long list of 
his other food rules, which included only eating one specific brand of potato chips with a 
tuna sandwich and another with a ham sandwich, having to eat salad as a dessert course 
after a specific pasta dish, and drinking chocolate milkshakes at only the perfect 
“medium thick” consistency to counteract an upset stomach. He also insisted on having 
a spotless kitchen. On the surface these rules seem a little silly, as Polly suggested, but 
many of the kitchen nightmare stories this couple shared included the violation of one 
or more of these rules. One specific incidence of this violation is more thoroughly 
explored later in this essay. 
 
In several anecdotes and stories shared by women with partners who are men, the 
women described either a potentially tense situation with their spouse, or a time when 
they succeeded in covering up a cooking mistake or a violation of one of the partner’s 
food rules without him knowing about it. Though the events recounted in these 
narratives were mostly not perceived as humorous at the time they took place, they were 
told as funny later on. Some are short, recalibrations of characterizations of events that 
may only be told once, while others became full-fledged personal experience narratives 
over time. 
 
As an example of the first kind, here is an exchange from an interview I conducted with 
an older couple at their home in Kentucky one afternoon. The woman is a prizewinning 
baker, and was giving me tips on the best way to bake cakes that come out evenly and 
are easy to stack: 
 

Sharon: And another, another little secret when you’re doing your batter? 
This cake, I’ve made a cake today, got up this morning and made it, ‘cause 
I wanted you to have some. And, but anyway, I always use a measuring cup 



8     Shultz, “She did what?!,” Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019)        

	

and fill them about the same amount. It’s a little over two cups in each pan 
that I cook. But then after you get it poured in your pan, to get it level? 
[pounds hands on table] Jar it before you put it in the oven. Just keep 
jarring it. And get all the bubbles? 

 
Sarah: Yeah. 

Sharon: Air out of the batter? 

Sarah: Yeah. 

 Sharon: And it’ll be more even for you. Now sometimes I do have them 
come out where they’re a little lopsided and everything . . .  

 
Walter: And when you bang on the countertop you know you don’t want 
to do that when anybody’s asleep in the house. 

 
[Laughter] 

Sharon: Which I, I cook a lot when he’s in the bed. That’s why he’s saying 
that. I probably woke you up this morning didn’t I? 

 
Walter: Yeah. 

Sharon: Jarring the pans. Well, it’s time for you to get up anyway. 

I am not sure to what extent Sharon and Walter consider their relationship to be 
in line with stereotypical gender roles as described above, but they are religious 
Christians, and Sharon assumes many traditionally feminine tasks, spending a 
great deal of time in the kitchen cooking and baking for her husband, children, 
grandchildren, and friends. The act of jarring the cake pans could be read as a 
coded moment of protest against a social system which allows for men to sleep in 
while women are expected to get up early to prepare for anticipated guests. 
Furthermore, Sharon used a humorous one-liner in the retelling of what 
happened earlier in the day explicitly to criticize Walter’s sleeping in. He first 
brought up the fact that jarring the cake pans sometimes disturbed his sleep, 
jokingly suggesting that before I tried this trick, I should make sure that there 
wasn’t anyone sleeping in my house. Sharon responded to this remark with, 
“Well, it’s time for you to get up anyway.” In the moment during the interview, 
this statement implied that her husband had stayed in bed too long, and called 
attention to the fact that she was up working to prepare for company while he 
was still sleeping. 

 
In effect, Sharon had turned the tables on him. Both the act of banging the pans and her 
joking that it was time for him to get up were moments where Sharon seemed to push 
back against her husband’s expectation that she would cheerfully take care of the 
domestic responsibilities in the home. In reframing the experience to be about his 



																																																																											Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019): 9	

	

apparent laziness rather than about her disruption of his sleep in front of an outsider, 
she put him on the spot in much the same way that the dupe of a practical joke is 
exposed. It became his responsibility to laugh along, to prove that he was a good sport 
and could take the joke (Marsh 2015). But Walter did not laugh along with Sharon. 
Instead, there was a brief silence before she changed the subject. His silence possibly 
indicated that he had refused to accept her reframing of the experience. At any rate, his 
reaction and Sharon’s subsequent subject change signaled that the two had reached an 
impasse. 

 
Sometimes, the dutiful housewife role is more openly and clearly resisted, as in the 
following case, where I interviewed a husband, Todd, his wife Ann, and their 28-year-
old daughter, Katie, at their home outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The topic of 
conversation was Todd’s list of food rules. In this specific case, Todd was explaining his 
aversion to warm milk, and he and his wife and daughter were laughing about how 
difficult it is to drive home from the store quickly enough to keep from ruining it, in his 
estimation. Then the following exchange took place: 

 
Todd: So now, if the milk is sitting out for like half a minute, I’m flipping 
out, I’ve got to get it back in the fridge. They [his neighbors] traumatized 
me for life with warm milk for breakfast. 
  
Ann: He’s the only person that likes milk so it’s like really, like, to us we 
don’t really care. But like yeah, if I’m stopping after work it’s like, “Oh, we 
need milk but you can’t stop over there on that side of the river to bring it 
home. That’s, 20 minutes is too long.” And when we get it home, you have 
to get your milk close to home because it can’t stay in the car that long. 
And we’re never allowed to have it sit on the counter. [Laughs] 
  
Todd: And only a certain brand of milk is the best milk. 
  
Sarah: Which brand is it? 
  
Todd: Turner’s milk. 
  
Sarah: Turner’s. 
  
Ann: I never buy Turner’s milk. [Laughs] 
  
Todd: Yeah. She’ll have cookies and milk and just leave the milk sit out 
just to see how long before I would say something. Or just, I wouldn’t even 
say anything, just “Ruh!” I, “Ugh!” I go get the milk and huff and put it 
back in the fridge. 
  
[Laughter] 

 
Todd: And you [Katie] and Ann would just sit there and laugh. They 
thought it was the funniest thing. 



10     Shultz, “She did what?!,” Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019)        

	

 
At this point in the conversation, we had been discussing Todd’s food rules, and 
his aversion to warm milk, for roughly five minutes. When he mentioned his 
preferred brand of milk, Ann wasted no time in pointing out that she never buys 
it, provoking laughter from everyone in the room. This statement served to 
disrupt the direction the conversation had been taking, and Todd began to 
describe the warm milk-related pranks his wife and daughter play on him, and 
his own irritated reaction. The subject of conversation changed from the things 
Ann had to do to make sure the milk was acceptable to her husband to a brief, 
appreciative summing up of all the ways she tests or breaks this particular food 
rule on a regular basis. In this case, refusing to buy the correct brand of milk or to 
put it back in the refrigerator in a timely manner can be viewed as good-natured 
jesting, or (perhaps and) as a coded critique of established ideas about the 
domestic responsibilities of women. As mentioned above, the acts being 
described also share some similarities with practical jokes. 
 
In the 2015 book Practically Joking, Moira Marsh points out the difficulty of 
defining just one form of practical joke or prank, and instead puts forth a few 
different types. Despite the difficulty in defining the practical joke, Marsh does 
provide this general guideline:  
 

All these activities are playful performances involving the interaction of two 
parties— trickster and dupe—who have mutually incompatible ideas about what 
is going on. The involvement of dupes seems to be an essential characteristic of 
the genre. The role of the dupe is relatively passive: the trickster acts and initiates 
while the dupe is acted upon. (8) 

 
Marsh also notes the potential for cruelty and aggression in the form of practical joking 
or pranking, pointing out that: “Any play activity that designates one of its major 
protagonists as a victim must contain a heavy dose of aggression, at the very least. A 
practical joke is always at someone’s expense, at least for a brief time” (3-4).  
 
In the stories I documented which dealt with the covering up of a kitchen mistake, this 
subversive exercise of power in the act of cooking and/or serving a meal also contained 
descriptions of womanly ingenuity and complicity. The majority of narratives 
embedding this theme dealt with a mistake taking place during the cooking or serving of 
a meal that the man of the house would have found unacceptable had he been aware of 
it. In the following narrative, Ann from Pittsburgh recalled what happened when her 
dog got up on the table and started eating from a bowl of spaghetti just before it was 
time to serve a large meal: 

 
Ann: And one time—my mom would make like a huge bowl of spaghetti 
for dinner . . . So we had the table all set, spaghetti was on the table. And 
just her and I were upstairs, everyone else was kind of scattered. And we 
went to finish something to get it on and I turned around and my little 
terrier-mix dog was sitting on the table with her butt in the plate. With her 
head in the giant bowl of spaghetti eating away. [Laughs] So my mom and 



																																																																											Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019): 11	

	

I looked at each other, and we scraped off the first layers of spaghetti, and 
we never told anyone. I told my dad that story like, like five years ago. He’s 
like “She did what?!” [Laughs] But, Snoid [the dog] was very happy. She 
had like found herself quite a feast. [Laughs] That was quite a sight. 
[Laughs] 

 
The “dad” that Ann was referring to here was a man who really liked to keep things 
clean. To illustrate to me how important this was for him, Ann shared that he had once 
famously dropped a donut on the kitchen floor. He picked it up, but instead of dusting it 
off or throwing it away, he walked over to the sink, rinsed it under the faucet and then 
sat down to eat it. The dog contaminated both the bowl of spaghetti—by eating out of 
it—and one of the plates—by sitting on it—so this scenario would have been deeply 
disturbing for Ann’s father. She and her mother worked together to rectify the situation 
quickly by disposing of the contaminated spaghetti, and gathered the rest of the family 
for dinner without mentioning the incident. As Ann mentioned, they never told anyone 
about it. Years later, after her mother died, she finally told her father the story. Later 
still, she told it to me, and this time her father’s horrified reaction to his wife’s behavior 
(“She did what?!”) served as a kind of punch line for the narrative. What happened was 
an accident, except on the part of the dog, but years later the discomfiture of the father 
transformed the mishap into a funny narrative in which Ann and her mother were able 
to pull one over on him. 

 
In a few cases, I documented similar stories while the men who had acted as the dupes 
were actually present. In these instances, the man usually laughed along at his own 
expense, as in this example told by Matt and Polly: 
 

Polly: Well, ok so this is the pasta fagioli story. So I have to, I have to ah, 
set the backdrop, where . . . Matt is a neat freak. And, you know, didn’t do 
well if things got bad. Well one evening, I think Beth was in high school, 
maybe a junior in high school. And Beth is our daughter, by the way. So, 
Matt was in this room [sunroom directly off of dining/kitchen area] 
watching TV after dinner. Beth and I were making pasta fagioli, might 
have been a Sunday or something. And we were in the kitchen, “blah, blah, 
blah,” and it’s got a heavy red sauce. And I, you know I make a big batch 
for whatever reason. And at one point I set it on the counter and kind of 
like pushed it back. I thought I pushed it back. And the counter was a little 
slippier than I thought? So it fell off of the counter into the dining area. It 
hit the dining room table and just went “PFFT!” Like, everywhere. I mean 
it was on the ceiling, and on the walls. And, so Matt heard something fall 
and he’s like “What happened?” And Beth and I were just like making 
faces at each other, saying “Nothing, we’ve got it. It’s ok.” And then we’re 
like, she just like ran down the hall and got the towels and we’re like crazy 
wiping things up. He’s like “Is everything alright?” “Yeaaahh everything’s 
fine.” And we never, we didn’t tell him. And it was like, I don’t know when 
it was that— 

 
Matt: I noticed there was some— 



12     Shultz, “She did what?!,” Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019)        

	

 
Polly: He spotted a dot on the ceiling— 

 
Matt: Like, “What’s on the ceiling?” And Polly just burst out laughing. 

 
Polly: Oh my god, the panic mode we both went into cleaning that. 
Looked like somebody got shot in there. 
 

Both Matt and Polly found this story deeply funny. Matt’s status as a “neat freak” 
was accepted without critique, as was the attempt by Polly and Beth to cover up 
what had happened. The exploding pot of pasta fagioli was an accident, and the 
dramatic reveal of the event when Matt noticed a spot on the ceiling a few days 
later was unplanned. But this accident took on new life as a narrative that 
showcased the ingenuity of Polly and her daughter, and implicitly poked fun at 
Matt’s need to have a spotless home. As he sat unknowingly in the next room, his 
kitchen nightmare scenario played out and was quickly and successfully dealt 
with. He did not find any evidence of it until a few days later, at which point the 
mess had been cleaned up, and he was free to laugh along with his wife and 
daughter without having to deal with the aftermath of the spilled sauce firsthand. 
 
These conversational anecdotes and stories point to the ways in which women can use 
narrative to reframe moments of disagreement about food preparation or cooking 
failures more positively in the future. In the context of joking, they can recast 
themselves as resourceful and in control of the situation, and at times offer a pointed 
critique of the rules they are expected to follow. But what are the limits of this kind of 
coded or resistant act? How far does telling these stories go towards unsettling the 
traditional expectations that women will be competent, cheerful domestic workers? 
These are difficult questions to answer, especially since I do not wish to presume 
anything about the women who shared these stories with me, or their lives with their 
partners. To get at some of these issues, it may be useful to return to the first quote from 
Moira Marsh’s book above: “All these activities [types of practical jokes] are playful 
performances involving the interaction of two parties; trickster and dupe; who have 
mutually incompatible ideas about what is going on.” In the case of these narratives, the 
women who successfully hide their kitchen mishaps from their husbands take on the 
role of trickster. 
 
In the 1993 book Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms, 
William J. Hynes provides a rough typology of characteristics that occur in trickster 
tales cross-culturally (34):  

 
At the heart of this cluster of manifest trickster traits is (1) the fundamentally 
ambiguous and anomalous personality of the trickster. Flowing from this are 
such other features as (2) deceiver/trick-player, (3) shapeshifter, (4) situation-
inverter, (5) messenger/imitator of the gods, and (6) sacred/lewd bricoleur.  
 

In regards to his fourth point, Hynes notes that tricksters serve to highlight the most 
valued beliefs of a society, and often invert a situation just to return things to normal in 



																																																																											Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019): 13	

	

the end, whether intentionally or not. There is a corollary here between Hynes’s 
thoughts on tricksters and inversion and the kinds of narratives I documented about 
women breaking a food rule or violating a taboo in the kitchen. Although the kitchen 
nightmare scenarios described in these stories were not purposeful or intentionally 
mischievous or malicious, they do represent moments in which the normal order was 
disrupted. Whether they acknowledged them as silly or not, these men expected their 
food rules to be followed. And, as far as they knew during the events recounted by their 
wives, the rules were being followed. The revelation that the women deliberately hid 
these transgressions, or cut corners in fixing the problem, contorts the image of the 
cheerful, efficient wife who strives to create domestic bliss for her family. Instead, these 
wives get tired and fed up. They are willing to hide things from their husbands to save 
themselves some trouble and time, and their stories about covering up these mistakes 
often reveal a number of stresses embedded in their attempts to live up to domestic 
expectations. The fact that they recast these events as funny stories in which the listener 
is invited to laugh at the husband as a clueless victim, rather than at the wife for failing 
to follow the rules successfully, makes the situation even more disorienting.  

 
The men present for the telling of these narratives were chiefly good sports, cheerfully 
laughing along and sometimes adding self-deprecating comments themselves. But these 
particular kitchen nightmare narratives have the potential to be threatening and 
disruptive in a society that continues to place so much importance on the successful 
performances of masculinity and femininity. As Ricki Stefani Tannen points out in The 
Female Trickster: The Mask That Reveals (2007: 159): 
 

Women’s humor tends to attack through subversion the deliberate choices 
of the powerful; their hypocrisies, affectations and the mindless following 
of the acquisitive and consumption oriented social status quo. The way 
that women’s humor challenges authority—its subversive method—is by 
refusing to take it seriously. This is why the female Trickster is more 
dangerous than the traditional Trickster, who may serve a cathartic 
purpose in letting steam off from the symbolic order. The traditional 
Trickster, although testing boundaries, leaves the basic configuration, the 
existence of the social order, very much untouched. Women using humor 
become dangerous because they do not want or intend to stop at the steam 
venting stage . . . . Think of the laughter of Bertha as she burns down the 
house in Jane Eyre.  

 
Tannen argues persuasively for the transgressive power of the female trickster, and 
there are elements of this threatening, deconstructive humor in the “pulling one over” 
kitchen nightmare stories featured here. But while there is a moment of resistance in 
these narratives, there does not seem to be the focused intent to burn the house down. 
These retellings often occur months or years after the incident itself, when the women 
can be said to have definitively “gotten away with” the transgression and feel safe 
revealing what they have done to their partners, friends, and family members.  
 
The women telling the stories all seemed very aware of the rules for food preparation, 
and described themselves as rushing to try to cover up the violation of these rules before 



14     Shultz, “She did what?!,” Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019)        

	

the men found out what happened. Ann introduced the story about Snoid and the 
spaghetti by saying, “Not, well, that’s so funny. Because my dad would never approve of 
this.” Polly described the attempt to clean up the errant pasta fagioli as going into “panic 
mode,” and ended the story with the observation, “Looked like somebody got shot in 
there,” which is both wonderfully descriptive and shockingly violent, considering the 
narrative is about a dropped pot of sauce. Most importantly, all of these stories were told 
in the context of sharing kitchen nightmare narratives. At first it seemed unusual to me 
that these stories, which were about the successful cover-up of a mistake, would be told 
along with accounts of dropping pans of lasagna into a hot oven or slicing open a finger. 
But the narrators considered these incidents “nightmares” because of the stress that 
occurred when the food rules were violated. The fact that they were successfully able to 
cover up what went wrong appears to be of secondary importance. 

 
All of the stories I documented that shared this theme were lighthearted. They were 
presented as humorous recountings of the foibles of both partners, and while it seemed 
clear that a discovery that the food rules had been compromised might have caused an 
argument in the moment, it did not appear that there had been any long-term negative 
consequences for the woman partner as a result of the kitchen mishap being described. 
But the kitchen can be a heavily contested space, where power struggles of varying 
degrees of seriousness are played out on a daily basis. With that in mind, I should note 
that it did not seem that there was any relaxing of the food rules by the husbands as a 
result of the humorous treatment of their expectations in these women’s narratives. 
Reframing these incidents as funny stories that both the dupes and outsiders are invited 
to laugh at seems to provide women with the opportunity to exert a potentially 
disruptive influence, but only briefly. 
 
Conclusion 

I have explored the ways that acts of food preparation and storytelling about “pulling 
one over” on masculine authority figures can serve as opportunities for women to resist 
gendered expectations—that they will take full and near-constant responsibility for 
providing meals for the family in accordance with the food rules of the man of the house. 
Both of these acts allow women to express a kind of veiled aggression towards the 
husband and his food rules, and provide the wives with opportunities to resist the status 
quo, albeit temporarily.  
 
These kinds of narratives and anecdotes were only told by older, straight, women, 
married to men or in long-term partnerships with them. Younger women and women in 
different kinds of relationships may also have and share these kinds of stories, but I 
suggest there could be a generational difference in the kinds of kitchen nightmare 
stories that women tell at various stages of their lives. In contrast, younger women in 
committed heterosexual relationships most often told kitchen nightmare narratives 
about attempting to put together an elaborate meal for their boyfriends only to have 
things fall apart spectacularly. These stories seem to be about the embarrassment of 
failing at performing femininity through cooking, and often include an evaluation either 
about how nice and understanding their boyfriends were about the situation, or how 
funny they found it. 



																																																																											Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019): 15	

	

 
Men also told stories about transgressing a food or cooking-related boundary of their 
wives or girlfriends, as in the following example from Todd: 
 

Todd: But the next cooking, we were making potato soup. 

Ann: That’s exactly what I was going to say. Yep. 

Todd: So, Ann’s out there, she’s making it. And, it, she’s stirring it up and 
I’m looking at it. My family always made theirs real thick. And, more like a 
milk, it almost looked like. So I say, just married, say, “That doesn’t look 
how my mother makes it.” 

 
Sarah: Oh no. 

Ann: “When’s it gonna get thick,” or something, “like my mom’s?” 

Todd: You know, like my mother’s. I think you said, “You can go to your 
mother’s and get it,” or something like that. 
 
[Laughter]  

Interestingly, Ann still appeared to get the upper hand here, as the “punch line” of the 
narrative was her suggesting that Todd should return home to his mother if he was 
unsatisfied with how she made potato soup. But the humor of the story was also based 
on stereotypical and potentially misogynistic ideas about how mothers-in-law and new 
wives will struggle for control over the domestic environment of a man, and it depicted 
the woman cooking as being deeply concerned with her ability to cook potato soup 
correctly. Rather than resisting, the humor here seemed to be maintaining the status 
quo. 
 
The sample size for this project is much too small to draw any definite conclusions about 
the power or limits of these “pulling one over” tales to resist dominant cultural 
expectations for women’s domestic competence. However my research does suggest that 
individual women in heterosexual relationships can use these transformed kitchen 
nightmare narratives as tools. Using them, they can re-imagine moments of potential 
conflict with their partners as instances where they successfully seized control of the 
situation. These narratives thus play an important role in the wider negotiation of 
gender and identity that takes place in the kitchen.  

 
References Cited 
 
Adler, Thomas A. 1981. Making Pancakes on Sunday: The Male Cook in Family 
Tradition. Western Folklore 40 (1): 45. 
 
Berkovich, Nitza.1999. From Motherhood to Citizenship: Women’s Rights and 
International Organizations. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 



16     Shultz, “She did what?!,” Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019)        

	

 
Covington, Sharon and Walter. 2017. Interview with author. February 7. 
 
Deutsch, Jonathan. 2012. “Please Pass the Chicken Tits”: Rethinking Men and Cooking 
at an Urban Firehouse. In Taking Food Public: Redefining Foodways in a Changing 
World, ed. Carole Counihan and Psyche Williams-Forson, 265-278. New York: 
Routledge. 
 
Dutch, Jennifer Rachel. 2012. Grandma’s Gone Global: Recipe Transmission from the 
Kitchenette to the Internet. Digest 1 (Fall): 1-14. 
 
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1993. Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and 
Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 
 
Gavison, Ruth. 1992. Feminism and the Public/Private Distinction. Stanford Law 
Review 45 (1):1-45. 
 
George, Rosemary Marangley. 2017. Domestic. In Keywords for American Cultural 
Studies, ed. Bruce Burgett and Glenn Hendler, 89-91. New York: New York University 
Press. 
 
Georges, Robert A. 1987. Timeliness and Appropriateness in Personal Experience 
Narrating. Western Folklore 46 (2): 115-20. 
 
Goldstein, Kenneth S. 1964. A Guide for Field Workers in Folklore. Hatboro: Folklore 
Associates. 
 
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Strucural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An 
Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger and Frederick 
Lawrence. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 
 
Hattery, Angela. 2009. Intimate Partner Violence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield 
Publishers. 
 
Horigan, Kate Parker. 2010. Legends at Work, Post Katrina. Harlot: A Revealing Look 
at the Arts of Persuasion. Access March 15, 2016. 
http://harlotofthearts.org/index.php/harlot/article/view/58/53 
 
Hymes, Dell. 1975. Breakthrough into Performance. In Folklore: Performance and  
Communication, ed. Dan Ben-Amos and Kenneth S. Goldstein, 11-17. The Hague: 
Mouton & Co. 
 
Hynes, William J. 1993. Mapping the Characteristics of Mythic Tricksters: A Heuristic 
Guide. In Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms, ed. William 
J. Hynes and William G. Doty, 33-45. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. 
 



																																																																											Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019): 17	

	

Inness, Sherrie A. 2001. Dinner Roles: American Women and Culinary Culture. Iowa 
City: University of Iowa Press. 
 
Jones, Michael Owen. 2007. Food Choice, Symbolism, and Identity: Bread-and-Butter 
Issues for Folkloristics and Nutrition Studies. Journal of American Folklore 120 (476): 
129-77. 
 
Jones, Rhoda. 2016. Interview with author. October 13. 
 
Julier, Alice, and Laura Lindenfeld. 2005. Mapping Men Onto The Menu: Masculinities 
and Food. Food and Foodways 13 (1-2): 1-16. 
 
Labov, William, and Joshua Waletzky. 1997. Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of 
Personal Experience. Oral Versions of Personal Experience Journal of Narrative and 
Life History 7 (1-4): 3-38. 
 
Landowski, Ann, Katie, and Todd. 2016. Interview with author. October 8. 
 
Lanser, Susan S. 1993. Burning Dinners: Feminist Subversions of Domesticity. In 
Feminist Messages: Coding in Women’s Folk Culture, ed. Joan Newlon Radner, 36-53. 
Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 
 
Lindahl, Carl. 2012. Legends of Hurricane Katrina: The Right to be Wrong, Survivor-to-
Survivor Storytelling, and Healing. Journal of American Folklore 125 (496): 139-172. 
 
Lawless, Elaine J. 2001. Women Escaping Violence: Empowerment through Narrative. 
Columbia: University of Missouri Press. 
 
Matthews, Glenna. 1987. “Just a Housewife”: The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in 
America. New York: Oxford University Press. 
 
Marsh, Moira. 2015. Practically Joking. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. 
 
Nicholson, Linda. 1984. Feminist Theory: The Private and the Public. In Beyond 
Domination: New Perspectives on Women and Philosophy, ed. C. Gould, 221-230. 
Totowa: Rowman and Allanheld. 
 
Okin, Susan M. 1979. Women in Western Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton 
University Press. 
 
Radner, Joan Newlon, ed. 1993. Feminist Messages: Coding in Women’s Folk Culture. 
Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 
 
Robbins, Bruce. 2017. Public. In Keywords for American Cultural Studies, eds. Bruce 
Burgett and Glenn Hendler, 200-202. New York: New York University Press. 
 



18     Shultz, “She did what?!,” Digest: A Journal of Foodways & Culture 7:1 (2018-2019)        

	

Sawin, Patricia. 2004. Listening for a Life: A Dialogic Ethnography of Bessie Eldreth 
through Her Songs and Stories. Logan: Utah State University Press. 
 
Sancini, Matt and Polly. 2016. Interview with author. October 6. 
 
Shultz, Sarah. 2017. Nightmares in the Kitchen: Personal Experience Narratives About 
Cooking and Food. Master’s thesis, Western Kentucky University. 
 
Szabo, Michelle. 2012. Foodwork or Foodplay? Men’s Domestic Cooking, Privilege and 
Leisure. Sociology (4): 623-638. 
 
Tannen, Ricki Stefanie. 2007. The Female Trickster: The Mask that Reveals: Post-
Jungian and Postmodern Psychological Perspectives on Women in Contemporary 
Culture. New York: Routledge. 
 
Tye, Diane. 2010. Baking as Biography: A Life Story in Recipes. Montreal: McGill-
Queen’s University Press. 
 
Williams, Brett. 1984. Why Migrant Women Feed Their Husbands Tamales. In Ethnic 
and Regional Foodways in the United States: The Performance of Group Identity, ed. 
Linda Keller Brown and Kay Mussell, 113-126. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 
 
Yoder, Don. 1972. Folk Cookery. In Folklore and Folklife: An Introduction, ed. Richard 
M. Dorson, 325-350. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
 
 
 
 
Notes 
																																																								
 
1 This paper is adapted from Chapter 2 of my master’s thesis (Shultz 2017).  
2 For a comprehensive overview of these concepts, see the entries on “Domestic” and 
“Public” in the 2017 anthology Keywords for American Cultural Studies. 
3 A lot of work has been done by scholars in various fields on the creation and 
maintenance of the public and private spheres in American culture. Hattery’s work 
(2009) offers a succinct history of the idea as it applies to issues of gender specifically. 
4 All names used are pseudonyms. 


