So, it’s not enough to just make healthy, nourishing meals from scratch, the woman also has to be CONSTANTLY JOYFUL about it?
I guess I should be used to Nancy’s writing by now, but I’m always amazed by how many ways she can say “you’re not good enough! Let me create these impossibly high standards and add a guilt trip for good measure!”

How can anyone read something so absurd and not walk away in disgust?

Probably pretty easily! They just think, “God sez”(TM) and, if they are uneasy with it, they put on the religious happy mask. Or, they fear God will smite them one if they don’t listen to this.

Their environment likely influences them, and their perception of the situation. Perhaps someone charismatic drew them in, and, even if they consider things problematic, they justify it to save face. (That would be more the social psychology explanation; however, I am just starting this course, so that is all I can offer. I know enough to be dangerous, so please take what I say with a grain if salt.)

What if the woman is a bad cook? What if eating out is actually better for the family? My mother was not and is not a good cook, some people just cannot follow recipes. When I got old enough I started doing the cooking, and food enjoyment at home increased. This may be why both my brother and I got culinary degrees and still do most of the cooking when with the family.

I think your explanation is partly right. One thing I would add, though, is that there is a moral weight to messages like this that can bleed over into secular circles too – that is, messages like these can appear to agree with more innocuous versions of these essays you hear throughout society, so they “feel right” to the reader. Some people might also read stuff like this and assume that those are just normal messages (i.e. in this case, they assume this is just someone suggesting people cook and that cooking may be more fun than you think and does not have to be a chore). These people will not have any idea what is actually being suggested, and they might endorse messages like this not knowing that they are actually perpetuating an impossible standard. At worst, such people might see what is being said as an ideal, but not as something people are honestly expected to do.

Of course, there are other secular people, particularly disabled and certain other emotionally abused people, who read the messages and get the tone right; that is, they see these things as the standard people are expected to follow (and these people were likely raised that way, rather than drawn in by charismatic people). This, and many other such messages, both religious and secular, can therefore contribute to said emotionally abused person feeling hurt, and uncomfortable, with no way of articulating why. And, if they do try to do that, people may shut them down and explain that the “real” message was a watered-down version of what was actually said, leaving the person who understands just how insidious the message is with no way of explaining why it is insidious. One tip I would give to those who wonder why people are so bothered by a seemingly innocuous message is this: the devil is in the details. Look at the details of what the message says, and if it looks like you have to be exceptionally good at the thing the message puts forth, or devote most of your time to obeying what that one message says, then you can see why the message makes people uncomfortable. And don’t forget that even if you might “grant” an exception to disabled people who can’t do the thing, society ultimately doesn’t, and there’s a good chance their consciences won’t, either. To the contrary, due to pervasive societal messages, the disabled person’s conscience, and, if they’re not lucky, some of the people they live with, will shame them for not being able to live up to the standards put forth by such messages, and feel they are “less than” as a result, especially when these messages are put forth as basic morality.

These people tend not to actually read what is in the Bible, even while they themselves are quoting it.