It actually made me cry...

julia child was the shit

Watching her walk always made me lol in the "look at the retarded kid try to dance" sort of way.

But a bunch of her shows on DVD it's pretty good better than goddamn All Town Brown.

Weeeell, "new york times",

This article manages to annoy me immensely. It kind of goes into long winded serious analysis of stuff but then it just continues to beat around the bush after making some half-assed statements and generalisations. This is why american news papers are pain to read, truly. Journalists feel the need to dumb down their message for the reader. As if someone is not going to get it unless you simplify each thing to bare bones. Also, social analysis and telly cooking show reviews do not go together. It gives away the feeling that the journalist is just trying to be unnecessarily clever.

>>1103286

You're an idiot.

>>1103331
You have to admit that this article was rather bad, though. Especially since it casually stigmatises women for the decline of american cooking.

how many women do you see in kitchens of high volume, successful restaurants

close the thread lol

wow, some pretty idiodic comments in here.
for the britfag( >>1103286 ), television can indeed offer a very extensive view into culture and programming varies greatly by region. criticizing their writing style is also ridiculous, since I think british papers writing is even worse.
also, ( >>1103366 ) wtf does an article about Julia Child have to do with "high volume, successful restaurants"? it's about cooking better food for your own consumption. I'd venture to say only dudes are stupid enough to take such a shitty, stressful job. also, I bet you really love the cock to make a stupid, unrelated and chauvenistic comment like that.

>>1103286
>social analysis and telly cooking show reviews do not go together

What the fuck kind of stupid remark is this?

>>1103736
OH MY GAWD, IS THAT FOUR BABY MICE ON A KITTY'S HEAD?! FOUR BABY MICE ON A KITTY'S HEAD?!

>>1103286It kind of goes into long winded serious analysis of stuff but then it just continues to beat around the bush after making some half-assed statements and generalisations.

That's Michael Pollan for you. He's the rockstar of food... bitching or something. He doesn't have to make sense, he's smart according to his fans.

>>1103985
Totally not bitching. Just totally lame and complaining about his own imaginary stuff that he likes to type out, it seems. I mean, he could just have had light hearted article of this lady but no.

>>1103996
And I truly value Michael Pollan´s other work but this article is just so utterly pointless.

"The Food Network carries a whole slate of so-called dump-and-stir shows during the day, and the network’s research suggests that at least some viewers are following along. But many of these programs — I’m thinking of Rachael Ray, Paula Deen, Sandra Lee — tend to be aimed at stay-at-home moms who are in a hurry and eager to please. (“How good are you going to look when you serve this?” asks Paula Deen, a Southern gal of the old school.) These shows stress quick results, shortcuts and superconvenience but never the sort of pleasure — physical and mental — that Julia Child took in the work of cooking: the tomahawking of a fish skeleton or the chopping of an onion, the Rolfing of butter into the breast of a raw chicken or the vigorous whisking of heavy cream. By the end of the potato show, Julia was out of breath and had broken a sweat, which she mopped from her brow with a paper towel. (Have you ever seen Martha Stewart break a sweat? Pant? If so, you know her a lot better than the rest of us.) Child was less interested in making it fast or easy than making it right, because cooking for her was so much more than a means to a meal. It was a gratifying, even ennobling sort of work, engaging both the mind and the muscles. You didn’t do it to please a husband or impress guests; you did it to please yourself. No one cooking on television today gives the impression that they enjoy the actual work quite as much as Julia Child did. In this, she strikes me as a more liberated figure than many of the women who have followed her on television."

>>1104008
interesting

meh. far too long winded for what can be summed up as: mmmm cooking is great.

>>1104109
aw, come on, cooking is an ART! the more love you put in, the more you can taste it in the resulting dishes.

>>1104008
awww yeeea ;__;

i can't count the number of times i've spent hours in the kitchen with sweat dripping off my brow (well i wiped it off), just to cook something delicious for family and loved ones ~<3

>>104008
I just like how he goes on yadda yadda food network whatever noone cares

and then
>she strikes me as a more liberated figure than many of the women who have followed her on television.
he turn the whole thing into retarded gender political argument. Just like in between the lines of this whole text he constantly implies that liberation of women is the reason why american home-cooking has declined and ready-made product culture has surfaced. Actually it is quite apparent that this is the only real message he is trying to get through with all of this boring babble.

>>1104243
I don't have family and loved ones; no family that live with me that is. I am a very accomplished cook and everyone seems to really love the foods I do cook. I cook many things from many other cultures too.

so ronery ;_;

>>1104244
How do you explain the fact that men are often better cooks than women and cook more often these days?

Shit is fucking horrible.
Every woman I meet laments on how she can't even boil water properly while I'm making curry from scratch.

>>1104264
get a sweet boyfriend with a functional family, cook for them :3

>>1104275
Because everyone knows wimmins don't know how to use knives.

>>1104275
Some people love to cook, others cook because they feel they need to. Most men don't need to cook if they are a woman there to do it for them. However, a man that cooks usually loves to cook so he puts more thought, time, and love into the art of cooking than a woman that's just cooking because she feels she needs too cook.

People that don't like to cook are usually average or shitty cooks. A man that cooks normally stands out as being unusual and people pay more attention to his cooking. Since he probably likes to cook his food will normally be better than most other people's food.

Therein lies the stigma.

>>1104275
The women you meet are 12 year olds or idiots. It makes me wonder what's wrong with you.

Men are more likely to be classy restaurant chefs because there is still sexism in the workplace. Watch Ratatouille.

>>1104275 men are often better cooks than women and cook more often these days?
I do not see any statistics of this. It is more like both sexes are equally skilled since it is not exclusive female duty to spend ones entire life handcuffed to stove. Nowdays any person regardless of gender that just takes interest in cooking knows how to cook.

What this columnist guy states is basically that liberation on women cased the american junkfood phenomenon. Which is complete bull no matter how you look at it. Then this guy goes on and states the housewives are better and "more liberated" than todays normal working females. This little piece of text is really the mist chauvinistic thing I've read and it is published in the New York times of all magazines.

>>1104281
The fact that most of Asia prefers male children as opposed to female coupled with China's radical "one-family-one-child" policy has created a serious unbalance in the number of male offspring to the number of females in Asia (but that's a lot of people!) In addition to the increasingly popular trend of androgyny in our society, this has blurred the lines of gender roles in our current world. The result is a generation of spoiled girls who are waited on hand and foot from birth and whose marital value does not decrease despite their lack of any kind of domestic ability.

You hear more women talking about "just wanting to find a husband who can cook for them", because the other way around is sexist.

>>1104283

He's 12?

>>1104292
Androgyny does not mean the deconstruction of social roles. An androgyne is a person that has both overly heightened female and male characteristics. A neuter is a person that does not have either.

Now, society becoming more gender neutral means more equality. Still, Equality is not cherry picking, along the positives come the negatives. Now days females can act as selfishly as males if they feel like it. There is no legislation against being an asshole as far as I know. Not all people are assholes, though.

Anyone else going to see Julie and Julia?

>>1104316
yeah but i dont have anybody... will you be my date /ck/

>>1104316

If I didn't live in Bumfuck Nowhere I would.

That pissed me off. What a faggot.

>>1104283
>women
>idiots

That's about right. I haven't met a single gal who can cook worth shit either in 3 years of living in cooperative housing at college. We have to cook for the entire co-op everyday, taking turns of course, and the women suck.