Like a fool, I expected that since this was a tiny blog with few visitors, that folks would be respectful enough not to say anything in print that they wouldn’t say in person (translation: and perhaps have to back it up with their ass). Yeah, I know. Quit laughing.

Anyway, it is what it is. There is some shit that went on in that post that had I been here at the time, I would not have allowed through. But I can’t be here very often, and I can’t (as one person, remember? single mother? two jobs?) keep to the same moderating practices that large blogs of multiple people across the globe who have all day access to their blogs via large computer screens and fast internet connections. Can’t do it, won’t do it, and it’s ridiculous to expect that of me.

This isn’t about “play nice”. It’s about basic human respect. I, and most of the people who comment here are not the kind of folks who get that indulgence often. Because of that, I expect folks to “get it”. Those that don’t, aren’t going to have their comments published. I’m not going to host garbage.

And yep, I’m an uppity bitch.

First, thank you for posting. I was one of the many people who assumed that your silence equalled assent; not only because of your (granted, years ago) public affirmations of affection/support for Hugo (and while I say this, remember that I noted that he had a certain visible absence after 2008)….but because of experiences throughout my life. In my experience, silence does equal assent. The power to ignore others is a very effective means for shutting them down. I did not expect a lengthy response, but just a short timely one. I was unaware of your health struggles and I do empathize—I also have a health challenge (hypothyroidism…..and geez, don’t get me started. I could rant for days on the general unresponsiveness of physicians to women, and the specific difficulty of trying to negotiate the healthcare system as an over-40 working class woman) and have personal knowledge of trying to budget one’s energy during conflicting demands. I do not intend to add to your stress level (trust, 2011 sucked for me too); I only want to speak to you woman-to-woman, as a former guest blogger on Feministe and someone who has been a part of the commentariat damn near since its inception…back when it was still Lauren’s gig.

I want to speak to you on some of the overall dynamics I’m witnessing on these recent posts and comment threads. From my perspective, there is an almost corporate-style mode of abdication of responsibility. The fact that Feministe has multiple staff bloggers will necessarily result in this default in the absence of a formal structure of consensus among the bloggers and in the absence of a mission statement. It seems to me that Feministe vacillates between being a pop-culture entertainment blog; an informative source for international news relating to women and feminism; a galvanizing instrument for political action; and a “LiveJournal”-style space for venting. Although there is a comments policy, there isn’t a declared mission statement of….goals, dreams, boundaries of any sort on what Feministe is or wants to be; nor is there a transparent description or process of how conflict within the community will be resolved. For that matter, there isn’t a definition of the community—does it refer solely to the staff bloggers, or to the commentariat as well?

This is very alienating to me as a labor unionist, as I come from a tradition that has very clear statements on who and what we are, and clear boundaries on process, policy, and conflict resolution. The stock answer in the blogosphere at large is a mercantile one—”if you don’t like what we’re selling, take your business elsewhere.” I don’t necessarily perceive this to be the attitude of Feministe, but strongly feel that the absence of a mission statement and attendant processes contributes to the hostile dynamics in the comment section.

But back to the “corporate style” as I call it, which I see very frequently in the comment section and is clearly evident in the recent threads: an ahistoricity, a blurring of boundaries during controversy or conflict, an assertion of “objectivity”, “rationality” and dismissal of emotion (particularly anger)….these are all concepts essential to the construction of whiteness as a political identity (which is to say, a means of teaching the people who are taught they are white, how to be “white”. I say this because I’ve been getting a whole lot of folks dropping by this blog lately since I was linked on Maya’s post at Alas, and I want to be crystal-clear to people unfamiliar with the term “white” as referring to anything other than light skin. I’m talking about the “whitewashing” of people of European descent; the assimilation into a “whiteness” that exists solely in opposition to people of color and other colonized persons). Even if the overt hostility of the comment section were abated, the affirmation of the ways and means of middle-class white communication are very uninviting (to say the least).

When I read statements like: (3) Feministe does have many contributors, and our views on the Hugo situation are not identical. Caperton’s post was a very good one and I agree with it, but we are not a monolith, and the various individuals who contribute here have wide-ranging opinions on the whole situation and the best response.”…I’ll be blunt. It sounds like fence-sitting to me. Trying to play both sides against the middle, in the face of a conflict that necessarily will alienate one side or the other. Some disagreements can reach a valid compromise, one that will satisfy all parties. This is not one of them. Again, this lack of clarity is a weakness of this blog.

What I find even more frustrating are statements (both in your original post and in the comment section) that use descriptors/analogies of violence for nonviolent acts of protest and resistance—even the merely verbal. This is another trope of whiteness; dismissing the perspective of those in resistance and denigrating/misrepresenting opponents. Note that this process tends not to call out opposition by name, but reduces us to a nameless, faceless “mob”. This, in the midst of a culture that values and respects individualism while standing in vehement opposition to any and all forms of collectivism and organized community. That this dynamic remains unquestioned and unacknowledged on a feminist blog is an egregious oversight, and perpetuates the status quo of “leaders first, then followers”. Whatever else feminism may be about, if it practices an employer/employee relationship between its visible spokespersons and less-visible adherents, it’s about nothing. I’m not looking for more feudalism in my political involvement, and I’m not alone.

One of the critiques I read on tumblr (and if the person in question gives me permission, I will link her own words; I will not do so without her explicit permission as she has deliberately left the Feministe scene) outlined the typical timeline of feminist blog controversy thusly: first, someone would very delicately, very diplomatically reveal that there was an institutional problem. Said problem would be quoted, described, linked to, and otherwise have its boundaries clearly delineated. Many times, possible and probable solutions to its resolution would be included. But then! The response would be one of redirecting into the personal—a list of reasons why This Person (who either was responsible for the original problem, or who was in a position to mitigate or otherwise alleviate/correct said problem) couldn’t do so. And finally, a further redirection into how This Problem is so much larger than one person, and a reassertion that The Problem has nebulous boundaries that can’t be broken down into more manageable parts for its solution.

And that’s a pattern that we see, time and time again. To reiterate, this perpetuates the standard relationship of feminist leadership to everyday feminists as one of hierarchy, with the leaders having the say. It illustrates why so many women for whom having no say is a perpetual part of life are profoundly alienated from feminist movement and do not identify as feminists.

From your most recent post, one of the most maddening statements to me was:
I am also concerned about the precedent this sets. I think that most of the critiques of Hugo are fair, as are the concerns about a former abuser rising to a level of prominence in feminist spaces — especially given his ongoing issues with women of color and his treatment of younger women. But the reality of the feminist internet is that there is a corner of it that plays the take-down game for sport, and that sees any mistake or imperfection or disagreement as evidence that one is Bad For Feminism and should be permanently sidelined. It’s destructive. It’s something I believe is incredibly bad for feminism as a movement and as an idea, and that’s bad for community-building, and that serves to silence more people than it empowers……I frankly don’t trust a group of people on the internet to always choose the right person from whom to demand blood. Which, again, isn’t to say that I think the focus on Hugo here is misdirected. It is to say that I have a real hesitance to participate, because I dislike take-down culture generally and because I’m not convinced that next time we’ll all be setting our sights on a worthy target.

This hit me like a slap in the face. I found it profoundly dismissive of the very vocal critiques made in the first apologia, during Hugo’s white-knighting, and dismissive of the use of the power of organized, nonviolent feminist resistance via blogging. I don’t recall you being upset when this form of organized resistance was used for your benefit. I don’t recall your opposition when this was used to change Michael Moore’s mind. Why now? Because y’know…..I was around when none other than Salon magazine mustered forces against Blackamazon for daring to say, on her tiny corner of the internet, “Fuck Seal Press”.

It’s always been radical to fight against the status quo; those in power want to keep it, to themselves, and will use any and all means at their disposal to do so. But you know what else is radical? SOLIDARITY. Standing in solidarity with others for justice. Even if/when it doesn’t directly benefit you. Even if doing so causes you to fall from grace with power. Even when acting in solidarity is risky. It is profoundly, unequivocally radical.

Remember my mention of whiteness? One of the things a white supremacist society must continually teach and enforce is that white people must never identify with nonwhite people. Separatism—physical if possible, but always mental. There are various ways and means of getting this message across, but as a very visible person in the feminist movement, surely you must have considered the impact of what your solidarity could do. The message it could send to other white feminists. Perhaps that explains your reluctance. In your post, in your many responses of apologia through the years, I note that you seem to both deny your (considerable) power and express discomfort with wielding it. That really slays me. Feministe is in the big leagues. I’ve got a copy of The Nation magazine at home that featured Feministe on the cover (along with several other heavy-hitters in the left-leaning sphere); I still use it for bragging rights (“wouldja believe they asked me to guest blog?! See! I don’t just mouth off, I’m good at it!). Feministe is a recognized presence in the left, and one that is remembered for standing in feminist opposition to professional male bloggers and journalists who routinely ignored women’s voices and denied our online presence (hence, the Feministe byline, “in defense of the sanctimonious women’s studies set”).

You have the opportunity to stand in solidarity. Or not. But either way, it speaks to where your alliances lay. There isn’t any middle ground.

Please understand—people look to a definitive response from you because your voice carries. It carries a hell of a lot farther in movement feminism than mine ever will. Labor union women still aren’t included in standard versions of feminist history; the work of my union comaris–as is mine–is seen as mere selfish struggle; an individual quest for better pay, benefits, conditions and opportunity that was/is only collective in appearance or by default. Certainly not something that impacts and benefits women as a class. So, our work, our lives, are erased. You have to be a diligent detective to find our herstories.

I’ve been very consistent with my critiques of mainstream feminist movement; one of them was quoted at Racialicious:
“The feminist blogosphere is: young, but not too young (25-35); mostly white (and of northern european extraction); middle to upper-middle class; highly educated (always degreed, usually grad school or law degree); able-bodied and healthy; non-religious (but typically with a Protestant or Jewish background); childfree by choice (also not a caretaker of an elderly or disabled adult); body size from thin to very thin; cisgender; heterosexual; conventionally feminine/pretty; fashionable; not employed in a nontraditional (>25% female participation) workforce; native English speaking (family of origin usually native English speaking also); non-indigenous and several generations removed from immigrant ancestors; raised in a nuclear family (either intact or divorced—but not “unwed” or extended family); lives in a large metropolis; favors capitalism; unmarried/unpartnered (meaning: no formal or legal ties of responsibility to a partner); never incarcerated (no family incarcerated either); and has plenty of personal contact with people in positions of actual power (gets invited to policymaking meetings/summits).”

If I was to rewrite that paragraph today, I’d be more explicit with my inclusion of military women. I was thinking of them in the “nontraditional occupation” category, but ginmar’s been commenting here a lot, and I’ve been thinking that military women deserve a special mention as they so seldom get it elsewhere. Anyway, that’s one of the things that stands out to me in the feminist blogoshere; that there is relatively little mention of servicepeople and veterans. In my environs, veterans are ubiquitous.

I remain a firm believer that our perspective results from our realities. Feministe has been around the block and then some as one of the representative samples of online feminism’s echo chambers. Has even attempted to make that not so by inviting other bloggers into the fold. It never lasts. Other bloggers leave in anger, frustration and hurt because you can’t add new faces to the same framework and expect the narrow backs of individual women to bear the brunt of changing the culture.

My suggestions for moving forward:

• Adding a declarative mission statement to the blog. Who/what is Feministe, and what are this blog’s objectives? How does it plan to reach them? What is the framework for its evolution? What are its obligations to its readers and/or responsibilities to feminist movement?
• Formulating and posting an open, transparent policy on how consensus is built and conflict handled, designed in such a way as to recognize the inherent evolution of the community and how power is exercised within it.
• A broader range of perspective. This ought to be self-explanatory. But it won’t be successful until and unless….
• Tighten up the comments section. Seriously. All the complaint about the hostility endemic within the commentariat on feminist blogs rings hollow when Feministe has been a place where it thrives. I recommend as your model the comment section at Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog. Sure, in order to make something like that work at Feministe would result in fewer hits, but it would reap rewards in making the site a more productive one for discussion. If the moderation was heavier, Feministe could be a place where a broader spectrum of voices could thrive.

I’d also suggest a frank acknowledgement that feminism isn’t just a challenge to the power dynamics from without, but to those within as well. It’s a liberatory movement. A revolutionary movement. A movement that will change the way we relate to one another, ourselves, and the planet. Or not—in which case it’s about nothing, and we’ll have to pack up and move on to a movement that will. With or without you.

But make no mistake—you have power. You have opportunity. Whatever else you do, don’t squander it. Pace.

Anyway. Rant over. I’m going to pour a hot toddy, curl up in the easy chair with a book (Who Fears Death by Nnedi Okorafor), and when 8:00PM rolls around I’m going to watch the boxing matches with my dad. The tumblr experiment will have to wait for another time—-and will probably continue to wait until it’s as easy as wordpress.

Where are these questions about change and accountability taking place? What are the operational backdrops, the stage-settings?

• Christianity—both the religious and cultural practices. That one has a moral obligation to forgive anyone of anything at their request…or even, not at their request. To fail to do so is considered a grievous sin and act of evil. UPDATED: Also, we are all sinners, and all sins are the same in the sight of God (all bad acts are equally bad).
• Brainwashing of oppressed and marginalized individuals and communities to accept their lesser status. “Forgive and forget.” “Water under the bridge.” “Greater reward in forgiveness” (what Joe Hill called “pie in the sky when you die”). The erasure of history and encouragement of historical amnesia. Permeating every facet of a political culture of injustice are various messages to give one’s oppressors continued opportunity to engage in and advance their oppression. The oppressed are called upon to do the work of the oppressor on themselves, lightening the oppressor’s burden once again.
• Calvinism that has filtered through the USian political backdrop—the blessed have power, those who do not are not blessed. Also, there are a limited number of blessed, and who is blessed and who is damned is predestined—no amount of effort can change it. The blessed are not required to respect the dignity of the damned.
• the Protestant Work Ethic—the idea that hard work is good in its own right and that ‘the elect’ are visible through the fruits of their work.
• Individualism—the rugged individual, standing on his or her own ground, unaffected by the masses, more powerful than the larger social forces surrounding him or her.
• Objectivism—the extolling of selfishness as the highest human virtue and the near-worship of laissez-faire capitalism.
• and along with all that, kyriarchal value (already reinforced as intrinsic) permeates our everyday physical lives. Housing, neighborhoods, school districts, healthcare, grocery stores, the infrastructure of cities, the goods and food one can afford to buy, existance of or access to the commons—all this and more serve to remind individuals and communities exactly where they stand in relation to others.

The injured are constantly being asked to cede power to their injurers. Taken to task when they refuse to do so. Make no mistake; this is the operating framework. And it is within this framework that the injured are being asked (yet again) to question themselves when it comes to forgiveness. To ask themselves if they “actually believe people can change”. What the parameters of accountability look like. They are being asked to do the work—work that benefits the injurer, often at the direct expense of the injured. They are also asked to consider these questions as separate and apart from the social/political dynamics that are inseparable from their lives. As individual questions, apart from the collective structures where they originate. This is a toxic dynamic. It violates the basic rules of survival.

In the spirit of prioritizing the injured, rather than the injurers:

• No one is entitled to your forgiveness.
• It is not immoral to refuse to forgive.
• It is not immoral to protect yourself.
• Refusing to engage with those who have harmed you is a viable and healthy form of self-protection.
• Refusing to engage with those who share the same toxic traits as those who have harmed you, (especially when they have a track record of harming others, and most especially when that track record shows a distinct pattern of targeting people that resemble you), is a viable and healthy form of self-protection.
• Questioning the narratives you have been taught, and discerning what (and who) promotes your health and survival from what (and who) does not, is a viable and healthy form of self-protection.

Transformative Justice is a liberatory practice of healing individuals and communities. The process of transformative justice is not placed in the individual setting, but in the context of state and systemic oppression and violence. It prioritizes the needs of oppressed and marginalized people in an unjust system; it does not require vulnerable people to relinquish their human need for safety and security. Most important to remember is that much of the work on transformative justice in the United States was envisioned and developed by women of color in response to the prison-industrial complex. So, when asking questions of accountability, one has to keep in mind who is accountable to whom. In that light, why is it contingent upon marginalized people and communities to enact and enforce accountability from those with greater power who utilize and exploit the aforementioned state and systemic oppression for their own ends? How, exactly, can that happen? With the pre-existing structures still intact?

She lived up to this image, and down to it as well. For the same woman who was used to putting others first, often put herself last. She bought a set of fine china when she was in nursing school that to my knowledge, has never been dined upon. She had some beautiful clothes that were seldom (or never) worn. Same with jewelry. She was all about taking care of business, and not much on pomp and ceremony. Frankly, she was hard to buy gifts for. But…she had a lifelong love for action movies—even westerns—anything that had suspense, thrills, speed, gunplay, strategy, and most of all—where the heroes won at the end, and the villains got what was coming to them.

And it was with that thought, that several years ago, I got her some films for Mother’s Day; among them, The Long Kiss Goodnight. It’s an action-packed spy movie featuring Geena Davis, who plays an amnesiac kindergarten teacher with a very interesting past as a top CIA assassin, and Samuel L. Jackson, a disgraced former-cop-become-private-eye who helps her research her past and rediscover herself—much to the shock of her former colleagues, the architects of a false-flag operation designed to create a faux-”terrorist” threat (with real explosives) in order to secure greater funding for their department.

It had everything my mother loved in a movie: politics, intrigue, fast-paced action, killer fight scenes, revenge, redemption, the requisite good guys winning and bad guys dying, and a badass female hero….who wasn’t just a hero, but also Somebody’s Mother.

She watched this movie all the time. More often than The Godfather, another of her favorites. Every time she played it, she lived vicariously through “Charli Baltimore”, the fierce, never-say-die heroine of the film. Charli, who cheated certain death several times throughout the story. Who above all, fought for her little girl. Charli didn’t just save the day; she was the path through which Samuel L. Jackson’s “Mitch” redeemed himself as one of the good guys. Charli was tough, resourceful, and a tough taskmaster; one of the more salient lines in the film comes from her stern lecture to her daughter while teaching her to ice-skate: “Life is pain. Get used to it!!” Charli taught her daughter well, and realized this when she handed her the exact tool Charli needed to make yet another of her great escapes; hidden in her daughter’s arm cast—the cast she wore from the fracture she received ice-skating, from the fall that prompted the lecture.

Poet Maya Angelou once said, “There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.” My mother didn’t tell many of her stories; omertá was her modus operandi. I think on some level The Long Kiss Goodnight wasn’t just entertainment for her; it presented an authoritative statement on motherhood, and the intensity of a mother’s love. The lengths to which we must go for its defense.

G’night, Ma.

501c3s will not bring structural or institutional change. 5 million people will. And the question is not “should you have a job” or be a segregationist on high refusing to engage in any unclean impure politcs at all—the question is—how can we rethink 501c3s as “movement.” and how can we reach the goal of 5 million people fighting for gender liberation and radical transformative change.

from this
riffing off of this

THIS.

What pissed me off about the OP:

1. the overarching sense of entitlement.
2. the naivety. Come on.
3. the assumption that more social media equals more action. No, no it doesn’t.
4. the same old, same old lack of questioning one’s methodology. A movement isn’t relevant until and unless it is accountable to the people it is supposedly dedicated to. Conducting the same business in digital code doesn’t magically transform it into something more radical.
5. I’ll be impressed when I see how many of those Twitter followers will not only go a day without pay to be at a demonstration, but will bring someone else with them. Movements aren’t constructed on paper or on the net. They are composed of the warm bodies of people.
6. you prove your worth by putting skin in the game. Not on a short-term basis, but over time. The more time you put in, the more others know they can rely on you, even when it costs you….that’s what earns you respect.
7. yes, it is going to cost you. It will cost you your time. It will cost you money. It will cost you jobs and other opportunities. It will cost you in your social life. It will change the way others think of you. It will change the way you think of yourself. It will change your life. But rest assured, it ain’t easy, and it will take a piece out of you. If it doesn’t, UR DOIN’ IT RONG.

We have a phrase in the labor movement: “swivel-chair leader”. Its pretty self-explanatory.

Rally in solidarity with Wisconsin workers, February 26th, Springfield IL. My favorite part starts around 8:19, with Dave Burns. All of us IBEW folk in the back were just waiting for him to come out with a quotable quote, and he finally delivered: “Without organized labor, we’d all be pickin’ shit in the dirt!!” Right on!

To further answer Amanda’s parting question, I made a list of all various things that people I know are juggling. Younger people and those without children aren’t juggling as many. People between the ages of 40-50 are juggling at least ten of these items:

• second job or side hustle
• night classes (for current job or to change jobs)
• caretaking of child(ren)
• transportation of child(ren)
• caretaking for elderly/ill/disabled parents
• caretaking for ill, disabled or injured partner
• activist/political work (labor, anti-racist/POC movement, LGBT, environment, etc.)
• cultural or artistic pursuits
• exercise
• volunteering for child(ren)’s activities
• volunteering in community (homeless shelter, rape crisis center, etc.)
• 12-step programs or other mental health therapy
• religious practice or other “centering” practice—something to regroup, reconnect with the flow of life. I really hesitate to say “spiritual” because that’s alienating to atheists, but I hesitate to say “emotional work” because that carries the connotation of being solely inner-directed rather than both inner- and outer-directed. I’m thinking things like meditation or walking in silence in nature, or a nice long jog—something that seems to take the “I” out of the equation and make it more a “we,” y’know? If you don’t, that’s cool too.
• home or personal errands (grocery, post office, pharmacy, etc.)
• home maintenance/projects (cleaning, cutting grass, gardening, painting, fixing things, etc.)
• managing one’s own chronic condition or pain (most often work-related; sometimes genetic)
• and somehow, someway trying to find time to socialize with friends/family, or enjoy some downtime entertainment

That’s what people are juggling. I’m juggling 14 of those items each week. That, and the transportation time it takes to do so. Most people my age are struggling with a dozen of ‘em (that “sandwich generation” thing). Yeah, I could give up some things in order to find more time to cook….but not really. I need everything I’m doing, or I wouldn’t be doing it. What isn’t rewarding: having lots of drive time. I wish my geographic circle was smaller. But….I need the activities themselves for physical and mental self care. It matters. And if in order to accommodate what I deem the essentials to my schedule I use takeout or frozen ravioli or something…..I’m making the command decision that right now, I value that meeting, or that class, or that social activity (either mine, my daughter’s or both) more than I value home cooking. And I value home cooking a lot.

I thought about snarkily commenting: “what would it take to get more USians to eat home cooking? Get them all a wife.” You know? Because really—if I could cut a couple things out of my schedule it would be the schlepping my daughter around to places, the errand-running, and home maintenance (I’d also ditch the thyroid problems if I could). Then I would have no scutwork, just the meaningful stuff.

But that’s the problem. The whole “why aren’t you cooking” question is framed as an individual problem, when the causes are systemic and affect everyone. The real solutions aren’t in some intricate dance of advance planning and time management in the kitchen. The real solutions are collective, not individual.

This particular post riffs off of Mark Bittman’s earlier post decrying MickeyD’s new oatmeal offering, in short, “why the hell are all these lazy people eating overly-sugared, overly-processed oatmeal at McD’s, when it’s so damn cheap and easy to make it at home?” Bittman is correct in that oatmeal is easy to make at home, and that marketing is to blame in making drive-through oatmeal more attractive than even the instant packets that take 30 seconds in the microwave, but….he’s overlooking a whole lotta obvious. Lemme explain.

There are a lot of good conversations to be had about food: what we eat; why we eat it; who grows it and what their working conditions are; where we buy it; how we prepare it; whether we have access to it; how much it costs; what is subsidized and what that means at the grocery store; the heritage(s) and foodways that tell the story(ies) of our people(s); whose foodways are recognized and given primacy (either culturally or within the framework of global capitalism); the impact of food production methods on the environment and bodies of the workers; how food impacts our physical health and our moods; how the course of our lives impacts the simple act of cooking and eating; the images, sounds, smells and stories that are passed along to us and our loved ones every mealtime.

But that wasn’t the conversation being held there. Or a number of other places I’ve been to in the blogosphere in the recent past. Mostly, there’s a recitation of what I call (in general) the “justification pantomime”—the verbal proving of “I’m not one of those people; I do xyz!!!” Y’know, the dance of moral virtue, lest the suspicion be….that you are, indeed, one of those people. And depending on the size of the blog and number of commenters, the conversation can play out with just the back-patting of congratulations after confession time (provided that one gave enough proof of supererogatory behavior)…..

or, the well is poisoned by the Inquisition showing up (unlike in Monty Python, everyone in the blogosphere expects the Inquisition. Or should). Unlike the actual Inquisition, online heretics speak freely. Now, while I generally like to support heresy, in this venue, it just seems to provide fuel for fools. Keep the trolls under the bridge, and don’t poke ‘em with a stick.

Anyway. Not everyone speaks the same food language. Our experience colors our perceptions, our behavior, our mindset—but also our concrete reality. I don’t often respond to food threads; there’s just too much of a gap between my life and the lives of the frequent flyers on the feminist blogosphere. And for something as important as food, I want something more than an argument (or dismissal). The last good posts I read on food were Eating Bread and Been Thinking About Food.

Don’t get me wrong; I love cooking. LOVE it. Been cooking meals before I hit the double-digits. Useta pull up a chair to the stove when I was a kid, so I could stand next to my dad while he cooked sugu. Adding the spices in one at a time (hey, back in the seventies, they didn’t sell “italian seasoning” in Bumfuck, Downstate Illinois). Taste-testing. Maaannn, it was like alchemy. I thought I was learning the secrets of the universe in that pot. And God!!, the smell. I can smell it now, just thinking about it. That was part of the ritual, putting your face over the pot and breathing deeply, inhaling the rich essences of garlic, oregano, basil, thyme, marjoram, and rosemary. When the sauce was blended just right, it was time to let it simmer while the pasta was put on to boil. It was really important to get it al dente. (I never ordered pasta at restaurants then. Everyone else screwed it up—overcooked, mushy noodles with no “bite”. Gaahh! Not to mention really nasty-ass, sugary-sweet, sauce.) Before I left grade school I was asking for cookbooks as birthday and xmas presents. I discovered I had a gift for cooking, and that gift was recognized and supported by my family (and anyone else that got close enough to get invited to dinner).

I didn’t think of cooking as a gendered activity. In my world, men were as likely to cook as women. Especially dinner, since women were more likely to work the second shift (not the “second shift” as in home chores after the workday—I mean, 4:00PM – 12:00AM or thereabouts). I was well into grade school before I discovered the culture-clash of who was “supposed” to be in the kitchen. And well, “give me a child until he is seven…”, I already had my mind made up. No, what I thought was that cooking was an adult activity. Whoever was the chef was in charge of dinner. Got to decide what was on the table. And got to decide exactly how it would taste. No ifs, ands, or buts. Like most kids, I couldn’t wait to be an adult. And one way of getting that adult-like status was….through cooking. I noticed two things right away: the surge of self-esteem from compliments on my cooking, and the sense of accomplishment and power from a job well done.

Power. Or control, however you want to put it. Being in charge.

And that’s what the Bittmans, Pollans, Waters, Olivers and their kind just don’t get about the appeal of carryout. What’s really being sold, more than the new take on “health” food, or “convenience”, or even “status” or “normalcy”…..it’s having someone else do the scutwork for a change. Like I’ve said before, I love cooking. It’s my creative outlet. It’s in my blood and bones; and indelible part of who I am. But there is plenty of scutwork involved.

About that marketing: Starbucks marketed itself as the place to get a good cup of coffee cheaper than at the bistros. They set up shop all across the US, to the horror of urban hipsters who were more than willing to let the masses drink overheated percolated cheap coffee. And now…anyone can get a decent cup, anywhere. The marketing team at McD’s decided to go for the low-hanging fruit and advertise themselves as being the cheaper alternative to Starbucks.

What never gets mentioned in the blogosphere food wars: the destruction of the commons. Food deserts are a part of the fall of the inner cities (and so is suburban-style zoning and gentrification), but the destruction of the commons has been a part of the urban landscape for so long its existance is taken for granted. It’s telling that so many of the commentariat begin their justification pantomime with stories of how convenient it is to go out for food or coffee; a chance to read or chat or meet folks—but no! not at That Corporate Place!!

I’ve been around for awhile. Long enough to see middle Americans become familiar with my foodways. They recognize my vegetables now. They certainly sell more of them at the grocery store. A lot more of them prefer coffee my way. That’s been good for me; makes shopping so much easier (and cheaper). I remember kids standing around me at lunchtime like I was on exhibit; pointing and saying, “eww! gross!! what’s that?!!” Now, they want the recipe. *smile* But….along with that, school lunches have changed. A hell of a lot more kids don’t bring lunch; many of them because they’re getting free or reduced price lunch at school (welcome to the midwest, the land of the permafrost economy). Remember the Reagan administration’s insistence that ketchup is a vegetable? I do. Now flash forward thirty years: the lunchrooms at school don’t have real kitchens anymore—just warming ovens for the processed frozen foodstuff. Fast Food Nation has more background on changes on the wherefores and whys of the changing school meals; all part and parcel of early marketing and forming the next generation of processed food consumers—literally shaping their palates. A captive audience.

It wasn’t that long ago I mentioned (again) my well-worn critique of the lack of diversity of every sort in the feminist blogosphere. A narrow bandwidth of opinion means intersectional discussions are off the table. I’m an inveterate food snob, but don’t call me a foodie. Food is serious. Serious as cancer. This isn’t some pleasant pasttime, subject to the whims of fashion for me. Whole books have been written about the paths these trajectories follow in my world. My personal background provides the political answer to Bittman’s question.

Except….I don’t want to answer it as if I have to explain myself for not living up to a standard set by people who have more advantages than I do when it comes to managing time and money. I reserve the power to set my own standards, value my own time, balance my own needs, desires, responsibilities, dreams. That there are corporations that are poised to co-opt that for a profit still doesn’t negate how essential it is to recognize my limits: where they can be extended, where they can be shifted, where they can be accepted and honored.

I want to extend the conversation on food; not have it be the same old word salad with tired dressing. Something worth sinking teeth into.