Wait? Cooking has a gender?

Women were originally looked at as the primary stay at home workers meaning that they would do all the household tasks including cooking, cleaning, etc. However, since the intrusion of men on an act that most women used to prove their love, value, and care there have been almost divisions between who is the more dominant in this act. Somehow it is perceived that similar to any non-household job, cooking is some form of an indicator as to what gender is the better in comparison to the other. Jessamyn Neuhaus in Lady Like Lunches and Manly Meals highlights how for men there were specific guidelines that had to be followed by men to secure the “masculinity” of the hobby of cooking. Just that statement in itself shows exactly my point on how cooking is some indicator of which gender is better.

 

In the modern world, there are all these false stigmas that a man’s meal is large and thus requires more preparation and components. Women on the other hand have dainty meals of salads, fruits, etc. However, anyone who has cooked knows that this is nothing more than someone’s humorous ploy on dietary habits that has extended too long over time. If such were the case, ironically, how would one even justify deserts? A man has a cake, while a woman has a cookie? It’s just inconceivable how one can try to support such dragged out concepts that can’t be seen naturally.

 

I mean for the sake of all that is good, look at this meme. In it a man’s cooking requires something already packaged. And this person is so foreign to the act that he can't even identify that this is what the directions want him to do.

 

In this picture it baffles me because someone genuinely believes that cooking and the art of cooking is based on gender. Whether something tastes good or not has nothing to do with what kind of person made it as opposed to the culinary skill of the person who made it.

 

Now This, THIS IS BEAUTIFUL!!

 

I would dare to say that this sums it up nicely wouldn't you?

Does the Organic really mean Healthier and/or Better?

Organic food in many cases does taste better, and studies do in fact show that there is some form of psychological bliss after eating food labeled organic. In today’s world, organic has somehow been shifted to something that is automatically healthier than what is made through factory farming. However, just because it is organic doesn’t mean that it is the golden ticket since organic products are normally more expensive making accessibility harder, and they aren’t always significantly healthier than your average product. Thus, one cannot say that organic food is the better choice especially when the result of the organic and natural farming isn’t something that everyone can indulge in.

I wish to start by merely stating what an organic product is, at least from what is in the local stores. An organic food is something that is grown naturally without pesticides and other contaminants used in factory farming methods, yet it doesn’t mean that the content that is labeled organic is healthier. As provided by mayoclinic.org organic products are divided in the following three methods:

1.)    100% Organic and gets a seal of approvals

2.)    95% Organic and gets a seal of approval

3.)    70% Organic gets “Made with Organic Ingredients”

The major discrepancy that I wish to point out is that people pay these expensive prices for something that isn’t even guaranteed to be 100% fine for your body. Additionally, after looking at a Stanford study it became apparent that organic is only 30% Less Likely to contain these harmful pesticides meaning that it could easily be still factory farmed and still labeled because of one or two pesticides being evaded which either way would have minimal impact on human health. Moreover, as stated on the site, Most of what was tested still fell below government standards for safety meaning that it isn’t even changing the diet of Americans by even a small margin.

Next, let’s dabble into the price game of organic products. Firstly, in more online research at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN website, it was stated that organic products are at sometimes triple the price of conventional products. However, it definitely has an impact and I wish to highlight this by telling an excerpt from a trip to a local Buffalo Wegmans.

During this journey we noticed many conventional products in abundance but I decided to travel to the produce section since it is what most immediately try to use as an example to prove organic is “better”. Organic produce for something small like bananas was only $.20 so this could be used as a counter to my point. However, another product and perhaps the most drastic was a package of strawberries. As opposed to a conventional pack of strawberries, organic were $3.00 higher which would add up for consumers, chefs who use it, etc. This is only one example but when traveling to any store, it can be seen that the organic products are certainly more hefty on the wallet and don’t seem to be worth it for the returns.

While I will admit that Organic food is somewhat better, what is defined as organic in the average local store has a higher chance of still containing harmful pesticides, and certainly can’t be called a “ticket” since more people won’t be able to afford it as opposed to those who can.

http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-home/en/

(Tcdailyplanet.net)

Mayoclinic.org

Links for Online Research Above, Very Sorry But I Neglected To Remember to Document

Media's Influence on the Culinary Arts

     MasterChef similar to any cooking show out at the current time highlights the beauty of dishes while displaying the precision and difficulty that goes into making them. While making this style of cooking into a competition, it still is able to display the challenges faced by each and every individual chef from the preparation process to the actual baking, frying, etc. As if the rhetoric in the original MasterChef wasn’t enough they have a similar branch highlighting adolescents as they attempt to reach the same feats of these conditioned chefs on the original version of the show.

     Let’s begin with why this show is successful and appealing to its audience. For one thing most of the dishes are judged for the visual appeal of it, and how “pretty” it looks to the judges. Moreover, on the specific episode linked they don’t just have food as an item for taste, but it is supposed to make full usage of all your senses to be able to wholesomely enjoy the dish. Thus, we see the ploys by the adult chefs attempting to use non-cooking materials such as electronics, firewood, liquid nitrogen, and the sort just to help their dish to evoke an emotion from the judges. Normally, when thinking of a dish, one doesn’t think of any of these aspects of a meal, all we tend to think of is what dish would taste good while remaining nutritionally fit.

     Although it isn’t included in my original discussion board post, I would like to ramble here for a moment on the junior version of this series. The overall message I got from this version is difficulty. One can watch the original version of the series and see how the contestants are being drained physically and mentally by their challenges. However, in the junior series this is displayed through what would appear and fit for children which is in having to walk away from the stove or dish to take a breather and/or refocus. This show compiled with the original has a more verbose portrayal of the actual difficulty and another ploy which I found in the junior series more so than the original is the shift in music. Whenever a child chef faces difficulty the music shifts almost immediately as it is introduced, while in the original this is primarily heard as the show moves into commercial breaks. Although, both still succeed in making the craft of cooking seen in far more complicated circumstances as opposed to what the common folk would think of it today.