Mark Bittman is ending his "The Minimalist" column today

You may be aware that we at femonomics love Mark Bittman.  Farewell, old friend.
Here are some links to his best recipes: A gallery of recipe videos.  His 25 favorite dishes.

Recipe Fridays: Oven fries or breakfast potatoes

Mmmm...potatoes.  These oven fries even won over my three-year-old niece, who loves french fries with lots of ketchup.  "I want another potato fry!" she insisted of these much healthier and more wholesome spin on the original.

Oven fries
2-3 Idaho potatoes (other varieties like red potatoes or yukon gold are great, especially for the breakfast version)
2-3 tablespoons olive oil
1 pressed or grated garlic clove (or 1/2 t garlic powder), 1/2 t chopped fresh or dry rosemary (if dry, mash with oil with the back of a spoon to extract flavor), salt, and pepper.

Slice potatoes into fry-like shapes.  For wedges, cut in half lengthwise (through the thicker part if not round, resulting in two more flat halves), then cut lengthwise in halves again, then cut each half into 3-4 pieces.  For fries, slice lengthwise into 1/2 inch thick pieces, then slice lengthwise the other direction to make sticks.  If not cooking immediately, place in water to prevent browning.

Toss fries with olive oil and seasoning, and place in oven pre-heated to 425 degrees on metal baking pan.  Cook, stirring every 10 minutes, until fries are brown and crisp outside, soft inside (20-30 minutes).  If they are browning too quickly, turn oven down.  If they are getting soft but not yet brown, drizzle with more oil, toss to coat, and turn oven to 450 or place (briefly!) under broiler.

Breakfast potato version
Cut potatoes into chunks instead of spears (just cut through the spears crosswise).  Replace seasoning with 1 t paprika, 1/2 t turmeric, 1/2 t garlic powder, dash cayenne, and salt and pepper.  Once done baking, toss with sliced green onions.

Recipe Fridays: raw kale, beet, and orange salad

I like raw kale salad.  It's healthy, it's easy, it tastes delicious.  My favorite version is still an Italian-style take, but a little variety is always nice.  The one below is perfect for winter produce.

Raw kale salad

1 bunch kale
1 large navel orange (or several smaller oranges)
1 medium beet
Walnuts (optional)
Lemon juice, olive oil, sea salt, and fresh pepper

Wash kale thoroughly. Cut off stems, and, if you wish, cut out the stem part of the larger leaves (I leave it in). Tear or chop the kale into less than 1 inch pieces (I gather all leaves and cut into strips, then cut again the other direction a few times).  Put sliced kale in bowl and drizzle with olive oil.  Squeeze 1/2 lemon over kale; sprinkle with salt.  With your hands, massage the lemon/salt/oil mix into the kale until leaves begin to soften and turn bright green.

Wash the beet and scrape the outside to remove rough skin.  Remove stem and root section.  Cut beet in half vertically.  Slice each half thinly, then cut slices into matchsticks.  Peel orange using knife to remove as much pith as possible.  Cut orange in slices (going across sections, not between), and split slices into 4 pieces.  Toss beet pieces and orange with kale.  Grind in fresh pepper, and add more salt, lemon juice, or olive oil as needed.  A splash of balsamic vinegar is also nice.  If desired, top with broken walnut pieces.  (A sliced avocado also works).  Enjoy!

Jezebel publishes piece advocating rape (Or, OMFG Jezebel WTF)

For anyone who has read this article (Huge, massive, billboard-sized trigger warning), let me just say that I am so very sorry.  I am sorry that you, who may or may not be a victim of sexual assault, but if you're not has probably been on the other end of sexual violence or attempted sexual violence at some point in your life, had to read some scumbag's self-justifying rape apologism, all the time wondering whether this made YOU less safe in a world with these men, and those who publish them; whether this meant YOU should feel empowered by your sexual assault, even though you feel like ice inside instead; whether this meant that the world is really as hostile as this website where you used to feel at home.

What really got me was how very much like an assault it felt to read THAT piece on THAT blog.  To look at the headline "American guy in Paris freed from idea of consent" and think that Jezebel was going to tear him apart.  Then to click the link, and start reading a first person narrative of someone advocating unwanted touching and kissing of women in bars as "liberating" (for the m-fing women!) and getting a girl drunk as embracing life, and wondering when this clever satire was going to turn and reveal how wrong-headed this sleazeball logic was.  And then to get to the bottom and realize that none of it was a joke?  That one of my favorite websites had just actually given a platform to a rape apologist, without unpacking his argument, offering a counterpoint or at least warning its readership that the website had done a complete 180 on what kind of content to publish, and they should probably take their morning coffee and bagel elsewhere?

Read this comment thread for an incredibly sorry explanation for said behavior, and some very articulate explanations as to why said sorry explanation is complete and total b***sh**.  Read Sady's historical take on said b***sh** here.

Then please go check out one of the other excellent feminist websites that are out there.  Fighting the a**holes.  Instead of publishing them.

Google launches seriously cool boutiques.com

 Google has launched a new fashion website, that allows you to shop in dozens of celebrity, designer, blogger, and (soon) user-generated e-boutiques.  As the NYTimes says in a piece that sounds like an ad for the site:

Boutiques.com has so many capabilities and components that even Google engineers have a hard time qualifying it. It is a collection of hundreds of virtual boutiques merchandised — or, in the new parlance, “curated” — by designers, retailers, bloggers, celebrities and regular folks. You can shop in the style of, say, the actress Carey Mulligan or Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen — among the celebrities who signed up for the launch — or you can build your own boutique and amass followers who can comment on your taste.
...In every boutique on the site, there are dozens of additional choices inspired by a designer’s or celebrity’s style — generated by algorithms — with product photos that are much larger and sharper than on other shopping sites.

Yes, it's part of the unrealistic fashion industry that wants us to spend $495 on "investment" jeans.  Ultimately, it's a way to change the model for how people shop for fashion, in a time when high-end designers are finally feeling the pinch of recession (luxury goods held strong for a while in the real-estate bust).  But what I like about it is the potential for it to become a sort of fashion twitter.  Each boutique creator has followers and can follow other boutiques.  That means that if you have impeccable taste and have always wanted to open a store, now you can with zero start-up cost.  I can imagine users who scour the internet for beautiful, unique items at great prices amassing thousands of followers, a la twitter.  Moreover, that means if I find a few boutique proprietors who I like, someone else can do my online shopping for me!  [Note, I tried out the feature, and it seems that google might limit the items you can put in your boutique to what it has in its "catalogue." If this remains the case, the potential for bargain-scouring might not be as great as I hoped.]

Special google magic also means that fashion searches that usually yield frustrating results are now going to work well, at least according to the Times:

And that may be Boutiques.com’s ultimate game-changer — how precisely it analyzes your preferences to give you what you requested. As many online shoppers know, search engines tend to give you stuff you don’t really want. A request for fern-colored shoes might yield fern shoes, plus fern-print blouses. But, as two experienced online shoppers found when they tested the site earlier this week at Google’s New York office, if you ask for cobalt blue shoes, you get them. And if you refine your preferences with a click or two, you get even more specific styles.

Time will tell whether the site lives up to its potential for fashion democracy.  In the meantime, I'll be doing some shopping in Carey Mulligan's boutique.

Male privilege alert: Men's inviolable right to violate women's bodies

Today Gawker has a post about the alleged sexual assault of a Google employee at a tech conference by a Twitter engineer.  Gawker's headline reads "Googler accuses Twitter engineer of sexual assault on her blog."  Right there, we're off to a bad start.  Because her blog post is not, really, at all about "accusing" someone of sexual assault, but rather stating the simple fact that she was assaulted (he put his hand down her pants after she turned down his advances), naming the person who did it, and saying rather eloquently that it's part of a broader problem of guys excusing their bad behavior based on the setting:

It’s not the first time something like this has happened to me, at all. It’s not the first time it’s happened to me at a tech conference. But it is the first time I’ve spoken out about it in this way, because I’m tired of the sense that some idiot can ruin my day and never have to answer for it. I’m tired of the fear. I’m tired of people who think I should wear something different. I’m tired of people who think I should avoid having a beer in case my vigilance lapses for a moment. I’m tired of people who say that guys can’t read me right and I have to read them, and avoid giving the wrong impression.
...It is not my job to avoid getting assaulted. It is everyone else’s job to avoid assaulting me. Dozens of guys succeeded at that job, across the week. In the pub, in the stairwell, on the MARTA, in my bedroom.
One guy failed, and it’s his fault.

The commenters make the bad start even worse, by (typically) questioning her behavior (which, in a move that makes me want to give her a medal, she bravely documented), attire, and decision to name her assaulter.  The author of the Gawker article feels compelled to pull out the "Innocent until proven guilty" refrain, and laments that the victim in the case couldn't vent her trauma without naming the perp.  But why should she?  "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really apply to the victim in the case since, to her, there's already pretty clear-cut evidence that the person at hand is guilty.  Remember, this happened to her.  It's the legal system that's meant to reserve judgment.  Moreover, if you think it was "tasteless" of her to name the guy, or some other BS the commenters are spewing, ask yourself whether you would not do the very same thing if a crime were committed against you: If your house was broken into by a neighbor, and you wanted to blog about it, wouldn't one of your purposes surely be to warn others that this neighbor isn't to be trusted?  This is not a case of kiss and tell--it's a case of a victim, simply and without malice, documenting her assault.

Recipe Fridays: Eggplant with ginger and tomatoes

One major cuisine I've failed to incorporate into my cooking repertoire is Indian food.  It just seems like there's such a high startup cost!  In order to make anything tasty, you need a billion spices, and it still turns out much worse than the carryout you could have gotten in 1/10th of the time. (To be honest, Chinese food probably seems the same way to many people, but since I grew up with it, I find it more manageable.  I think ethnic cuisines have a high fixed cost - low variable cost structure.  Someone should write a paper on this.)  However, there's one dish I make that's vaguely Indian inspired that also happens to be super easy, and turn out delicious every time.  So if you, like me, have an irrational phobia of Indian cooking, try whipping this recipe up for all (ok, most) of the satisfaction with none of the hassle.

Eggplant with ginger and tomatoes

• 2 large eggplants
• 2 large or 4 small tomatoes
• 1/2 onion
• 1 thumb-sized piece of ginger
• Vegetable oil
• Salt, pepper, and chile flakes to taste

Heat 4 tablespoons of oil in a large pot.  Chop the onion finely, and add to the oil.  Without skinning, cut the eggplant into 2-inch chunks.  When the onion is translucent, add the eggplant and saute until the eggplant is brown in places.  Chop the ginger very finely, and add to pot, sauteing for 2 minutes longer.  Turn heat down to medium-low, roughly chop the tomatoes, add to pan, and cover.  Cook, stirring occasionally, for at least 30 minutes, or until each piece of eggplant is soft.  You may wish to add more oil, or a couple tablespoons of water if mixture begins to stick.  The eggplant tastes best with lots of oil and when left to cook for 45 minutes to an hour, but that depends on your time and nutritional constraints!  Add salt, fresh pepper, and chile to taste.  Enjoy with rice, or, when cooked for a long time, spread on crusty bread.

Femonomics crowd-sourcing: Helping a friend in an abusive relationship

Scenario: You have a friend.  Maybe you've just met.  Maybe you've known her for a long time.  Either way, she trusts you, and you care about her.  One night--maybe it's the alcohol, maybe it's that she's tired of waiting for his calls--she opens up to you.  She tells you a story so heartbreaking, that your tears flow just as freely as hers.  Her boyfriend hits her.  He's put her in the hospital.  He's left her by the side of the road with no money for a bus home.  He dictates who she talks to and when.  She's been cut off from her friends.  It's making her sick.  Maybe you know the guy--maybe he even seems like a perfect gentleman--or maybe you don't, but you've never even seen a hint of what she's telling you before tonight.  Looking into her tear-stained face, you know why she's telling you.  She's worried if she doesn't get away now, he will kill her.  And you know it too.  So together, you make a plan.  You engineer her escape.  You tell her it's going to be hard, it's going to hurt, that she'll want to go back.  She says she knows all this.  She's ready.  You turn off her phone, together you pack a bag, maybe you take her to a friend's house, maybe she stays with you, maybe you find a hotel.  I'm helping her, you think.  I can save this girl.  She looks at you, grateful.  Together, you feel strong.

And then, suddenly, just like flipping a switch, she changes her mind.  Maybe it's the next day, maybe it's only an hour later.  Maybe she's talked to him, heard his apologies.  She wants to go back.  She needs him.  She tells you nothing she told you is true.  He doesn't hit her, she says.  They just fight sometimes.  He's flawed, but she loves him.  She wants her phone, she wants to go.  Don't block her way.  You look her in the eye.  Tell me he's never hit you, you say.  He's never hit me.  Tell me he's never left you by the side of the road.  Never.  Put you in the hospital?  Never.  Told you who you can talk to?  Never.  I just wanted attention, she says.  Thanks for your concern.  Now let me leave.

Recipe Fridays: How to cook (and eat) Zambian food

The staple Zambian food is N’shima, a cooked maize product similar to grits or polenta. It’s dense and highly caloric, thanks to the cooking process by which a small amount of maize meal is cooked into a porridge, then additional meal is beaten in until the N’shima is thick and sticky. There are two kinds of maize meal, or mealy-meal, from which N’shima is made: Refined meal, called “Breakfast”, and whole meal, called “Roller” (pronounced Rollah). N’shima is eaten with a variety of “relishes”, such as vegetables, small dried fish (kapenta), beans, and/or meat with gravy. The major Zambian vegetables are: Rape, a dark green, slightly bitter leaf similar to chard; Chinese cabbage, a slightly lighter colored and more crisp leaf; Chabwawa (pronounced almost like Chihuahua the dog), pumpkin leaves, which are thick and often sandy if not washed enough; Kalembla, pointy, sometimes star-shaped leaves which can be slimy if over-cooked; and Bondwe, basil-shaped leaves with a distinctive fragrance. These vegetables are usually cooked with tomato and onion, and sometimes in a groundnut (peanut) stew called V’sachy.

Zambians eat with their hands, but this is certainly not an excuse for poor hygiene or table manners. Washing hands before and after meals is mandatory, and you’ll find most Zambians somehow keep their hands clean throughout the entire affair. This is managed by the process of taking a golf ball-size lump of n’shima, rolling it into a ball, and flattening it with the thumb before picking up any food. The n’shima and the thumb together are used to pick up vegetables and sauce, leaving the rest of the hand clean. For tearing apart meat and fish you will have to use your hand—but only one. The other rests on the table clean. Westerners seen grabbing food directly off the plate by the handful are considered just as uncouth here as they would be back home, so be warned—eating with your hands isn’t as simple as it seems.

Below are some Zambian recipes, starting with those that are most transferable to Western grocery availability.

Unlocking the puzzle: HIV in East Africa

Let me ask you this: Do you believe patterns of sexual behavior are the primary determinant of rates of HIV infection in the world?  If a country has more HIV, does that mean more people are having more unprotected sex with more partners?

Personally, I don't believe the above statement, at least without major qualifications, but there are plenty of people (and plenty of people in the HIV/AIDS advocacy community) who do.  What I would say, is that countries with higher infection rates probably provide the virus with more opportunities for transmission--perhaps in the form of unprotected sex, but also in the form of overall poor health, additional untreated infections, possibly lower rates of circumcision, and other so-called "open windows" (to borrow a phrase from Elizabeth Pisani) into our normally protected bodies.

On the other hand, I am also troubled by how HIV rates could be so high in relatively well-off East African countries (such as Botswana) and so low in equally poor Latin American countries.  What's the missing variable?  One theory that I've heard advanced is that East African societies tend to favor concurrent sexual relationships, rather than serially monogamous ones, which is more conducive to HIV transmission.  The idea is that HIV is most infectious after you've been recently infected, so if you have sex with someone for several months, become infected, and then start a new relationship a few months later, you're less likely to transmit the disease than if you have an ongoing sexual relationship that involves multiple instances of unprotected sex with two people during the same time period.  But is it the case that East Africans have more concurrent sexual relationships than people in other countries?  Honestly, I don't know.  Feasibly, it seems like something you could find out by examining DHS surveys, but I don't know of anyone who's done this.  So in the absence of facts, let's at least talk about why that impression exists.

Femonomics reads the internet: Thank you Obama, leave Shelley alone, pro-choice heartbreak

Obama spoke out in support of the "Ground Zero Mosque", which as Gawker points out (in a hilarious piece on potential "compromises") could more accurately be called the "The Downtown Manhattan Muslim Community Center," but that doesn't do as much to justify faux outrage and calls to "refudiate."  Seriously, thank goodness.  Now could someone from the right prove their party isn't going over the waterfall of irrelevance by doing the same?  Anyone?

Shelley O (The nickname is from TLo) took a trip to Spain, and now someone is comparing her to a modern day Marie Antoinette.  Snarky columnists will be snarky columnists, but the part that really irks me, is that her approval ratings fell after the whole thing.  Honestly, give me a break.  She took a trip with her daughter and a few friends.  Surely this is not unheard of from someone who earned over $300,000 a year as a vice president at University of Chicago Hospitals? 

I'm about as pro-choice as they come (when it comes to legal restrictions) and yet I found myself tearing up reading this description of abortion (last page) in a piece on selective reduction of twins linked to by Jezebel.  Jezebel's Anna North seems to ask whether we should judge one woman's choice in terms of how this informed our defense of her right to choose.  But to me, the two can be unrelated.  It's possible to feel sadness about abortion, and even to feel anger at the person doing it, without believing in legal restrictions on it.  Going in with this belief, I was still surprised at how much the piece affected me emotionally.  Go read it and let me know if your eyes stay dry.

Mad Hoc: Character studies

Just in time for the new episode of Mad Men, RMJ's and my chat on "The Good News."  These chats may be more infrequent/posted later due to internet connections in Zambia, but we'll try to keep bringing you Mad Men discussions!

Don and Anna
 
 RMJ: So, what did you think?
 Coca Colo: Well, TLo pointed out it was a slower episode, and I agree, but it was really sweet and interesting to see so much Don-Anna interaction
  RMJ: So I was with tlo - it was a little boring
  i watched it with a friend which i think means i missed some of the subtleties
Coca Colo: Yes, it was more about laying groundwork. I'm less into this other version of don, as far as I just find him less exciting, than the Madison Avenue one, but I think that's the point
 RMJ: Yeah, he's a lot less compelling but much happier
 Coca Colo: I think it’s because he's NOT that polished guy. He's the guy in the country bar and painting the wall.

Out of the pot, into the fire: How hierarchy defines our lives

I've just finished the first week of what will be a four-month stay in Zambia (and the reason femonomics posting won't be daily for a while).  The first time I was in Zambia, I was a cultural outsider.  I spent a lot of time just chatting with people, anyone who would, to try out my fumbling grasp of the local language (English is the language taught in schools, but other languages remain prevalent), and understand as much as I could about the place whose people made up data points in our research.  After three months spent working with Zambian women, living with Zambian housemates, cooking and eating Zambian food, and making Zambian friends, I felt integrated enough into the culture that when I returned this time, part of it was strangely like a homecoming--returning to an old familiar place and the memories it holds.

But as I felt less cultural separation between myself and the Zambians around me--of course we still came from different backgrounds, but I no longer felt like a complete outsider--I noticed a strange thing.... I was adapting more to the class hierarchies of Zambian society.  Instead of chatting with guards and bus drivers, I offered them curt greetings and hurried on my way, trying to avoid the inevitable discussion of my relationship status that I'd learned would follow.  I found myself referring to domestic workers in local terms, as a "garden boy" and "maid," despite finding these terms pejorative, and using "She doesn't even speak English!" to express that someone was uneducated to my housemate.  And honestly, I had no idea why.  The less I saw my middle class Zambian friends as separate from myself, the more I was adopting their way of organizing the world into "other" and "same."  As I saw things less in terms of me versus them, developed country versus undeveloped, white(ish) versus black, the more I saw them as educated versus not, laborer versus professional, economically comfortable versus poor.  I was absorbing a new set of hierarchies and division to replace the old, and it felt as natural as breathing.

There are many misconceptions about developing countries, especially African ones, that I hope to address in a future post.  But one of the most pernicious is that everyone is poor, destitute, and miserable.  Far from it.  Plenty of Zambians, especially urban ones, are middle class, comfortable, and caught in between the same appreciation of their good fortune and striving dissatisfaction that so many Americans face.  And very often these individuals seem to define themselves in contrast to those that are not, just as much as we define ourselves in contrast to our vision of them.  Why is that?  Is it human nature for us to make sense of our landscape through hierarchy?  Does our wealth mean nothing if we are not richer than?  Is our education useless if we're not smarter than?  Or is it the insidious effect of Colonialism, still boiling away, in which class and ethnic divisions were often encouraged in order to better control Colonial lands?  (For more on this, see Mahmood Mamdani's wonderful book Citizen and Subject, about how the British encouraged hierarchical and authoritarian local rule in South Africa in order to better oppress the Africans they sought to dominate.)

If we rid ourselves of one form of oppression, will another replace it?  Is hierarchy truly as natural to us as breathing?

A feminist capitalist's manifesto

In a recent piece titled "Feminism and anti-Capitalism, a love story" on Feministe and Girldrive, Nona argues that because structural sexism is built into a capitalistic economy, fiscal conservatism and feminism are inherently incompatible, and in fact in conflict with one another.  In fact, she seems to single out fiscally conservative beliefs above even socially conservative ones for exclusion from the feminist paradigm.  While it is "[effed] up to leave conservative women out of the conversation, especially if they felt torn between their family’s traditions and their own reality," fiscal conservatism is a different issue because "capitalism needs to be humanized" and "business [needs] to be regulated."

And yet, here I am.  I am a feminist and I am a capitalist.  I am a feminist because I believe in expanding the choice set for women everywhere.  I am a feminist because I work to challenge systematic oppressions.  I am a feminist because my life's work is women, and I have never felt satisfied doing anything else.  And yet, I am a capitalist.  I am a capitalist because I believe in making the pie bigger, and then trying to divide it as equitably as possible.  I am a capitalist because I am an economist, and I believe that markets tend to offer more efficient solutions to problems (and in fact, often more equitable) than governments, although I also believe that sometimes they don't.  I am a capitalist for reasons that have nothing to do with ideology, because my ideology is that none of us have any moral claim to the endowments of our birth, and thus a good life is one that serves others.  I am a capitalist because I think it works. 

I am not a capitalist because I think the interests of business should come before the interests of women.  Far from it. I have seen big government oppress women, and business and free markets help them.  I believe systematic oppression is every bit as entrenched in government forces as it is in market ones, and that both can be tools to either rectify or reinforce the hierarchies of the past.  I believe there is a role for government in correcting inequalities, but I also believe that government helped to put them there in the first place, both in the US and the world over.  In places where governments continue to oppress, I have seen the remarkable effect of freedom, both market and personal, in improving the quality of life for people in need.  I believe that women's right to vote in this country, a fundamental accomplishment of feminism, is also integrally tied to immigrant and otherwise under-privileged women's participation in the labor force, even under sub-human conditions--sheer, brutal, ugly capitalism. 

California shows some sense! Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional, appeal may end up in Supreme Court

Gawker.  The Advocate.  NYTimes.

Editorial from the Times:

Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation’s most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process of law.

...One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”
To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.

“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”

The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.

Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians.

Mad Hoc: The many faces of Peggy and Don

This is the second in an ongoing series where Deeply Problematic blogger RMJ and I break down each episode of Mad Men through both our feminist and fan lenses.

RMJ: Let's start with Peggy. Is she engaged?

Coca Colo: No, I don't think so, the boyfriend just made that up last time, 
and this episode, she said "I have a boyfriend"

RMJ: But I thought there was a ring at the end?

Coca Colo: I actually thought it was interesting, because Freddy told her at the end that if she wanted to marry him, she shouldn't put out
, and I thought her choosing to sleep with him was her making the decision she didn't want to marry him. But I didn't see a ring! 
Was she wearing it in the last scene?

RMJ: Screencap is in order:

Coca Colo: Oh, goodness, I didn't notice that detail! Is that her left hand?
RMJ: I can't tell - I'm a little screwy about right/left :). The viewer is clearly supposed to see it, they wouldn't just have it there for no good reason...

Coca Colo: I hope she's not marrying him...
 It doesn't seem to me that she respects him, nor that she's willing to let him see "real Peggy." Like is she as smart, funny, interested, conflicted, etc. when he's around?
RMJ: I think that she does show him the real Peggy to a certain extent - her work covers her bed - and he doesn't like it.
 I'm interested to see what her mother and sister have to say about the dude.
 They are probably pushing for her marriage to him.
Coca Colo: That's interesting, hadn't thought of that.
 What does it mean if our career spitfire Peggy gets into an un-fulfilling relationship herself?
 Does that make her truly one of the boys?
RMJ: Yeah, it seemed like it could very well be imitating Don, as she so often does - rushing into an unsatisfying relationship for the sake of having a relationship
.
Coca Colo: Well, first of all, I am hoping she's not engaged, and that the last scene was her choosing sex over marriage, for now
, like I thought. But, given that you're absolutely right, the hand-on-chest shot seems significant, I'm hoping she comes to her senses before going through with it!

RMJ: Me too! 
ME TOO.
 I wanted her to have a little office thing in which she has the upper hand.

Coca Colo: I know she wants companionship just like anyone else, I know she doesn't want to be alone on New Year's, but she deserves better.
 What I love, though, is that she's not a "type"
the creators have done a really good job making her complex and real
.
RMJ: I agree.
Coca Colo: This episode really showed an interesting tension in Peggy's life, that we still deal with today. 
She wants a fulfilling work life and a fulfilling personal life, and she doesn't feel as though she should have to choose
. Freddy thought he had insulted her by suggesting she wanted to get married
. But she does want to get married. She just doesn't want to be threatened with spinsterhood if she forgoes Pond's cold cream and instead spreads out her work on her bed.
RMJ: I also think it's interesting how it showed her having to appease and make compromises in both areas - she's clearly better at her job than Freddy, but he ignores her attempts to assert her authority and competence.
 And it didn't seem like the dude was a good match for her, but she wants to get married, and she had to negotiate what sex and respect meant for them in that relationship.

Coca Colo: the whole virgin ruse was indicative of that.
RMJ: I agree. Speaking of the fake virginity thing though, it also reminded me of Joan pretending to be a virgin with Greg.

Coca Colo: YES. And, likely, everyone else in that era
. Which is so funny, because the men were having sex with somebody
. The math doesn't work for them to be having all this extra-marital/premarital sex, and for all the women to be virgins!


Femonomics reads the internet: the legal system is actually sortof working to fight bigotry, oh man, is there a lot of bigotry

Congress has passed legislation that will cut the extreme sentencing for crack to be more in line with that for cocaine.  Previously, someone found to be in possession of crack would be sentenced as though they had been found with 100 times as much cocaine.  The new legislation, waiting to be signed by the president, reduces that ratio to 18:1.  The 25-year-old crack sentencing guidelines have been responsible for the imprisonment of thousands of African Americans while white drug users often went free, and is a leading reason many people believe the war on drugs to be a war on black families.  According to the Washington Post, 80% of people arrested for crack possession are black.  This is a huge step in the right direction, but will not have the desired effect unless the ratio of arrests and searches for black and brown versus white individuals is brought more in line as well.

In other "thank freaking God" news, a court in Arizona has blocked the most controversial part of the SB1070 immigration legislation.  The case is now headed to a San Fransisco appeals court.  Supporters of the law rallied in Phoenix, while immigrant rights group Trail of Dreams peacefully spoke out for the other side.  Civil rights, people.  Civil freaking rights.

And now in terrible news, the Anti Defamation League has joined the bigots protesting the "Ground Zero mosque," while confusingly saying they're still against anti-Muslim bigotry.  I put "Ground Zero Mosque" in quotes because the planned Muslim community center would be two blocks away from the site of the World Trade Center.  I am willing to grant the ADL that the funders of the community center should be thoroughly vetted to insure that no money from radical groups is making its way into or out of the project.  But the ADL, amazingly, in their statement say that even if the center is found to be completely legitimately funded and to be promoting a positive, peaceful message, it should not be allowed to built because "this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right."  Give.  Me.  A.  Break.  How on earth is a center that promotes peaceful Islamic community, and educates others about the religion outside of the extremist mold all too often portrayed, not consistent with the goal of memorializing 9/11?  Along with the victims of the terrorist attacks that day, many of whom were in fact Muslim, Islam itself suffered a devastating blow in the attacks on the twin towers, which left Americans and others with a deeply skewed view of the religion, and paved the way for conflicts raging across the globe over Muslim representation.  That deserves a memorial as much as anything else.  At least us Jews still have J-Street to talk sense.

Recipe Fridays: Eggplant rollatini

This is a hearty, pasta-free version of manicotti, so could for gluten-free folks.  It's also great for people who don't really like eggplant, as the eggplant becomes melt-in-your-mouth delicious.

Eggplant Rollatini
1 large eggplant (or 2 smaller ones)
1 jar tomato sauce (you won't need all of it)
1/2 cup grated mozzarella cheese
1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese
2 cups ricotta cheese
1 egg
Garlic, salt, pepper, and fresh basil if desired

Trim off the top and bottom of the eggplant, and then slice vertically into long, thin slices.  Cut the middle slices, which will be broader, in half vertically.  Heat 1 tablespoon of olive oil in a pan and fry each slice of eggplant until lightly browned on each side and soft--you'll need to add more oil after every few batches.  Remove to paper towels to drain excess oil. 

Blend together ricotta, egg, half the Parmesan cheese, 1 smashed garlic clove, and salt and pepper to taste (you can add fresh basil to the filling or the sauce if desired).  Spoon filling onto one end of each eggplant slice, and roll.  Place with the loose end underneath into a square baking dish.  Continue with remaining eggplant (2 tablespoons of filling each), arranging in baking dish in single layer.  Pour tomato sauce over top of eggplant, and top with mozzarella and remaining Parmesan cheese.

Bake at 400 degrees for 30-45 minutes or until cheese is bubbly and lightly browned.

Mad Hoc: Episode 1, Defining the Mad Men universe

Today brings a new, collaborative weekly television feature: Mad Hoc. Deeply Problematic blogger extraordinaire RMJ and I are huge Mad Men fans, and we both love to read all the recaps and discussions about the show.  However, we also feel like the show gets a pass sometimes because it's so good in many respects that we as viewers assume that Matthew Weiner knows all and is perfect.  And RMJ and I have something to say about that.  So each weeek, we're going to chat about the new episode, in the style of Sady Doyle and Amanda Hess’s “Sexist Beatdown." We’ll discuss a mixture of general issues and episode specifics, viewing it all through both our cranky feminist lenses, and our huge fan goggles!  These posts will usually appear on Monday or Tuesday following a new episode. 

Coca Colo: Ok, so, I think it would also be good and proper for me to tell you a tiny bit about myself and my Mad Men background: I'm a grad student, phd in economics.  And, I actually haven't watched every episode of Mad Men!  I am very into it, and read lots of blogs about it, but I haven't seen all of season three.
RMJ: I am 24, living in Virginia (originally from Kansas!). I graduated from a women's college two years ago, live with my boyfriend and two cats, work as a composition tutor.
Coca Colo: Oh, and since you do such a good job of unpacking privilege on your blog, that's something we should make explicit, and keep in mind with regard to these posts. I'm half white, able-bodied, straight, cis, size-privileged.
RMJ: Good idea! I am white, mental disabilities/physically abled, straight, cis, fat with some size privilege, class privileged.

Coca Colo: One of my things with Mad Men, getting into content now, is that it's allll about sexy whiteness and wealth. And it's not just that, it's that there is a certain amount of goo-goo-ga-ness to its presentation of whiteness and wealth.
RMJ: Yeah no kidding. That was definitely present here, with the multiple fancy interviews in fancy restaurants and the whole “TimeLife building! Two floors! Wow!”  I often feel like they're giving a nod to civil rights, as with the reference to Andrew Goodman, without seriously addressing it the way they do feminism.
Coca Colo: Even with the white people, they show there are major problems beneath the facade, but we're supposed to ooh and ah at Betty's clothes. Within that framework of showing an admittedly very appealing fantasy, how much can you be subversive?
RMJ: Well, but is it supposed to be a fantasy? I mean, I think it's supposed to be "gritty" and "revealing" to a certain extent.  Like "this is what your grandma's sex life was REALLY like! In the CAR! Have you EVER!" And “people were RACIST and women were DISCRIMINATED AGAINST! My stars!” Which is a revelation...for rich white people
Coca Colo: Yes, I agree, but I just meant that part of what they draw viewers in with is how sexy and luxurious it is. It's not a fantasy life, but it plays on our fantasies.

Mad Men: Remind me again how Pete Campbell is supposed to be a sympathetic character?

The season premiere of Mad Men was yesterday.  I watched it; I loved it; better people than me have written recaps.  I want to talk about Pete Campbell.

You remember Pete.  Him and Peggy had a thing.  He used to be somewhat of a smarmy ass.  His dad died.  Oh yeah, and he raped his neighbor's nanny.  He had done her a favor by replacing a dress she'd borrowed and ruined, and tries to make a pass at her.  When she declines, he shows up at her door drunk, demands to be let in, and then forces himself upon her.  Apparently some people think this is a "gray area"?  This video shows only part of the interaction, not the part where he demands she undress (by insisting she put on the dress he's replaced), blocks her exit from the bedroom, and kisses her despite her clear fear and discomfort, but I think you can get the idea:



I thought that scene would be a turning point for Pete Campbell's character, where he went from being a misguided schmo in the viewer's mind to being a really entitled asshole who deserves comeuppance.  But that comeuppance never came.  Instead, here we are in season four expected to laugh at Pete's antics, and the oh-so-cute dynamic between him and former flame Peggy.  His character arc is, apparently, that he got more likable after raping his neighbor's nanny, and now we're supposed to accept him as one of the boys.  It troubles me that after all the positive feminist ink Matthew Weiner and co got from portraying Joan's rape by her fiance and Pete's rape of the nanny--showing that rape isn't always the kicking, screaming, violent act we expect, but rather one where men trade on other power dynamics than merely physical superiority to coerce women into submission--they've failed to let Pete's character bear any of the moral consequences of his actions, or even paint them as reprehensible to the audience.

Weiner is trying to portray a time when women were less powerful, rape culture was perhaps stronger, and men frequently saw crossing the line as their entitlement.  And yet, I still see space for defining the morality of individual character's actions within that time.  If Weiner doesn't, that's a problem for me.  Because then every frat boy who lives in an environment where women aren't respected gets to say he didn't know better.  I think he does; and I think Pete Campbell did, too.  And so, no, I can't laugh at his jokes, I can't smile at his character development, and I certainly can't root for him as an up-and-coming member of the new agency.  He. Is. A. Rapist.

Even this article from Bitch magazine, while at least clearly defining Campbell as a rapist, seems to see him as a "product of his times" instead of someone making criminal, morally repugnant, and damaging decisions in the context of those times:

Pete Campbell is a rapist.  I keep repeating it like that, keep saying it flat-out like that, not because I demand that you hate his character now.  (In fact, I've always thought Vincent Kartheiser - who I hated on Angel - does an excellent job of making such a weasel character kind of sympathetic, human.)  I keep saying he is a rapist because I think everyone would benefit from understanding that "rapists" are not monsters: they are human beings.  They are human beings who have been taught, time and time again, by this culture, that they are entitled to sexually use other people.  They are not outliers; they are not blips on the radar; they are not deviants.  They are, often, just men who have gotten so caught up in themselves, so blinded by the ego they are told from birth they must develop as a symbol of virile masculinity, that they have utterly forgotten that woman are human beings.  They have forgotten that women are not there for their sexual use.

In this interview, Pete's portrayer says he doesn't see his character as a villain, and doesn't think in terms of "good and bad."  Apparently neither does Matthew Weiner.  This is not about the "world of Mad Men," which is meant to be deeply flawed, and viewed through a critical lens.  This is about the world we live in, where that critical lens settles only so briefly on a man's rape of a domestic servant, before moving on to admire his personal growth.  Men who rape get to be oh-so-very complex and troubled.  Women who get raped get to dry their tears alone.