Guest Post: Purchasing Power in Numbers

Here's another great post from guest contributor VikingKitten, letting you know where to find the best deals online!

It’s smart to save money, especially in this economic climate, and “group-buying” seems to be the newest way to do so. Amazon’s June 30th announcement that they will acquire Woot.com, along with the recent news of the purchase of FreshGuide by Sugar, Inc (an online publisher focused on women’s media), indicates that the group-buying phenomenon has become more popular than ever.

Group-buying websites typically work like this: online shoppers indicate their desire to purchase a particular featured “deal of the day.”  If enough people agree to buy the deal, they get it at a significant discount. 

Here’s a quick comparison of our favorite group-buying sites:

Site Name	# of Cities	Main Type of Merchandise	How It Works	Rewards for Referrals	Other  Notes
BuyWithMe www.buywithme.com	6	Restaurants, retail, entertainment	Minimum number of buyers needed to get the deal	N/A	Includes a handy “how close are we?” bar to show how many more buyers are needed to get the deal
DealOn www.dealon.com	11+	Restaurants, retail, entertainment	The more buyers who join in the deal, the lower the price goes	$10 credit for each person who clicks on your referral link and buys a deal	Shows the starting price of the deal, the current price, and the amount of savings from retail price
FreshGuide www.freshguide.com	4+	Restaurants, events, entertainment	Minimum number of buyers needed to get the deal	$10 credit for each person who clicks on your referral link and buys a deal	Currently trying to expand into several cities
Gilt City www.giltcity.com	1	Fashion, events, restaurants, entertainment	Deal can be purchased until it sells out.	$25 when a referral makes a first purchase	Deals often sell out—so act fast!  However, you can be added to the “wait list” for a sold out deal, so all hope is not lost
Groupon www.groupon.com	93+ (incl. non-U.S.)	Restaurants, retail, entertainment	Minimum number of buyers needed to get the deal	$10 credit for each person who clicks on your referral link and buys a deal	Includes discussion boards with helpful staff members answering customer questions; Hilarious “Groupon says” section of each deal
LivingSocial www.livingsocial.com	26	Restaurants, retail, entertainment	1 deal/day. No minimum number of buyers required	If 3 people buy the deal using your referral link, you get it free.  $5 to a referral for signing up, and $5 to you when your referral makes a first purchase	Features a section of “365 things to do” in your city of choice.
SteepandCheap steepandcheap.com	online	Outdoor gear and clothing	1 deal at a time until the item is sold out; then another deal immediately begins	None	Has a neat feature where you can see the current number of people viewing the page; For apparel, the number of items remaining is broken down by color/size
Tippr www.tippr.com	9	Restaurants, events, entertainment	3 deals/day.  The more buyers who join in the deal, the lower the price goes	$5 to a referral for signing up, and $5 to you when your referral makes a first purchase	Can log on automatically though Facebook
Woot www.woot.com	online	Electronics	1 item/day until it sells out or the day ends.  Does not reveal the number remaining or the retail price of the item.	None	The management claims that there will be no change to Woot’s ways in light of Amazon’s acquisition—it will be interesting to see if this is true

Yipit.com is another helpful site, which essentially aggregates group deals from various group-buying sites, organized by city. Readers, are there other sites where you go to shop for bargains?

Recipe Fridays: Apple-Blackberry Crumble

This is a fairly easy dessert to whip up. And lighter than a cake. Pick your fruit filling (berries, plums, peaches, even pineapple) and your nut (walnut, almond, pistachio, pecan) and get baking! I made a few of these this week--and this turned out to be tasty:

Crumble topping:
1/2 cup rolled oats
3/4 cup flour
1/2 cup light brown sugar
3/4 cup walnuts, chopped
7 tablespoons of butter, softened
pinch of salt

Mix the oats, flour, brown sugar, and salt together. Then add the nuts. Next, mix in the softened butter with your hands until everything is evenly moistened. Set aside.

Fruit filling:
3 lbs apples, peeled and cut into chunks
2 cups blackberries
3 tablespoons sugar
2 tablespoons flour
1 tsp vanilla
pinch of cinnamon, nutmeg, and salt

Mix all filling ingredients together in a bowl. Transfer the filling into a buttered 2 quart baking dish (or 8x8). Dot the top with 2 tablespoons of cut-up cold butter. Sprinkle crumble mixture on top of fruit. Bake until golden (40-45 minutes) at 375 degrees. Let it sit 10 minutes before serving.

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 at the Movies: Salt

I'm a little late to the game on this one - it's been a week since I've seen Salt and everyone has already written about it! Easily the most anticipated movie of the year (for this mongoose, at least), the picture is Angelina Jolie's return to a starring role in an action flick (Jolie plays the eponymous Salt). I enjoyed Tomb Raider, and was a big fan of Mr and Mrs Smith - the movie that launched an entire tabloid industry. So, was I disappointed?

The Viewer's Angle

In short, no - but neither was I elated. Salt is an unrelenting action film - not an action-comedy, action-romance, or even action-drama. The basic plot is a chase, with the FBI chasing Salt, and Salt chasing a mysterious group of bad guys to which she might belong. I have to agree with David Edelstein's review that "the movie is a blast, even though - and this might be a deal-breaker for some people - it makes no sense, at all!"

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.

Guest Post: Toeing the Line Between Friendly and Flirtatious

VikingKitten is a friend of Femonomics, and has agreed to submit some summer guest posts for us. She is an aspiring lawyer, recovered Diet Coke addict, Texan, and cat-lover. Let's make her welcome!

During a recent diversity-themed luncheon and discussion at my company, we began to touch on the issue of being hit on at work. My coworker mentioned that she often faces unwanted or inappropriate comments from male colleagues and clients, and that she was unsure of how to respond to them. The advice she received from my colleagues was nearly unanimous: they advised my coworker to take particular care in everything from choosing her wardrobe to altering handshake techniques in an effort to avoid giving off the wrong impression.

My subsequent Google-ing of the issue turned up this recent Corporette post, dealing with the issue of being hit on in a professional setting. Interestingly, the author of the Corporette post concludes in part by suggesting that women who want to avoid sending out inadvertent “I’m flirting” signals be particularly mindful of their body language when associating with others in a professional setting. Thus, both my coworkers and Corporette seemingly agree that it is important for female professionals to be overly cautious about their actions towards the opposite sex.

And in fact, it is certainly realistic that men may pick up unintentional flirting signals from women: Psychological studies have shown that males have more difficulty than females in distinguishing between “friendly behavior” and “sexually interested behavior,” and that men often misinterpret friendly behavior of women as flirtation. Thus, at least in interactions between men and women, signals can often be confused.

However, this recognition this leads to a difficult question: should it be the responsibility of women to be overly mindful of their actions in order to avoid unintentionally sending the wrong signals to men, as my colleagues implied? Or should men instead be held accountable for their unwanted and inappropriate remarks? While professional women fear client loss, job loss, or retaliation from employers if they report (or harshly respond to) unwanted and inappropriate advances, men may not even be aware they have said something that is in fact unwanted unless women do respond. Is there a middle ground here?

Readers, what do you think is an appropriate way to deal with being hit on in a professional setting?

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.

Femonomics reads the internet: Phoebe Prince, sluthood, race and sympathy

Slate ran a piece on "What really happened to Phoebe Prince," which does some decent reporting as far as logging exactly what the attacks on Phoebe consisted of, and whether they deserve jail time, but also advances a rather questionable hypothesis that "Phoebe helped set in motion the conflicts with other students that ended in them turning on her" by "attracting guys away from relationships."  The Women's Rights blog rightly points out that what happened to Phoebe was slut shaming, not just bullying, but I'd go one step farther and say Slate's article buys into that same narrative.  Apparently, you can bring bullying upon yourself by daring to get involved with young men who may or may not be in fickle teenage relationships.  Men who are eighteen, mind you, but clearly the fifteen-year-old Phoebe is to blame.  Gross, Slate.

***

Jaclyn Friedman has a great piece on sluthood (hers, specifically) and about how talking about women's sexual experiences outside of committed relationships has the power to help break us free of the virgin/whore dichotomy.  After recounting a story about a casual encounter on Craigslist, she says:

I’m telling you this because sluthood requires support. Because any woman who indulges these urges carries with her a lifetime of censure and threat. That’s a loud chorus to overcome. A slut needs a posse who finds her exploits almost as delicious as she finds them herself, who cares about her safety and her stories and her happiness but not one whit about her virtue. A slut alone is a slut in difficulty, possibly in danger.

And rightly acknowledges that she is in a privileged position to talk about sluthood without jeopardizing her livelihood.  Hetero men can often indulge "sluthood" without fear for their safety.  For women,  non-hetero men, and transgendered individuals, it's rarely so easy.  And by not talking about it, we keep it that way.

***

For anyone who thinks we live in a colorblind society, please check out these two videos of news reports on 7-year-old boys who each highjacked a family vehicle for a joyride that ended in a police chase.  You'll never guess: When the white boy does it, it's "funny," and his video games are taken away; When the black boy does it, it's "dangerous," and he needs to be in the "system" so he can get "help."

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.

What Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism have in common

A couple weeks ago, news broke that the Catholic church had ruled ordaining a woman an offense punishable by immediate excommunication, putting it in the same category as sexual abuse.  I think it's clear to most that the Catholic church has a woman problem.

But, I think it's equally evident that Orthodox Judaism has a woman problem, and one that doesn't get nearly as much ink, perhaps because Orthodox Judaism is so much smaller of a movement than radical Islam and Catholicism.  Moreover, despite those rumors of a "Jewish establishment," unlike Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism has no single governing body that dictates its tenants.  That doesn't mean some factions of Judaism are any less virulently anti-woman than the worst of the Catholic church.  In fact, echoes of the very same "ordaining a woman is the gravest crime anyone could possibly commit" attitude were evident in a recent NYMag piece on an Orthodox rabbi doing just that, ordaining a woman, Sara Hurwitz (right),  who had completed all of the requirements for becoming an official spiritual leader and religious teacher.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter, a revered scholar at YU widely known as the foremost authority on Halacha in the United States, raised eyebrows at the RCA [Rabbinical Council of America] convention when he reportedly put the ordination of women in the category of yehareg ve’al ya’avor, a tenet that literally suggests one should opt for death before violating the law, used by rabbis when referring to acts that are absolutely impermissible. “He believes that it is a slippery slope that will lead to the breakdown of traditional Judaism,” explains Marc B. Shapiro, an expert on Orthodoxy.

This is only one individual, but this sentiment seems so clearly ludicrous, it deserves highlighting.  As with the Catholic church's declaration, I have to ask, how can a victimless crime be worthy of such grave punishment?  How can treating a woman as an equal be so blasphemous that one should die before doing it?  The Jewish Star has more on the specifics of the RCA's objections to Hurwitz's ordination:

Recipe Fridays: Berry Poke Cake

I have been on a baking kick for the past month or so. And because I don't have a lot of time to spend baking I have been using a lot of cake mixes from a box and adding things to spice it up. This Berry Poke Cake was something I remember my mom making when I was in high school. Quick and, of course, scrumptious!

1 box of yellow or white cake mix
1 box of jello--any flavor, usually strawberry (hence the "Berry" Poke Cake)
Cool whip or frosting

Bake cake as directed. When it's done baking poke holes into it, about half an inch apart. Make jello according to the directions (up through it still being a liquid). Pour the liquid mixture over the cake. Then chill the cake in the fridge for 3-4 hours. Top with cool whip/frosting and serve.

Recipe Fridays: Things to do with quinoa that are actually delicious

One of the NYTime's top articles this week has been a recipe for a spicy quinoa salad.  This reminded me that when people first started going nuts for quinoa, it was one of those things like Justin Bieber for me--everyone is talking about it, but you're not sure what it is, and you don't get the fuss either way.  Then I tried it, both eating it and cooking with it, and it became one of those things like kombucha, which everyone tells you you're supposed to like, but you just find a little weird.  After much trial-and-error, though, I finally learned how to appreciate quinoa, and in fact now enjoy cooking with it, both due to its health benefits, and because it actually tastes ok!  The big thing that helped me to start liking quinoa was to learn to overcook it.  Most recipes say to cook it just until the thread around the grain becomes visible, but at this point, to me, it still tastes like bugs.  (Sorry for the imagery, but now you know why I don't like quinoa.  Beetle shells, I am telling you.)  I generally cook it for about ten minutes after this point, giving it a much more rice-like texture.  Try cooking white quinoa this way with a little bit of olive oil, salt, and pepper.  It actually tastes good!  Red quinoa doesn't get as soft, and seems to go better with acidic sauces like a lemon vinaigrette and fresh herbs.  Below is one of my favorite quinoa recipes, courtesy of femonomics contributor Mad Dr.

Mad Dr's Quinoa pilaf

Cover 1 cup white quinoa with 2 cups water, a small drizzle of oil, and a pinch of salt.  Bring to boil, then cover and reduce heat.  Continue cooking, adding water as necessary, until about ten minutes after threads become visible (or until quinoa is soft).  Meanwhile, saute 1/2 chopped onion with 2 chopped garlic cloves in olive oil.  When onions are translucent, add 2 chopped celery ribs and 2 chopped carrots.  Add 1 T butter.  Saute until carrots are tender.  Add cooked quinoa, and continue stirring over heat for 5 minutes longer.  Season with salt and pepper to taste and serve. 

The onion, celery, and carrot is what the french call a mirepoix, and provides a vegetable-broth taste to the pilaf, meaning no additional seasoning is necessary.  Mad Dr also adds chopped bell peppers to this, added near the end of cooking.  I like to add toasted pine nuts.  You can add any other vegetable (cooked eggplant sounds good0, or even a protein such as cubed tofu or chicken to make a complete meal.  Add dried fruit, like currants, to give it a fall flavor.

Did you also go through a quinoa=yuck stage?  Have you made any recipes with it that changed your mind?  Post your best quinoa recipe below!

Congress Introduces Legislation to Protect Public Health

Recent events, such as the BP oil spill, highlight the danger posed by regulatory agencies that aren’t properly doing their jobs of, well, regulating. The BP oil spill happens to be one highly visible and very dramatic example, in which we learned too late that MMS was actually allowing companies to drill without proper permits and overruling findings of staff scientists.

However, oil is not the only industry escaping proper regulation. Surprisingly, the cosmetics that women use are not being regulated at all by the U.S. government. The FDA spells it out clearly on their website, that the responsibility of ensuring the safety of ingredients actually falls on the cosmetic industry: