Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[Paula Deen] : Evil, Sadistic Monster of a Woman
Posts
This is an error I make unless I'm looking at Paula Deen's robotic smile on the cover of a magazine.
This is absolutely true. I remember one time at my old job someone brought in Kraft Italian dressing that was fat free. It was so fucking sweet that I spat out the salad and tossed the rest of it.
My wife and I make a lot of stuff from scratch and most of it wouldnt be overly healthy by any standard but it's still much more healthy and tasty than prepackaged and processed foods.
I've seen shows on the Food Channel and other cable networks where the hosts go around reviewing microbreweries or go scotch-tasting. Are we going to blame those guys for alcoholism and drunk-driving?
Rigorous Scholarship
I would be completely in agreement with that argument. For context, before I moved across the US for grad school (and had a job that paid well) I stuck pretty much to a non-processed diet. I basically only ate fresh vegetables, tofu, and whole grain pastas.
Moving out here made me drop down to a "cheaper" diet, and I ended up gaining a few pounds. Trying to find a product that fit my budget that wasn't full of corn syrup is downright impossible.
As to Paula Deen herself....I don't know if "evil" is the word...Disappointing maybe. Shameful also.
So far in this thread, if the sleepy owl said it, I agree with it
I don't think she should be judged for making Lobster butter soup.
Who gives a shit? I certainly don't!
What is shameful is her waiting to announce her disease until she had lined up a sponsorship with a drug manufacturer.
I do, too. And I happen to think that abetting a lifestyle that largely eschews processed foods rich in high fructose corn syrup ought to be the primary goal of Food Network because the easiest way to regulate what's going into your food is to prepare it yourself.
Unfortunately, most of what I've seen on Food Network has less to do with healthy eating and more to do with "why should you have to go out for dinner when you can eat every night like your dining room table is a TGIFriday's in 30 minutes with only five ingredients."
And before anyone turns this into a political discussion, both political parties worship at the alter of agrobusiness.
Rigorous Scholarship
I do! Some of the best bites are fat bites!
How much are they drinking in these shows? I did two beer tours in one day, trying a total of 30 different beers, but only consumed 3.5 drinks over an eight hour period. Depending on which fact you highlight ("I drank 30 beers!" or "I had about 4 drinks throughout the day."), it will sound like I should or should not be driving.
This. This is the underlying issue of why people are talking about this. Plenty of people make shitty choices about their diets. Not everyone is on TV teaching people to make food that is horrible for you, and then promoting a drub that will treat adverse affects from poor diet choices.
Are TV chefs really responsible for the obesity epidemic? I really doubt it. It has a lot more to do with people, especially poorer people, eating fast-food and premade, heavily processed items.
Rigorous Scholarship
Why, though? Because theres a group of people that overindulges in foods prepared in that manner?
People are going to overindulge in things that are bad for them regardless of whether or not there is a TV personality giving them ideas. 'Down-home cooking' with high fat foods and excessive butter existed long before Paula Deen, people are going to be eating that way regardless.
I live a, by in large, pretty healthy life-style. But, I also really enjoy eating well-prepared (and by that I mean really tasty), home-cooked fried chicken wings on occasion. I would rather have someone showing me how to make foods like this taste their best, rather than being left to wing it and eat shitty chicken.
I don't really see why she should be shamed because proper nutrition is not impressed upon most Americans (particularly in the south).
You're asserting that Paula Deen is intentionally causing people to fall victim to diabetes in order to sign a lucrative drug sponsorship. Do you honestly believe that?
Sure, the fact that she signed onto a relatively expensive treatment as opposed to cheaper alternatives is ethically-suspect. But let's be honest here: 1) They're undoubtably paying her considerably more money and 2) I doubt Paula Deen is even aware of any sort of difference in alternatives or scaling with diabetes treatment. She has enough money to afford any treatment, I'm sure she was recommended the highest 'quality' treatment possible from day 1.
Paula Deen is kind of special because she always presented her recipes as normal, simple, down-home cuisine. Her argument against Gordon Ramses was that people can't afford his dishes every night. Most other fatty food chefs specialize in the kind of food you make for guests, or at least only on weekends, while normal dinner chefs are relatively flinty.
"People will do bad things anyway, so it doesn't matter if I contribute to it."
That's never really been a good argument, especially when talking about famous people.
Try rephrasing that second clause in active voice rather than passive voice and see where it gets you.
"I don't really see why she should be shamed because nobody is impressing proper nutrition upon most Americans."
Hmm, who might be in a good position to impress proper nutrition upon most Americans? If we're not asking the hosts of TV cooking shows to impart, at least, not horrible ideas, we might as well throw up our hands and say "fuck it, who wants a milkshake?"
Just to be clear, once again. I don't think Paula Deen is evil or malicious. I do think it's completely fair to say, "Look, you're a public figure. People look to you to help them make food. You should help them make food that isn't going to kill them."
Have you ever watched her shows? I'm completely serious here. She would often use phrases like "I won't tell if you won't" when talking about massive amounts of butter she adds.
She doesn't happen to cook very unhealthy food she knows, advocates and attempts to normalize it. I was fine with that until she also started to sell the drugs that deal with the unhealthy effects.
Borderlands 2 PA Xbox Metatag - Bazillion Guns
If Deen = advocating harmful behavior, then so is the rest of Food Network's programming. Heck, half their shows are about cake and cupcakes.
Not to mention the rest of the harmful behaviors found in the media. Certainly folks like Jack Thompson would love to claim that these other harmful behaviors "advocated" in the media are a failure of knowledge/morality as well.
If Deen "advocates" unhealthy eating, then by the same logic FPS games "advocate" shooting people (or aliens/monsters). Heck, look at all the harmful behaviors Grand Theft Auto "advocates".
Short of incitement, media creators are not responsible for the actions of their idiot fans.
It isn't Paula Deen's fault if someone eats butter all day.
It isn't Trey Parker's fault if a kid cusses out his teacher.
It isn't Johnny Knoxville's fault if a teenager sets himself on fire.
It isn't Marilyn Manson's fault or John Carmack's fault if two assholes shoot up Columbine High School.
Stupid analogy is stupid.
This is how she endears herself to her audience. This is why she is successful.
Would a warning on the front of her shows or having Paula constantly reminding viewers the dangers of eating a diet of all fatty foods really satisfy anyone that's objecting to her on this thread right now?
I mean, if you watch a cooking show about how to make the best barbecue ribs, do you take that to mean you should eat barbecue ribs every night?
Rigorous Scholarship
When has that ever been the point of a cooking show?
I like a lot of Guy Fieri's recipes. I do not want to model my behavior after Guy Fieri in any way. The same goes for Paula Deen.
I watch these shows to discover new ways to prepare my food. And to relax.
Is there going to be a show where they cook BBQ ribs every episode? Because I don't think that show would have much staying power.
BBQ Pitmasters on TLC.
It's actually pretty awesome,
and in its third season.Edit: Just kidding, I thought they had begun filming it's third. I was mistaken.
Over 1 in 3 of Paula's recipes is dessert.
That's a reality show, not a "how to" show.
And the challenge changes every week.
Traditional southern cooking isn't the healthiest cuisine out there, certainly. But that doesn't mean a show about that type of cuisine is somehow evil.
Rigorous Scholarship
If southern food is evil, then I'm okay with going to hell.
Traditional southern food is something that a large segment of our country eats every single day.
So it's not unreasonable for viewers to watch this show and think that you can eat this way on a daily basis.
It isn't inexplicable. It's because this:
Corn is one of the most heavily subsidized products in America. And because it's so heavily subsidized, we grow tons of it. And because we grow tons of it, we have to find ways to use it a lot. Thus high fructose corn syrup, which is much cheaper than using sugar. And much worse for your sense of sweetness and caloric intake, sadly.
I think Shrodinger's point that whereas other shows like Jackass begin with a disclaimer to never attempt what you're about to see at home, the conceit of the cooking show is that they intend for everyone in their audience to try what they're about to see at home is a salient one.
As far as the entire point of a cooking show, what cooking shows are generally trying to push hardest is a lifestyle personified by, for instance, a glamorous and beautiful daughter of an Italian movie star (Giada de Laurentis) or a neighborly matron who wants to invite you into her kitchen so you can watch her whip up a dish she's serving at a casual but intimate garden party to which you weren't invited (Ina Garten). If all they wanted to do was expand your recipe options, they could pay a part-time sous chef to read the recipe for ten minutes and then spend the last ten minutes of the program teaching you knifework. Paying personalities like Paula Deen to personify a lifestyle, however, helps the viewer emotionally connect to the food in a way that's particular to the television medium. You can find recipes more easily on the internet, but it's a sterile experience compared to a cooking show. More importantly as far as Food Network is concerned, pushing a lifestyle that you can emotionally connect to will then encourage you to come back and watch another episode even if you didn't try the first recipe that personality had pitched to you.
Next time they do their silly reality show about hiring a new cooking show host, pay attention to how much they talk about personality and lifestyle as opposed to talking just about the food.
Excellent post. A better counter point to the whole "expand your recipe options" thing is Alton Brown, where the focus is on learning basic technique and concepts, rather than the recipe itself, or any particular lifestyle. Cooking competition shows also usually highlight specific techniques over actual recipes.
I understand and was fine with it until she started to shill medicine for diabetics. I feel that is like a bartender who works for a DWI lawyer on the side.
No. I suppose I might be alright if she had to show herself stabbing a needle into her arm and pumping synthetic chemicals into her so her cooking wouldn't kill her. That might actually be helpful and informative to her viewers.
Borderlands 2 PA Xbox Metatag - Bazillion Guns
Looking at a chicken-fried steak and claiming it causes obesity misses the bigger picture.
Rigorous Scholarship
That's actually what the American Diabetes Association is, in a nutshell.
Except when it's not.
You think the people who watch Ace of Cakes are making Millenium Falcon cakes with rotating gun turrets?
Are the people who watch Food Network Challenge making 10-foot high Disney cakes?
Do the viewers of Chopped blindly grab random ingredients from a supermarket shelf to make dinner?
Is the takeaway from Throwdown that I should barge into restaurants and challenge head chefs to cook-offs?
After watching Iron Chef, should I go out and buy 40 tons of tuna, and put tuna in every course of a meal?
Should I dress up in a costume, or go out and buy every cooking-related contraption known to man, just because Alton Brown does that on Good Eats?
Those are all cooking shows, and the point of none of them is that viewers should model the behaviors they see on screen. The point of every single one of those cooking shows - and every other show on FN, Deen's included - is entertainment, first and foremost. That's why you have the likes of Deen on the air, and not some instructor from CIA or Cordon Bleu.
I mean, have you ever watched The Next Food Network Star? It's 90% about personality, on-camera presence, and having a "hook" - the entertainment-related aspects of being a TV chef. The food itself is pretty much an afterthought. The goal of the entire Food Network is entertainment, not food education. And for some people, it's entertaining to watch Deen drop a tub of butter into every dish - the same way it's entertaining for some people to listen to Brown talk about chemical reactions or hear Emeril yell "Bam!" every 8 seconds.
Heck, you don't even need to know how to cook to be a TV "chef" - just look at Sandra Lee. All she does is throw Kraft mac n cheese into the microwave, then she does arts & crafts projects for the rest of the show.
The problem is that you have a lady telling people that it's okay to eat a whole cake with every meal, so that when people go to McDonalds, they don't feel so bad about ordering the 50 cent apple pie. The problem is that all that sugar doesn't contribute to being full, leading to growing portion sizes.
Now, that problem isn't specific to Paula Dean. It's indicative of the Food Network and the Food industry in general. That doesn't mean that Paula gets a pass for playing along.
I like reading Alton Brown. I could take him or leave him on a cooking show, but then I can also take or leave most cooking shows. Essentially, anything that isn't America's Test Kitchen can take a hike, as far as I'm concerned.
Generally speaking, though, I think there are generally two classes of cooking shows. The first pitches a personified lifestyle that the viewer can connect with, and the second goes for a detail-oriented, educational program that focuses on the techniques or science behind a recipe. The first format is so much more prevalent than the first because it's almost impossible to connect with or judge food that you can't feel, smell or taste, so they want you to connect with the host or the lifestyle instead.
Those aren't cooking shows. Those are reality TV competition shows. The shows you listed don't even bother posting the recipes online (Aside from Bobby Flay), much less on the show itself.
I mean, do you really not understand the difference?
The fact that all of your examples are competition shows demonstrates my point.
As I recall, when she was pulled upon the unhealthiness of her recipes by another TV chef, instead of using it as a teaching moment her response was effectively 'this is food for ~real americans~ not you high falutin city types'.
That certainly seems suggestive to me, and it's not like playing into the narrative of the good ole southern marm is new to her. She never outright claims this is for daily consumption, but it's not hard to interpret the message their.