Just a video to build on the previous post of the debate between evolution and creationism.

100 Reasons why Evolution is Stupid, Part 1 - as taught by an evangelist who really really likes science.

Part 2

Part 3

I know, this recipe is so late that it’s early, but bear with me. My exams have ended and I’ve been too busy doing nothing. Strangely enough, all this while my life was filled to brimming with novels I was reading, projects I was knitting, long walks I was taking, guitar skills I was honing and the myriad of little errands you have to run to keep things running smoothly. Now that I am truly able to do anything I want without having to consider other things I should be doing instead (things like studying or working on assignments) I don’t want to do anything. I spent most of yesterday staring at my toes as I sat on the couch and it looks as though today won’t be any different. I couldn’t even cobble together an elaborate meal (did I tell you about that Spaghetti Marinara I made the day before an exam that involved slow roasted veggies and 6 different kinds of seafood each with their own individual cooking times?) with any enthusiasm. Lately I’ve been favouring lightning-fast meals that take the same amount of time to prepare as it does to buy from a take-out, but that are much, much better. With this in mind, may I present for your consideration:

Caramelised Bacon and Tomatoes with Boccocini, Spaghetti and Love

• 100g streaky bacon (chopped)
• 125g mini Roma tomatoes (quartered) OR cherry/grape tomatoes (halved)
• 50-100g boccocini (roughly chopped)
• 2-3tbsp balsamic vinegar
• 1 serving[1] of slightly undercooked spaghetti

1.      Start the bacon in a cold pan over medium high heat[2]. If you have a splatter guard, this is the time to use it.

2.      When the bacon has browned around the edges, throw in the tomatoes. Do not move the tomatoes around the pan for at least 45 seconds. You want it to caramelise.

3.      Stir the pan once or twice and then leave it alone for another minute.

4.      Turn off the heat[3] and add the balsamic vinegar. The pan should be hot enough to reduce the balsamic vinegar by at least half. The wetness of the tomatoes, bacon fat and vinegar should result in a syrupy type sauce.

5.      Add the spaghetti and boccocini to the pan, toss to coat.

6.      You could garnish it with fresh basil chiffonade[4] but like I mentioned in my preamble, I’m not in the mood for fussy right now.

[1] To me, one serving is a bundle of spaghetti that is an inch across the diameter of the bunch when you clutch it in a fist.

[2] Starting your bacon in a cold pan and letting it heat up with the pan has the effect of rendering out the fat and making it nice and crispy-like. Very nice.

[3] It is important to turn off the heat especially if you use a gas stove. The steam will carry grease as it leaves the pan. This is the stuff that flare-ups are made of.

[4] A chiffonade is the process and what results from that process.

To all the lousy atheists who may come across this site by the way of the Pullman-is-an-atheist post, here’s a little Christmas present from me to you. (Or should I say, happy holiday present instead?)

Blogger John Scalzi visits the Creationist Museum in Kentucky and gives us a 101-picture set on the awesomeness of intelligent design.

Some gems include:

How did dinosaurs fit on Noah’s Ark?

An explaination of how Cain and his mother managed to screw each other without giving birth to deformed kids.

T-Rex was a veggiehead, yo.

It might take a while to go through all the 101 photos,but it’s worth every minute of it. Trust me.

(Thanks to Dave for the link.)

After all, which Singaporean couldn’t be prouder when our country takes the basic tenants of human rights and democracy and flushes it right down the drain, right?

First reason to be proud of my country:
A case in which we think the death penalty should be a right of a country, and actually lead the battle against suspending it.

Second reason to be proud of my country:
We invite the Burmese junta to the ASEAN meeting, and then reject applications for people to stage a Myanmar pro-democracy protest.

Yup. It’s good to be a Singaporean.

/snark

This trilogy is collectively referred to as His Dark Materials and has been in the news of late because the movie based on the first book is to be released on December 7^th of this year. As I have previously mentioned, the fundies are up in arms about books with such potent ideas and have launched a spam-paign (yes, that’s an email spam campaign) against His Dark Materials alleging that castration and female circumcision appear in the books (they don’t, read my last post for more details) and that the protagonists “kill God” (they don’t, at least not really. When will these illiterate, facile people learn to read?!). With this in mind, I present to you a spoiler-free, honest review of Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy. Buy the books, read them, then buy copies for everyone you know. These books could start thought revolutions, and that is what has gotten those forwarding flocks of sheep shit scared.

When I was asked to describe His Dark Materials in a snappy one-liner, I came up with this gem, “it’s a story that illustrates what it would be like if theoretical physics were to manifest itself.” Needless to say, the customer decided to buy Michael Chabon’s Summerland[1] instead. Truth is, there is no way to sum Philip Pullman’s trilogy in one line. On the one hand it is a dramatic adventure story involving two accidental heroes who are tasked with saving the universe(s). On the other, it is a deeply thoughtful discourse on moral ethics and models of government. Of course, it is also an illustration of quantum physics in operation (but I think I already mentioned that).

Northern Lights begins by thrusting you abruptly into the world Pullman has created. Most novels set in a different world have some sort of preamble to acquaint you with it, introducing and defining the various terms (e.g. Rowling’s “muggle”). Granted, the way authors do this is either by bringing in a character from a more familiar environment into the novel world (Ray Bradbury favours this technique; George Lucas used Luke Skywalker to provide exposition, etc.) or by having a character reminisce about a world more akin to ours and make comparisons (e.g. Louis Wu in Larry Niven’s Ringworld series). Pullman does neither and opts instead to begin seemingly mid-way through a scene in the heart of his world. Admittedly, the resultant disorientation is a little frustrating, but one gets initiated quickly enough.

The opening scene features 11 year-old Lyra[2] in a place she’s forbidden to enter, witnessing something no one was supposed to see. This capitulates her into the heart of covert events that threaten more than anyone could have realised possible.

The Subtle Knife, starts not in Lyra’s now familiar world, but ours. With starkly different writing style to match the dramatically altered setting, I almost thought that the trilogy was a collection of unrelated stories. A new character is introduced, Will, and he is quickly pulled into the thickening plot. The well-loved friends Lyra acquired in the first book are also active in this one, ensuring that Will and Lyra are not abandoned in their unique quest.

I will take the time here to mention the fact that in The Subtle Knife Lyra becomes a submissive and nuturant character to Will’s male lead – despite the fiercely capable independence she displayed in the first book (she returns to her amazingly cool self in the next book). However, the introduction of the incredibly competent and self-sufficient (and integral) Dr. Mary Malone to the series does help compensate for the (temporary) loss of Lyra’s agency.

With literally everything hanging in the balance at the end of the second book, I cracked open The Amber Spyglass in a panicked rush. Being that us readers are now fully acquainted with all the characters and worlds, this book (quite a bit longer than the first two) starts immediately where the last book left off. Pullman does this very skilfully, revealing small bits of information such that the cliffhangers from The Subtle Knife are not resolved until the novel is well underway. Even though the pressing questions that were left by the second book are answered in the middle of the third, one almost doesn’t even notice because so much more has been introduced to the narrative. A note of caution: the content of this book is not appropriate for younger readers.

Without giving away the ending, I will comment that it is satisfying in its realism and is anything but contrived. I feel like I grew with Lyra and Will. Indeed the books cover several years in their span and the two protagonists’ journey into puberty is written so gracefully that one has to look back to realise how far they have come. I still miss Will and Lyra.

Northern Lights was published under the name The Golden Compass[3] in North America. The film adaptation, starring Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig and Dakota Blue Richards (as Lyra), will open in theatres on December 7^th 2007 .

Northern Lights is the winner of the Carnegie Medal for children’s fiction (UK, 1995). The Amber Spyglass was awarded both the Whitbread Prize for best children’s book (2001) and is the first children’s book to receive the Whitbread Book of the Year prize (Jan 2002).

If you enjoyed the trilogy, check out the short companion piece titled Lyra’s Oxford (and/or you could buy it for me). You can also look forward to a larger companion novel titled The Book of Dust which is still currently being written (despite the fact that its release was tentatively slated for 2005).

[1] If you are looking for a good long novel for a kid who has only read short books, Chabon has written an excellent 500 page children’s book called Summerland. A page turning novel that weaves together various creation myths, it’s sure to build confidence and reading skills. Bonus points if the kid you’re buying this for also likes baseball.

[2] Interesting note: Philip Pullman originally intended for this trilogy to be released as “General Adult Fiction”. However, the fact that his protagonist is 11 years old (for reasons central to the plot) made his publishers decide to release it as a children’s book. It is my opinion that while children can enjoy it on the one level, you need a bit more world experience under your belt to truly appreciate these three books.

[3] Here’s the story. Pullman’s working title for the trilogy was “The Golden Compasses”, referencing a line in Milton’s Paradise Lost about the compasses (the kind you draw circles with) that the Son of God used to circumscribe all creation. He then sent the first book off to the editors at Alfred A. Knopf without an attached title. The editors there thought that “Golden Compass” referred to an item in the book, and started calling the unpublished draft “The Golden Compass” in internal discussions. Meanwhile, across the pond, Pullman decided to call the trilogy “His Dark Materials” instead (also a Paradise Lost reference), and to title the first book “Northern Lights”. At this point, however, the publishers on the American side were already so attached to “The Golden Compass” that Pullman could not persuade them to publish it as “Northern Lights”. The best part about this mistake is that in America, the titles of all the books in the trilogy all potentially refer to artefacts that are central to each of the narratives. I like that kind of symmetry.

Well, that’s it then. We should all gather in the town square to burn the books as we dance naked around the flames. Information is dangerous! If people have information, then they might start to think, and to question and then HOLY SHIT PEOPLE! Are you even remotely aware of what would happen if everyone were an independent thinker? If everyone was given all the information they needed to make decisions FOR THEMSELVES (and not as part of some collective hive-mind)? It’s getting harder and harder to oppress the unwashed masses as it is!

You know what’s worse than a book with information that endangers the world as we know it? A MOVIE BASED ON THAT BOOK. You know what’s even worse? If the people who made the movie TONED DOWN some of the book’s heretical messages so that people will be TRICKED INTO BUYING AND POSSIBLY READING THE BOOK. The world as we know it could end on or around December 7^th 2007 (depending on how long it will take the unwashed masses to read Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy. Personally, it took me 4 days, but I’m a pretty fast reader. I wouldn’t seriously worry until at least a week later).

Christians like feeling persecuted. Trust me, we do. It makes us feel better that there are a great many forces out there that disadvantage us. Plus, there is a certain romantic passion that comes with facing down our enemies as a united mass. That universal yearn to be martyred (without the attendant inconvenience of death) is fuelling an email campaign against Nicole Kidman’s latest outing to the silver screen. The two emails (sourced from snopes.com[1]) currently making the rounds are below the cut.

[Collected via e-mail, October 2007]
There will be a new Children’s movie out in December called THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It is written by Phillip Pullman, a proud athiest who belongs to secular humanist societies. He hates C. S. Lewis’s Chronical’s of Narnia and has written a trilogy to show the other side. The movie has been dumbed down to fool kids and their parents in the hope that they will buy his trilogy where in the end the children kill God and everyone can do as they please. Nicole Kidman stars in the movie so it will probably be advertised a lot. This is just a friendly warning that you sure won’t hear on the regular TV.

---

[Collected via e-mail, October 2007]

I don’t just generally dismiss a movie or book just because someone ’says’ it’s meant to be something else…but this is worth knowing if you plan to see it (or plan to take your kids).

“Hi! I just wanted to inform you what I just learned about a movie that is coming out December 7, during the Christmas season, which is entitled THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It stars Nicole Kidman and it is directed toward children. What is disturbing to me is that this movie is based on the first of a trilogy of books for children called HIS DARK MATERIALS written by Philip Pullman of England.

He’s an atheist and his objective is to bash Christianity and promote atheism. I heard that he has made remarks that he wants to kill God in the minds of children, and that’s what his books are all about. He despises C.S. Lewis and Narnia, etc. An article written about him said “this is the most dangerous author in Britain” and that Pullman would be the writer “the atheists would be praying for, if atheists prayed.” Pullman said he doesn’t think it is possible that there is a God and he has great difficulty understanding the words “spiritual” and “spirituality.” What I thought was important to communicate is what part of the agenda is for making this picture. This movie is a watered down version of the first book, which is the least offensive of the three books. The second book of the trilogy is THE SUBTLE KNIFE and the third book is THE AMBER SPYGLASS. Each book gets worse and worse regarding Pullman’s hatred of God. In the trilogy, a young girl becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious Church known as the Magisterium. Another character, an ex-nun, describes Christianity as “a very powerful and convincing mistake.” As I understand it, in the last book, a boy and girl are depicted representing Adam and Eve and they kill God, who at times is called YAHWEH (which is definitely not Allah). Since the movie would seem mild if you viewed it, that’s been done on purpose.

They are hoping that unsuspecting parents will take their children to See the movie, that they will enjoy the movie and then the children will want the books for Christmas. That’s the hook. Pullman says he wants the children to read the books and decide against God and the kingdom of heaven.

If you decide that you do not want to support something like this, I suggest that you boycott the movie and the books. I googled a synopsis of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. As I skimmed it, I couldn’t believe that in a children’s book part of the story is about castration and female circumcision.

I’m just going to deal with the bit about castration and female circumcision first. There is nothing in the books about genital mutilation. None. What this is is a stunning example of the non-ability to read a large body of text. (Seriously American public school system, WTF is wrong with you guys?!) After a quick Google, I’ve found the reference to castration and female circumcision. The numbnut who penned the second email – well, they skimmed the SparkNotes version of the trilogy. And, I quote:

Lyra [the protagonist]’s discovery of Tony Makarios helps her to understand that the Gobblers are cutting children’s daemons[2] away from them in a procedure they call Intercision. Intercision is like castration, in which a young boy’s testicles are cut off so that he never reaches male maturity. Intercision also recalls female circumcision, in which a girl’s clitoris is removed so that she cannot experience the full intensity of sexual pleasure. Both castration and female circumcision are religious in origin. Both practices respond to a religious demand that some natural part of a person be removed in order to prevent sexual pleasure. Intercision is also religious and anti-sexual. It is performed by the General Oblation Board, which is a branch of the Church in Lyra’s world, and it is intended to prevent the onset of “upsetting emotions” and allow children to grow up without ever feeling passion. Lyra knows Intercision is wrong, although she isn’t exactly sure why it’s wrong. For Pullman, sexual experience is an essential part of becoming a full-grown human, despite the confusion and pain it can cause.

Now, admittedly, much of that paragraph is not going to make sense to you if you haven’t read the books. I can understand that it didn’t make much sense to the functionally illiterate drooling fool who read it either. They just saw the words “castration” and “female circumcision” and thought that it would be a good idea to raise the alarm, rather than figure out that they really do have it all wrong. See, like anyone who has had to hand in a last minute Literature assignment knows, SparkNotes not only provides a plot summary, but also highlights the central themes of the book (along with interpretation). One of the central themes of the book is how maturity and experience is demonised (pun intended, you’d get it if you’ve read the books) and how the church would go a long way to excise that which they deem wrong in any way whatsoever (you know, like how the church denies human sexuality in our world). SparkNotes is really just spelling it out for us last minute essay writers because (bless them) they know that at 3am, having powered down 16 energy drinks in the last 5 hours to stay awake, our analytical skills are not at their finest.

To be honest, my first reaction to the alarmist “our children will be exposed to issues surrounding sexual organs” was to laugh and send the link to a few friends. Then I decided to Google “female circumcision Golden Compass” to link up with others in the blogosphere who are also laughing at this stunning example of reading comprehension. What I found instead is scarier than watching the Gregory Peck version of the Omen at 5am on a winter morning buzzed on energy drinks you chugged to keep you awake so you could finish that Literature essay. The first page of the search was filled with people who were freaking out about the fact that the Golden Compass has female circumcision in it. Some of the posts (which I refuse to link to. You can Google them yourselves, hopefully THIS POST will become a top hit for those search terms and more people will be spared the my-eyes-are-bleeding-stop-please-stop horror that I had to bear witness to) babbled on about how they do not want to see a mutilated vagina on the big screen, especially not to a movie they were planning on bringing their children to. OH LIKE THAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN. A VAGINA IN A HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTER (have you even heard the word vagina mentioned in a Hollywood blockbuster?). It’s like people see “castration” and “female circumcision” and all reason flies out the window. Oh wait, it does.

These febrile mouth-breathers have been picked up by (who else?!) Fox News (follow link to watch the video). PZ Myers at Pharyngula has an excellent takedown of the clip.

There are many things wrong with the content of the circulating emails (as well as the points raised by the talking heads) but what really sticks in my craw is the assumption that Pullman is an atheist that wants to make children kill God. While the children do eventually kill “God” (I really don’t want to spoil the book guys[3], so I’m doing the best I can here to dispel some of the rumours that are out there without actually talking too much about the book. You’ll know what I’m talking about when you actually read the books yourself, of course) it isn’t a malicious or targeted act. They certainly did not set out to kill God. Their quest is much more meandering and obscured as much from them as from the reader. The dangers they face are from the other characters in the book, they do not set out to destroy religion. It helps that they uncover some of the ugly truths about organized religion along the way[4] (and that is what makes these books so fantastic and revolutionary) but these are not nihilistic little bastards. Rather, they are self-determined kids who trust their instincts in the face of adversity and opposition. Not exactly good role models for Christian sheep good Christian parents should raise, I guess.

This is a long post, and I thank you for sticking with me this far, (we all lead busy lives, I know) so I’ll just add one last point. The reason New Line took religion out of the movies was not so they could trick innocent children into reading these sacrilegious tomes. The reason they removed religion was to remove controversy and maximize box office gross. Chris Weitz of New Line has said:

“Hollywood is just terrified that anything that brings up religion or anything controversial will be disastrous.”

He goes on to mention that some religious imagery will remain in the film, however, you need a DVD player with an easy to use frame-by-frame interface as well as working knowledge of Latin to suss them out. OMG, WTF, BBQ, LOLCAT.

Is Pullman mortified? Yes. But he also knows that if he whines too much the big mean studio will pull the plug on the next two movies. Bridgetothestars.net[5] summarizes his stand (culled from an article in Atlantic Monthly, subscription access). Pullman’s most telling quote is this:

“They do know where to put the theology, and that’s off the film.”

But no, poor, not-being-persecuted Christians (anyone think we should bring back pits of lions?) they didn’t take theology of the film to trick teh childrenz. They did it so you idiots will line their pockets this movie season. For the love of all freethinking people everywhere, go fuck yourselves.

[1] I have to say that I’m gravely disappointed by snopes.com this time around. They have listed these emails to be “true”. They are more like half truths, and as we know, unless it’s the whole truth, it ain’t worth jack shit.

[2] In the book, daemons are like a familiar that people are born with and that follow them throughout their earthly existence. If I told you more I would spoil some of the best bits in the book.

[3] But I will be providing a non-spoiler book review soon.

[4] If you liked Kevin Smith’s Dogma you’ll love these books.

[5] I cannot recommend this website enough. It is a repository for news on the movie and the books. They have a link to an interview with Pullman on the nature of Dust (series of 5 videos on Youtube) that I highly recommend.

Winter is descending fast in the Northern Hemisphere and, for reasons that I do not care enough about to enumerate here, I am forsaking the sun-bathed beaches of Australia for the drizzle-soaked grey of British Columbia, Canada for the next two months. A tragedy like this calls for stew; some serious, blood-warming, soul-fortifying liquid life in a bowl. The issue of what to serve with stew is a serious one. There is the stew=centre stage crew who believe that you should have a side of mashed potatoes (plain) or broad flat noodles, a real canvas and paint situation. Then there is the camp I belong to (and there are very few of us around, as I understand it) that believe that whatever you serve your stew with should be able to stand-alone. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not talking about two competing flavours here. What I am talking about is two separate dishes that are excellent, singly, but explode into an orgy of amazing-ness when paired. With this in mind, may I present for your consideration:

SAD-Prevention Beef Stew with Spicy Sweet Potato Mash

• 1lb (454g) gravy or stew beef, cut into 1” cubes
• 1L beef stock (low-sodium, because it will get reduced)[1]
• 2 med-large carrots, cut into short strips OR 250g of baby carrots
• 2 med onions, quartered OR 250g of pearl onions, peeled[2]
• 2-3 tbsp of AP flour
• 1tsp dried sage[3]
• 3-4tbsp of high smoke point oil
• salt & pepper to taste
• 3-4 serrano chillies
• 1kg sweet potato[4]
• milk & butter as required[5]

1. Heat oil on high in a cast iron pan until the surface of the oil is rippling[6]

2. Coat the beef in flour, salt and pepper, dusting off the extra

3. Brown the beef in batches (don’t over crowd the pan), set the browned beef aside.

4. Evacuate the last batch of beef and deglaze the pan with beef stock (not all of it!), make sure you scrape up the tasty brown bits, stirring it into the stock.

5. Put the carrots, onion, sage and beef into the pan. Add stock to almost the top of the pan. Turn the heat down to simmer. Simmer for more than an hour, adding stock as necessary.[7]

6. Meanwhile, cut sweet potatoes into evenly sized chunks. Dump it into a pot with enough water to cover the potatoes by an inch. Set over high heat. Bring to a boil and check constantly for doneness[8].

7. As the potatoes are cooking slice the chillies lengthwise and scrape out the seeds. Slice thinly crosswise.

8. Drain the cooked potatoes, add the chopped chillies and mash with milk and butter. I like mine to taste real buttery, but that’s just me.

9. When you’ve decided that your stew has simmered enough, check the consistency of the gravy. If it’s not thick enough, mix either the remaining stock or some water with 2-3tsp of cornstarch and stir into the stew to thicken.

10. Serve the stew over a mountain of the orangey goodness.

[1] If you are mixing your stock from powder, use a little less than recommended, otherwise your stew will turn out too salty

[2] Peeling pearl onions is easier than it seems. Just drop them in boiling water for 30 seconds, quickly plunge them into ice water. Then simply squeeze at one end and they will squirt out of their skins.

[3] If you decide to use fresh herbs, use 2tbsp of chopped fresh sage, and add it at the end of cooking (last 5 minutes).

[4] Everyone seems to have an opinion on what sweet potatoes are vs. what constitutes a yam. In this recipe, sweet potato = the thick tuber with bright orange flesh.

[5] Because the amount of milk and butter required is completely dependent on the amount of moisture and sweetness in the sweet potatoes you use and sweet potatoes are an agricultural product (and therefore cannot be absolutely consistent) I cannot give you exact measures.

[6] If your oil starts smoking, throw it out and start again. You have heated it to the point where it has separated into nasty compounds. It will taste funny and may just give you cancer.

[7] If/when you run out of stock, use water. More stock = too salty.

[8] When you can pierce it easily with the tip of a knife, it’s done. Don’t over cook it, otherwise it would just turn gross.

I’ve been meaning to write something like this for a while now, but have not been able to properly organize my thoughts. It started with the responses I garnered from my post about Feminism and Choice. I was told that it was potentially alienating, and that it was one of the worst things I could do if my intention was to recruit people to the movement. Don’t scare people and make them feel uncomfortable, I was told, don’t be so confronting. Once you make your point, you don’t have to make it for three more paragraphs, just slide into the night. Make your points in an objective and rational manner, otherwise you seem biased, and will push away people who “border on disagreeing with you”.

My first instinct was to respond with “if people are that easily turned off, then this movement doesn’t need them”. Not to mention, if I’m really making people feel uncomfortable about inequality, then can’t I consider my job done? I read and re-read that post and couldn’t see that I was making my point irrationally, or even subjectively. Maybe I swore a little, but nothing in that post was radical, or even new. Just run-of-the-mill, existing inequalities that can get a girl fired up from time to time.

But that got me thinking. This movement needs all the people it can get. It’s an important movement, and obviously one I feel strongly about. Is there anything I can do to catch them flies with honey? So I thought about it and the more I thought about it, the less comfortable I was with the idea of sanitizing my posts. I couldn’t figure out why, I would like my voice to be able to educate those that are just entering this oft-maligned world of feminism. Since I want to be talking to the newbies (admittedly being one myself) the last thing I want to do is to scare off anyone. Least of all the “I’m not a Feminist but…” crowd.

So I thought about it some more. And the more I thought about it, the more I saw it cropping up as an issue in the other blogs I frequent. The whole “if only you did X we could take you more seriously” or “Why are you so hostile when I ask a question? I’m really just CURIOUS as to what you think of my prejudicial, logically fallacious arguments!”. Whoops! There I go again, being all biased and non-inclusive. Sorry. Let me back up and have a do-over. See next paragraph for attempt #2.

So I thought about it some more. And the more I thought about it, the more I saw it cropping up as an issue in the other blogs I frequent. The typical scenario involves someone who had just stumbled upon the site, and in the comments indicate that they are new to this kind of thinking. They present their beliefs in the form of a question and are baffled when they are met with annoyed hostility as well as cries of “Troll! Be gone troll!”. Then they leave a final comment about how the blog and its attendant community had a real chance to educate someone there, but they either didn’t altogether, or didn’t do it in an objective and rational manner.

What if I have the opportunity here to educate someone who is curious but unconvinced and turn them off instead? Wait a second. I don’t understand the question. If someone is curious, why is it up to me to preserve their ego while teaching them about something that ultimately is confronting and uncomfortable? No one likes to acknowledge their own privilege. God knows that when I first looked long and hard at the privilege I held I was intensely uncomfortable and defensive about it. Why isn’t it up to the person who seeks the knowledge to be responsible for his/her own education? Can someone be considered a potential “convert” if they are that easily shaken and turned away? Wouldn’t someone who is truly curious about the thoughts and ideas expressed by any activist keep googling the movement and reading all about it (even if the purpose is not to join the movement per se)? Wouldn’t someone who would eventually decide to “fight with us” have to come to that decision through their own research and not a sweet talking amateur blogger? I feel as though if I were to soften my outrage, and quell my passion I would be misrepresenting everything I would like to represent! Yet that is exactly what I must do in order to not “alienate people who border on disagreeing with [me]”.

Inequality is an ugly thing. No one I know wants to uphold it. Sure there are bigots out there, but for the most part, I believe people are and want to be good. And good people don’t want to hear that they are, by virtue of the way they think and act, upholding a system that harms others. I get that. I get that more than most people know. But that’s how it is, and god help me I have no idea how to make that point that the current system sucks ass without confronting people about it. The point is, in itself, confrontational!

I’ve also wondered if the real issue is that I’m an Emotional Woman^TM and that makes me a less credible source. Maybe I have to be really careful about the level of emotion in my posts because no one likes to see a woman who is not properly in control of her faculties. Women are seen as less competent if they are not completely and utterly remote and that, my friends, could be compounding the problem.

It’s not a choice if it’s your only good option. Now repeat that as often as you need to in order to take that on board.

Too often we see discussions of how if feminism is all about choice, then why can’t women choose to wear makeup (full disclosure: I’m wearing make up RIGHT NOW), or choose to stay at home and rely on their husband for full financial support, or choose to diet and lose weight or choose, choose, choose, choose, choose to perform actions that validate the patriarchy.

It’s not a choice if choosing otherwise would be an uphill struggle. It’s not a choice if sticking with it means you have to compromise your own fucking autonomy. Can I choose to go to work without makeup on, without fixing my hair, in a cheap pantsuit? Sure! But since attractive people do better in the workplace, that choice would put me at a disadvantage. I have no choice but to comply with the standards of beauty in order to be viewed as a competent professional. Yet, in having to spend time, effort and money to adhere to those standards, and in being a competent professional who is also trying to be reasonably attractive (don’t forget, I am fat) I am perpetuating the stereotype that people who don’t (or can’t afford to, or are making the political stand I am unable to) aren’t as competent.

It’s not a choice to stay home and tend house if the wage-gap means that my family would have 30% less income if my husband stayed home with the kids instead. It’s not a choice to go out to work and have a Career^TM if I need to hold down a job to make ends meet(whether I have a partner or not). It’s not a choice to work in the pink ghetto if those were the only viable options presented to me.

It’s not a choice to try another diet to try to be part of that 5% that might just not gain all their weight they lost back after 5 years because fat people are seen as slovenly and unattractive. It’s not a choice to undergo plastic surgery to look decades younger because eternal youth is associated with the only form of power consistently available to women today. It’s not a choice to reject that power either – how else are you supposed to navigate society? It’s like the Matrix, without the option of getting the fuck out altogether.

So when people say that Feminism is about choice, it is. It is about making it POSSIBLE for people to choose. And when it looks like we’re not validating choices that don’t fit into our ideology, sit back and think about it for a while. It might not even be a choice. Not yet, at any rate.

I love cooking. I hate cleaning up. Judging from the state of the kitchen in my share house, this is a pretty common configuration. The solution to this of course is to cook something completely fantastic in one pan. That way even if you don’t clean it up it doesn’t add significantly to the growing pile starting to resemble the primordial ooze that brought forth life. Come to think of it, I did see something move in there yesterday. Whatever, it’s not my turn. Getting back to the point, here’s an impressive one-pan meal that you can feed 4 guests with. It would round out nicely with a side salad, but you don’t need a recipe for that now, do you? (Ok, maybe later though…)

Meanwhile, I present for your convenience:

1 Pan Mediterranean-ish Roast Chicken With In Built Side Dish

• 1kg chicken legs (drumstick and thigh attached)
• 8-10 pitted kalamata olives
• 1 roasted red pepper (chopped)[1]
• 1 head of garlic
• 2-3tsp coarse salt[2]
• 3 large roasting potatoes
• juice of 1 lemon
• salt and oil[3]

1. Preheat your oven to 180°C (350°F). Place the rack 6-8 inches from the top heating element.
2. Oil the bottom of your roasting pan.
3. Chop your potatoes into chunks. Coat with oil, salt[4] and lemon juice. Place in oiled pan.
4. In a mortar and pestle combine your olives, roasted red peppers, coarse salt and garlic and pound into a paste. Add oil if necessary[5].
5. Using your fingers, work the skin off the chicken, leaving it attached at the edges of the meat, thus creating a pocket. Spoon your paste under the skin and smooth it out using light massaging motions. Rub the paste on the underside of the chicken as well.
6. Place the chicken skin side up on the potatoes. Oil the skin of the chicken. Chuck it in the oven for 1 hour.
7. Serve with pan juices (or incorporate the pan juices into that side salad you’re making to go along with this) which will thicken upon standing for a while.

[1] You can make these yourself by oiling up a red pepper (or capsicum, which is what I called it growing up) and putting it in your oven on the highest setting or over your gas fire. When the outer skin is completely black and charred, take it off the heat and keep it covered (so steam builds up). Then just peel off the skin (when it’s cool enough to do so, of course) and there you have it. Me? I bought a jar of these peppers from a local ethnic grocery store for $1.99.

[2] Yes coarse is important. For one, it doesn’t contain those weird additives that the finer grained salts require to combat clumping. For another, it provides necessary abrasion.

[3] I use pomace olive oil for most of my cooking needs. I highly recommend it for its higher smoke point than extra virgin olive oil and meatier flavour.

[4] Make sure you salt generously. Potatoes need a lot of salt.

[5] My roasted red peppers were packed in oil, so my paste didn’t need more oil. If you roast your own, you will need about a tbsp of oil.