Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
By Candy Sagon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01

At Kraft Foods, recipes never include words like "dredge" and "saut."
Betty Crocker recipes avoid "braise" and "truss." Land O' Lakes has all
but banned "fold" and "cream" from its cooking instructions. And
Pillsbury carefully sidesteps "simmer" and "sear."
When the country's top food companies want to create recipes that
millions of Americans will be able to understand, there seems to be one
guiding principle: They need to be written for a nation of culinary
illiterates.
Basic cooking terms that have been part of kitchen vocabulary for
centuries are now considered incomprehensible to the majority of
Americans. Despite the popularity of the Food Network cooking shows on
cable TV, and the burgeoning number of food magazines and gourmet
restaurants, today's cooks have fewer kitchen skills than their parents
-- or grandparents -- did.
To compensate, food companies are dumbing down their recipes, and
cookbooks are now published with simple instructions and lots of
step-by-step illustrations.
"Thirty years ago, a recipe would say, 'Add two eggs,' " said Bonnie
Slotnick, a longtime cookbook editor and owner of a rare-cookbook shop
in New York's Greenwich Village. "In the '80s, that was changed to 'beat
two eggs until lightly mixed.' By the '90s, you had to write, 'In a
small bowl, using a fork, beat two eggs,' " she said. "We joke that the
next step will be, 'Using your right hand, pick up a fork and . . .' "
Even the writers and editors of the "Joy of Cooking," working on a 75th
anniversary edition to be published by Charles Scribner's Sons in
November, have argued "endlessly" over whether to include terms like
"blanch," "fold" and "saut ," said Beth Wareham, Scribner's director of
lifestyle publications. "I tell them, 'Why should we dumb it down?' When
you learn to drive, you learn terms like "brake" and "parallel park."
Why is it okay to be stupid when you cook?"
So far, the "Joy of Cooking" editors have compromised by including a
detailed glossary explaining various cooking terms.
At a conference last December, Stephen W. Sanger, chairman and chief
executive of General Mills Inc., noted the sad state of culinary affairs
and described the kind of e-mails and calls the company gets asking for
cooking advice: the person who didn't have any eggs for baking and asked
if a peach would do instead, for example; and the man who railed about
the fire that resulted when he thought he was following instructions to
grease the bottom of the pan -- the outside of the pan.
"We're now two generations into a lack of culinary knowledge being
passed down from our parents," said Richard Ruben, a New York cooking
teacher whose classes for non-cooks draw a range of participants, from
18-year-olds leaving for college who want to have survival skills to
60-year-olds who have more time to cook but don't know how.
"In my basic 'How to Cook' class, I get people who have only used their
ovens to store shoes and sweaters," he said. "They're terrified to hold
a knife. They don't know what garlic looks like."
For many people, cooking classes like his compensate for what they did
not learn at home. "Food companies have to acknowledge that there used
to be a level of teaching in the home by moms and grandmas that is not
as evident today," said Janet Myers, senior director of global kitchens
for Kraft Foods who has been creating and testing recipes for the
company for 30 years.
A survey of women in their twenties and forties for Betty Crocker showed
that 64 percent of women in their twenties had mothers who worked full
time, outside the home, during their childhood, compared with 38 percent
of those in their forties. The group in their forties primarily learned
to cook from their mothers and at school; the younger women also learned
from their mothers, but more of them learned from their fathers,
television chefs, or on their own.
Lisa Bernstein, 31, an employment law attorney in the District, said
that while growing up, her mother was too busy to teach her much more
than how to make spaghetti with sauce from a jar. Tired of microwaving
frozen dinners, she signed up two years ago for lessons with veteran
cooking teacher Phyllis Frucht.
"I watched some of the Food Network programs, but it's not the same as
having someone in the kitchen with you, showing you how to hold the
knife," said Bernstein, who now can make her own pasta sauce for baked
ziti, as well as homemade biscotti for dessert.
Some of these skills used to be taught in mandatory home economics
courses in middle school, but most of the classes ended about 20 years
ago, said Pat Lynn, a Springdale, Md., high school teacher who taught
her first home ec class in 1968. But in some schools, including her own,
home economics has been reconstituted under the umbrella subject of
"family and consumer sciences" to include electives in cooking,
parenting, fashion and career training for jobs in the food-service and
hospitality industries.
And despite laments about the end of home cooking, more than
three-fourths of all dinners are prepared in the home, with women doing
the majority of the cooking, according to the latest figures from the
research firm NPD Group. Interest in food is undiminished, as measured
by magazines devoted to the subject (it's the second-most-popular topic
behind crafts and hobbies for new magazines launched in the past three
years, said Samir A. Husni of the University of Mississippi) and in
sales at gourmet cookware chains such as Williams-Sonoma and Sur La
Table.
Still, in test kitchens at food giants such as Kraft, the goal is
terminology that is "simplistic, and very literal, to make it easy to
understand," Meyers said. Where 20 years ago a recipe for chicken might
have said, "dredge the chicken in flour," today it might say, "coat the
chicken in flour." And instead of saying "saut," recipe writers say to
"cook over medium heat and stir," she said.
At Land O'Lakes, the 85-year-old Minnesota farm cooperative known for
its cheese and butter products, former test kitchen director Lydia
Botham said cooks in their forties and younger are high-tech oriented
when it comes to using the company's Web site for recipes and customized
advice but relatively unskilled when it comes to baking.
"They've grown up with the computer, so they expect things to be faster,
including cooking," said Botham, now director of corporate communication
at the company. "They like baking by adding things to a mix. In recipes,
they want fewer ingredients -- seven is ideal -- and they like
step-by-step pictures that show them what to do."
In 1935, for example, a Land O'Lakes butterscotch cookie recipe directed
cooks to "cream together thoroughly the butter and sugar." Today, Botham
said, "we don't use the word 'cream' anymore. People don't understand
what that means. Instead, we say 'Using your mixer, beat the butter and
sugar.' "
A survey conducted by Betty Crocker Kitchens in 2004 showed adults don't
even realize how cooking-challenged they've become. The national survey
of 1,500 adults found that 70 percent rated themselves "above average"
in cooking knowledge, even though only 38 percent scored above average
on a 20-question cooking-skills quiz. While 98 percent knew the
abbreviation for teaspoon, only 44 percent knew how many teaspoons were
in a tablespoon. Even fewer, 34 percent, knew how much uncooked rice is
needed to yield one cup of cooked rice. (Answers: 3 teaspoons in a
tablespoon; one-third cup of uncooked rice yields 1 cup of cooked rice.)
Children age 10 to 17 weren't much better. A 2004 Betty Crocker survey
of 1,000 children found that while 94 percent could access the Internet,
only 42 percent could cook a spaghetti dinner. Nearly 100 percent could
play a computer game, but only 41 percent could make a fruit smoothie in
a blender. On the other hand, 64 percent said they'd like to help more
with the cooking at home, confirming that cooking is hardly a dying art.
"There's a real need and desire to learn these skills," Ruben said.
*2006*The Washington Post Company

Donald Martinich wrote:

>Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>By Candy Sagon
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>
>
>
<snip article about loss of cooking skills>

Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!

Christine

Old Mother Ashby wrote:
> Donald Martinich wrote:
>
>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>> By Candy Sagon
>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>
>>
>>
> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>
> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>
> Christine

I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
Goomba

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:30:27 -0500, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>>
>>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>> By Candy Sagon
>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>>
>> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>>
>> Christine
>
>I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
>Goomba

I'm not so much concerned about the loss of cooking skills due to
women having other options, but instead the disregard for teaching
good eating habits (nutrition) to children.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

"Goomba38" > wrote in message
...
> Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>>
>>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>> By Candy Sagon
>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>>
>>>
>> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>>
>> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>>
>> Christine
>
> I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
> Goomba

There's a fabulous cookbook that's been around forever. It explains all the
terms described in the Washington Post article. Mention it here, and a
handful of insipid little ****s will belittle the book because it never was,
and still is not trendy. But, it takes the place of an important thing in
cooking: the passing down of knowledge from one generation to another. I'm
not sure why this continuum of knowledge has been interrupted, but I suspect
it's related to two-income households. There was a time when kids came home
from school and found someone cooking. And, not just cooking, but doing it
slowly and deliberately, in a way which might catch the attention of little
kids. (Forget teenagers). This type of thing was gone for a couple of
decades. It still is, in many households.

"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:30:27 -0500, Goomba38 >
> wrote:
>
>>Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>>> By Candy Sagon
>>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>>>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>>>
>>> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>>>
>>> Christine
>>
>>I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
>>Goomba
>
> I'm not so much concerned about the loss of cooking skills due to
> women having other options, but instead the disregard for teaching
> good eating habits (nutrition) to children.

Kids can learn good nutrition, and go outside the home to find it. But, to
get it at home, it usually requires the ability and willingness to put some
time into preparing decent food.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:47:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> wrote:

>
>"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:30:27 -0500, Goomba38 >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>>>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>>>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>>>> By Candy Sagon
>>>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>>>>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>>>>
>>>> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>>>>
>>>> Christine
>>>
>>>I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
>>>Goomba
>>
>> I'm not so much concerned about the loss of cooking skills due to
>> women having other options, but instead the disregard for teaching
>> good eating habits (nutrition) to children.
>
>Kids can learn good nutrition, and go outside the home to find it. But, to
>get it at home, it usually requires the ability and willingness to put some
>time into preparing decent food.
>

Eating habits are learned at home. Kids who are not impressed with
the importance of health at home are not going to seek it outside the
home.

One thing about cooking per se, is that it has become a hobby that
some people will learn because they like to do it rather than because
it's their function in life. Most of the people lamenting the loss of
cooking skills are talking about loss of cooking skills of women.
Apparently women many women today would rather get an education and
have a career than agonize over "dredging." Good for us. In
addition, there still are parents who need to work long and hard to
keep up and cooking is the least of their worries.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:47:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:30:27 -0500, Goomba38 >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>>>>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>>>>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>>>>> By Candy Sagon
>>>>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>>>>>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Christine
>>>>
>>>>I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
>>>>Goomba
>>>
>>> I'm not so much concerned about the loss of cooking skills due to
>>> women having other options, but instead the disregard for teaching
>>> good eating habits (nutrition) to children.
>>
>>Kids can learn good nutrition, and go outside the home to find it. But, to
>>get it at home, it usually requires the ability and willingness to put
>>some
>>time into preparing decent food.
>>
>
> Eating habits are learned at home. Kids who are not impressed with
> the importance of health at home are not going to seek it outside the
> home.
>
> One thing about cooking per se, is that it has become a hobby that
> some people will learn because they like to do it rather than because
> it's their function in life.

A hobby can be set aside for a while and it won't negatively affect your
life in a big way. Eating is not a hobby.


> Most of the people lamenting the loss of
> cooking skills are talking about loss of cooking skills of women.
> Apparently women many women today would rather get an education and
> have a career than agonize over "dredging." Good for us. In
> addition, there still are parents who need to work long and hard to
> keep up and cooking is the least of their worries.

Correct - some people envision women when they think of this subject. But,
not all people.

Curly Sue wrote:

>
> I'm not so much concerned about the loss of cooking skills due to
> women having other options, but instead the disregard for teaching
> good eating habits (nutrition) to children.
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

case in point...
today in line at the grocery store, the woman in front of me was very very
large and she had two kids with her. Her cart was just packed full of
pre-packaged food, candy, treats, and other unhealthy items including 4 cases
of soda. It just made me crazy, I completely understand the occasional
indulgence but the legitimate healthy items were few and far between in that
cart, even the frozen vegetables came in their own cheese or butter sauces.

Of course, I could feel all self righteous at that moment because my cart was
full of things like okra, collard greens, plantains, fennel bulb,
spinach...and on and on. Of course the 15 pack of mac and cheese was already
at home in the pantry so it was a false self righteousness!

anyway, it just made me sad that those kids won't be taught proper eating,
just how to cook convenience and stuff it in.

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

On Sun 19 Mar 2006 08:39:15p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Michael
"Dog3" Lonergan?

> Goomba38 > hitched up their panties and posted
> :
>
>> Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>>> By Candy Sagon
>>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>>>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>>>
>>> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>>>
>>> Christine
>>
>> I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
>> Goomba
>>
>
> I've been following the Food Snob thread. I am also disheartened by the
> article. I get so much out of RFC by just talking. I pick up something
> from almost all threads.
>
> Michael
>

It makes me glad that I have a lot of old cookbooks! I would find it very
tedious to wade through all the unnecessary instructions and explanations.

--
Wayne Boatwright o¿o
____________________

BIOYA

On Sun 19 Mar 2006 08:47:56p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it The Bubbo?

> Curly Sue wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not so much concerned about the loss of cooking skills due to
>> women having other options, but instead the disregard for teaching
>> good eating habits (nutrition) to children.
>>
>> Sue(tm)
>> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
>
> case in point...
> today in line at the grocery store, the woman in front of me was very
> very large and she had two kids with her. Her cart was just packed full
> of pre-packaged food, candy, treats, and other unhealthy items including
> 4 cases of soda. It just made me crazy, I completely understand the
> occasional indulgence but the legitimate healthy items were few and far
> between in that cart, even the frozen vegetables came in their own
> cheese or butter sauces.
>
> Of course, I could feel all self righteous at that moment because my
> cart was full of things like okra, collard greens, plantains, fennel
> bulb, spinach...and on and on. Of course the 15 pack of mac and cheese
> was already at home in the pantry so it was a false self righteousness!

Chances are she wouldn't have had a clue what to do with anything in your
cart. But she would probably have pounced on those packs of mac and
cheese. :-)

> anyway, it just made me sad that those kids won't be taught proper
> eating, just how to cook convenience and stuff it in.

David grew up in a household like that, and it's taken 14 years to
"enlighten" him to better eating. I'm still at it!

--
Wayne Boatwright o¿o
____________________

BIOYA

Michael "Dog3" Lonergan wrote:
> "Doug Kanter" > hitched up their panties and
> posted :
>
>>
>> "Goomba38" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>>>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>>>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>>>> By Candy Sagon
>>>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>>>>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>>>>
>>>> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>>>>
>>>> Christine
>>>
>>> I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
>>> Goomba
>>
>> There's a fabulous cookbook that's been around forever. It explains
>> all the terms described in the Washington Post article. Mention it
>> here, and a handful of insipid little ****s will belittle the book
>> because it never was, and still is not trendy. But, it takes the
>> place of an important thing in cooking: the passing down of
>> knowledge from one generation to another. I'm not sure why this
>> continuum of knowledge has been interrupted, but I suspect it's
>> related to two-income households. There was a time when kids came
>> home from school and found someone cooking. And, not just cooking,
>> but doing it slowly and deliberately, in a way which might catch the
>> attention of little kids. (Forget teenagers). This type of thing was
>> gone for a couple of decades. It still is, in many households.
>
> Doug, what is the name of the book?
>
> Michael

I once bought a book for a friend called "How to Boil Water". There is no
such thing as a stupid cookbook if it actually helps people learn how to
cook.

Jill

Donald Martinich wrote:
> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie

Unfortunately, PIE isn't easy.

> By Candy Sagon
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>
> At Kraft Foods, recipes never include words like "dredge" and "saut."

Would that be "saute"?

You can read the rest of the article. It's the brim of the Vernal Equinox
and as my Scottish grandmother would say, "Tis a bra bricht min licht nicht
a nicht!"

Jill

Donald Martinich wrote:
> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
[snip the article]

This article tries too hard to make something out of nothing. It's
hardly worth responding to except to correct the record. A few main
points:

* More complete directions in cookbooks doesn't mean today's readers
are dumber, it means today's writers are smarter. James Beard and
Julia Child demonstrated 40 and 50 years ago that careful directions
are more valuable than "add 2 eggs" or "bake until done."

* That more wives work outside the home doesn't mean jack as to
whether kids will learn about food and cooking at home. It may mean
there are more opportunities for the kids to learn from Dad as well as
Mom.

* That food companies get more ignorant and weird questions from
customers than ever before means they now have e-mail. If Fanny Farmer
had e-mail she'd have got just as many dumb questions.

* We're not talking rocket science here. Absolutely nothing is in
danger of being lost. Food and cooking are still interesting and those
who want to become proficient and to enjoy improving their skills and
knowledge have more resources available to do so than ever before.
-aem

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:56:56 -0800, Donald Martinich >
wrote:

>
>Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>By Candy Sagon
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>
>At Kraft Foods, recipes never include words like "dredge" and "saut."
>Betty Crocker recipes avoid "braise" and "truss." Land O' Lakes has all

On the schedule for publication in 2010 - The How to Boil Wtaer
Cookbook.


jim

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:46:08 -0600, "jmcquown"
> wrote:


>I once bought a book for a friend called "How to Boil Water". There is no
>such thing as a stupid cookbook if it actually helps people learn how to
>cook.


I think a new addition will be out in 2010 or so. I wish I had seen
this before making a nearly identicle post.


jim

ensenadajim wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:46:08 -0600, "jmcquown"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I once bought a book for a friend called "How to Boil Water". There
>> is no such thing as a stupid cookbook if it actually helps people
>> learn how to cook.
>
>
> I think a new addition will be out in 2010 or so. I wish I had seen
> this before making a nearly identicle post.
>
>
> jim

The first chapter explains how to boil hot dogs. And wait! there's more!
You *can* make grilled cheese sandwiches!

I should say the woman I gave this cookbook to wasn't illiterate and she was
a very good friend of mine. For her 20th birthday I gave her a copy of the
'Good Housekeeping' cookbook. She was a newlywed and I figured it would be
a slightly better choice now that she'd figured out how to boil water

Jill

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug Kanter" > hitched up their panties and
> posted :
>
>>
>> "Goomba38" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>>>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>>>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>>>> By Candy Sagon
>>>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>>>>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>>>>
>>>> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>>>>
>>>> Christine
>>>
>>> I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
>>> Goomba
>>
>> There's a fabulous cookbook that's been around forever. It explains
>> all the terms described in the Washington Post article. Mention it
>> here, and a handful of insipid little ****s will belittle the book
>> because it never was, and still is not trendy. But, it takes the place
>> of an important thing in cooking: the passing down of knowledge from
>> one generation to another. I'm not sure why this continuum of
>> knowledge has been interrupted, but I suspect it's related to
>> two-income households. There was a time when kids came home from
>> school and found someone cooking. And, not just cooking, but doing it
>> slowly and deliberately, in a way which might catch the attention of
>> little kids. (Forget teenagers). This type of thing was gone for a
>> couple of decades. It still is, in many households.
>
> Doug, what is the name of the book?
>
> Michael

"Joy of Cooking". Now, get ready for the insipid ****s to arrive with
comments. Two of them are regulars here.

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> * That more wives work outside the home doesn't mean jack as to
> whether kids will learn about food and cooking at home. It may mean
> there are more opportunities for the kids to learn from Dad as well as
> Mom.

Two votes for this thought. But, there *are* still households where one
parent or the other simply does not cook. This is usually NOT because of
lack of ability, though.

The Bubbo wrote:

> Curly Sue wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not so much concerned about the loss of cooking skills due to
>>women having other options, but instead the disregard for teaching
>>good eating habits (nutrition) to children.
>>
>>Sue(tm)
>>Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
>
>
> case in point...
> today in line at the grocery store, the woman in front of me was very very
> large and she had two kids with her. Her cart was just packed full of
> pre-packaged food, candy, treats, and other unhealthy items including 4 cases
> of soda. It just made me crazy, I completely understand the occasional
> indulgence but the legitimate healthy items were few and far between in that
> cart, even the frozen vegetables came in their own cheese or butter sauces.
>
> Of course, I could feel all self righteous at that moment because my cart was
> full of things like okra, collard greens, plantains, fennel bulb,
> spinach...and on and on. Of course the 15 pack of mac and cheese was already
> at home in the pantry so it was a false self righteousness!
>
> anyway, it just made me sad that those kids won't be taught proper eating,
> just how to cook convenience and stuff it in.
>

What I find odd is how anyone could stand in line, anaylze someone
else's purchases, then feel self righteous because their food choices
were somehow better. I figure it is none of my business what others
buy. I hate standing in line anyway so I have a lot of ebooks on my
PDA. Once in line, I pull out my PDA and amuse myself. The good thing
is because of my shopping habbits this doesn't happen often.

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...


> You'd be surprised at how many women have educations, have careers, and
> have kids yet still find the time to cook. If anything the cooking skills
> have increased in this segment of the population. Educated people in
> general tend to be more health conscious. Educated people with careers
> tend to have more money so can buy more exotic ingredients if they choose
> without the worry of breaking the bank. There are stats on educated vs
> uneducated that indicate both of theses comments. I'll try to find the
> link.

The connection to education level tends to be true in many health-related
studies, whether they involve dietary habits, or rates of certain diseases.

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug Kanter" > hitched up their panties and
> posted :
>
>> "Joy of Cooking". Now, get ready for the insipid ****s to arrive with
>> comments. Two of them are regulars here.
>
>
> I have the book and have used it many times. I bought it when I was in
> college. I never learned how to cook at home. It's a great book but I
> have
> not opened it for years. I'll have to dig it out and take a look. IIRC
> it
> was wonderful for people wanting the basics and learning how to cook.
>
> Michael

After a point, I think it functions as an encyclopedia. I have a nice recipe
for making bread which requires a "biga" (like a sourdough starter). I'd
never had any left over before, and it needed to be "fed". I didn't know
how. Out came "Joy of Cooking", which explained it nicely. I suppose many
people go to the web for this sort of info, thinking it's faster. It's not.

~patches~ wrote:

> What I find odd is how anyone could stand in line, anaylze someone
> else's purchases, then feel self righteous because their food choices
> were somehow better. I figure it is none of my business what others
> buy. I hate standing in line anyway so I have a lot of ebooks on my
> PDA. Once in line, I pull out my PDA and amuse myself. The good thing
> is because of my shopping habits this doesn't happen often.


I was wondering if anyone else would comment on this. I don't even see
what's in other people's shopping carts. Why on earth would I care if I
did notice? And if I did notice, how could I know what the people were
doing with the groceries? A fat woman might be buying the junk food as
part of getting supplies for an office party. It could be part of her
job. (I don't speculate on people's sex lives either.)


As for what to do in line, the PDA is the wrong way to go. If you do
that, you'll miss the chance to read (but not buy) Archie comics and The
Weekly World News.


--Lia

"~patches~" > wrote:
> You'd be surprised at how many women have educations, have careers, and
> have kids yet still find the time to cook.

I think a lot of it has to do with time management and priorities. Here are
a few factors that I think lead to the "lack of time" perception:

- The siren call of technology. People think things like microwaving frozen
dinners is saving a lot of time, but often it is not. For a family of four,
in the time it takes to sequentially microwave four dinners, one "real"
dinner serving four could have been prepared.

- Programming every minute of the children's time. In driving children
around to all these activities, it doesn't leave much for cooking and
eating. Plus the different schedules of multiple children's activities can
make it impossible to have everyone home at the same time. There's something
to be said for giving a child some of their own unprogrammed time to do
things and interact with others in an unstructured way.

- Long commutes. Some people insist on having the "perfect" house and then
drive hours a day getting to and from work. That time could be spent on
other activities, cooking being but one of them. At some point one has to
say what good is the perfect house if you are never there.

Of course, if you don't know what you are doing cooking, and don't have the
interest, even an infinite amount of time isn't going to help.

I think a lot of those older cookbooks, such as "Joy of Cooking" and
"Mastering the Art of French Cooking" put a lot of emphasis on methods and
less on recipes than a lot of current cookbooks. The thought was if you knew
the methods, you could come up with your own recipes fairly easily. But it
seems as people these days clamor for recipes even if they have no idea how
to cook. They are not interested in methods, they want instant
gratification. You see that here on rfc quite often. I know sometimes I'll
post an idea (general methods and ingredients without amounts), and almost
instantly there's the "recipe please" requests. I can't respond, because for
the most part I don't use recipes.

There was a very short article in the Washington Post last week interviewing
Lidia Matticchio Bastianich, that gave some advice that I think is very
good, kind of like the Nike "Just Do It" ads:

Washington Post: You had the benefit of cooking with family in the kitchen.
What advice do you have for people who are learning on their own?

Lidia: Don't become a slave to the recipe. Follow it the first time, yes.
But after that, don't worry so much about the measuring. Really.

Washington Post: Easy for you to say.

Lidia: Young people. They're busy working, they're bombarded with ethnic
cuisines and they try to do it all. They should focus on a single one --
like Italian. They should just get in there and do it.

(Full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle)


--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

jmcquown wrote:
> Donald Martinich wrote:
> > Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
> > As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>
> Unfortunately, PIE isn't easy.
>
> > By Candy Sagon
> > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
> >
> > At Kraft Foods, recipes never include words like "dredge" and "saut."
>
> Would that be "saute"?

I believe that "saut" (or is it "saute"?) is the 2nd personal informal
tense of the verb "sauter". I'm not sure that it's ever used that way
in cooking, though it is used that way in ballet (more commonly 2nd
personal formal "sautez").

-goro-

> You can read the rest of the article. It's the brim of the Vernal Equinox
> and as my Scottish grandmother would say, "Tis a bra bricht min licht nicht
> a nicht!"
>
> Jill

"Goro" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>> "Curly Sue" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:47:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:30:27 -0500, Goomba38 >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>> >>>>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>> >>>>>> As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>> >>>>>> By Candy Sagon
>> >>>>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>> >>>>>> Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> <snip article about loss of cooking skills>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Haven't you been reading the Food Snob thread? GO AWAY!!!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Christine
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I haven't... and I'm disheartened by the article in The Post. :/
>> >>>>Goomba
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not so much concerned about the loss of cooking skills due to
>> >>> women having other options, but instead the disregard for teaching
>> >>> good eating habits (nutrition) to children.
>> >>
>> >>Kids can learn good nutrition, and go outside the home to find it. But,
>> >>to
>> >>get it at home, it usually requires the ability and willingness to put
>> >>some
>> >>time into preparing decent food.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Eating habits are learned at home. Kids who are not impressed with
>> > the importance of health at home are not going to seek it outside the
>> > home.
>> >
>> > One thing about cooking per se, is that it has become a hobby that
>> > some people will learn because they like to do it rather than because
>> > it's their function in life.
>>
>> A hobby can be set aside for a while and it won't negatively affect your
>> life in a big way. Eating is not a hobby.
>>
>>
>> > Most of the people lamenting the loss of
>> > cooking skills are talking about loss of cooking skills of women.
>> > Apparently women many women today would rather get an education and
>> > have a career than agonize over "dredging." Good for us. In
>> > addition, there still are parents who need to work long and hard to
>> > keep up and cooking is the least of their worries.
>>
>> Correct - some people envision women when they think of this subject.
>> But,
>> not all people.
>
> Wow. This did not even occur to me, though it retrospect, I see your
> point.
>
> I guess that since "most men" did have the Art of Cookoing in the first
> place, it would be hard to lose it.
>
> -goro-
>

Like any societal change, this one requires 2-3 generations (or more) to
change. My teenage son has other things on his mind, like talking on the
phone all day while functioning as a heavy weight to keep the sofa from
flying out the window. During his occasional moments of partial awareness, I
rag on him about how he might want to spend some time with me in the kitchen
so he learns, and doesn't starve to death when he's living on his own. What
would sons have been told in the 1950s? Maybe nothing? Would there have been
the unspoken expection that as soon as they were done with college, a woman
would magically appear to cook for them? I don't recall what I absorbed when
I was 8 years old. What I *do* know is that in college, there were plenty of
guys whose entire relationship with women involved having someone to do
their laundry.

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:gzyTf.10573$bu.2925@trnddc04...

> - Programming every minute of the children's time. In driving children
> around to all these activities, it doesn't leave much for cooking and
> eating. Plus the different schedules of multiple children's activities can
> make it impossible to have everyone home at the same time. There's
> something to be said for giving a child some of their own unprogrammed
> time to do things and interact with others in an unstructured way.

George Carlin did a fantastic routine on this very subject. It's called
"**** the Children", although that title doesn't really describe the
conclusion he comes to in the end, which matches yours: "Leave them the ****
alone!" My son's got an mp3 file with the routine - I'll be getting it from
him later this week, if anyone's interested. Really funny, but all of it
true.



> I think a lot of those older cookbooks, such as "Joy of Cooking" and
> "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" put a lot of emphasis on methods and
> less on recipes than a lot of current cookbooks.

Exactly! And, for reasons I cannot explain, many people cannot focus on
boring things like learning the right way to mix certain ingredients. Joy of
Cooking will take a whole page explaining why you should overmix this or
that, but who reads that stuff? Instead you hear "Let's go out to IHOP - my
pancakes never turn out good for some reason". Five minutes of reading
would've solved the problem.



> The thought was if you knew the methods, you could come up with your own
> recipes fairly easily.

Right. There are a huge number of skills which are common to many recipes.
But, some people think that even if they've grilled steaks successfully a
million times, they're incapable of grilling pork chops.



> Lidia: Young people. They're busy working, they're bombarded with ethnic
> cuisines and they try to do it all. They should focus on a single one --
> like Italian. They should just get in there and do it.

I think that woman's brilliant, based on her comments.

~patches~ wrote:

>
> What I find odd is how anyone could stand in line, anaylze someone
> else's purchases, then feel self righteous because their food choices
> were somehow better. I figure it is none of my business what others
> buy. I hate standing in line anyway so I have a lot of ebooks on my
> PDA. Once in line, I pull out my PDA and amuse myself. The good thing
> is because of my shopping habbits this doesn't happen often.

I finally got bored with my PDA a couple years ago so i don't really carry it
with me anymore.

I'm an observer, I watch people. I watch people's shopping habits, I watch
people at restaurants, I watch how people drie and how they negotiate the
skyways and how they bag my produce at the farmer's market. I pay attention
and I notice things. The guy behind me bought 2 half gallons of 2 percent milk
and 1 half gallon of chocolate milk. He paid with cash.

The guy behind him was buying chips, soda and his girfriend talked on the
phone and grabbed impulse gum. I did nt see how they paid, I was gone by then.

I always check out other carts, what could be more interesting than watching
the eating habits of other people? it's like a lesson in anthropology. I think
that honestly that may have been one of the reasons I stopped using the PDA,
it ended up being an expensive gameboy for me, I mean how often do i need to
whip out my grandmother's address when I'm at the hairdresser? It just became
a green beeping distraction.

Though I do sometimes miss playing Drug Wars during my layovers.

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote:
> ~patches~ wrote:
>
>> What I find odd is how anyone could stand in line, anaylze someone else's
>> purchases, then feel self righteous because their food choices were
>> somehow better. I figure it is none of my business what others buy. I
>> hate standing in line anyway so I have a lot of ebooks on my PDA. Once
>> in line, I pull out my PDA and amuse myself. The good thing is because
>> of my shopping habits this doesn't happen often.
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone else would comment on this. I don't even see
> what's in other people's shopping carts. Why on earth would I care if I
> did notice? And if I did notice, how could I know what the people were
> doing with the groceries? A fat woman might be buying the junk food as
> part of getting supplies for an office party. It could be part of her
> job. (I don't speculate on people's sex lives either.)
>
>
> As for what to do in line, the PDA is the wrong way to go. If you do
> that, you'll miss the chance to read (but not buy) Archie comics and The
> Weekly World News.

I guess I don't look at whats's IN other people's shopping carts, but I most
certainly do look at what's on the conveyor belt in front of and behind my
order. I'm not sure if it is self righteousness as much as it is just
curiosity. I do wonder about the single male with a big stack of frozen
dinners. And I'm pretty sure it's not for an office party, etc. I do wonder
about those who don't use the store's club card (week after week, so they're
not making a one time visit to the store). Even with no conscious planning,
they could be saving a fair amount of money. I might see something a person
has on the counter I'm not aware of and it might give me some ideas. Since I
buy slightly odd produce at times, often the cashier asks what it is, and
sometimes how to use it. I don't mind explaining what one might do with it.
And I don't mind if other customers behind me in line overhear the
conversation.

I'm an observer of life, and I want to see what's going on around me. I
don't have to be entertained with electronic gadgets. You can learn a lot by
being aware of your surroundings and what's going on. Maybe I'm a busybody,
I don't know. A couple of years ago I had a neighbor who might have appeared
to be a nice single mom with two small kids. But if one was more observant,
one would see a drug addict/alcoholic with two small kids who rarely went to
school and who got into various types of mischievousness due to lack of
supervision. I'm not sure if she was technically a prostitute, but she got
various "favors" in exchange for sexual services. I remember one "regular"
who came around in his fancy car saying to his friend "the bitch stood me
up", when he didn't get what he came for that day. She drove her kids around
in her unregistered, uninsured, uninspected car, without a drivers license.
One day when she went out on a drug buy at 4 AM, the police spotted her,
arrested and booked her, and impounded the car. She was eventually evicted
for nonpayment of rent. That last part, the eviction, is probably all a lot
of the neighbors knew about the situation. If someone had intervened, in
some way, I think she and her kids could have been helped. I know I pondered
for a long time calling the truancy people at the school system about the
kids, but never got to it before she was evicted. I'm pretty sure it's just
going to be another cycle of inner city kids that repeats.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> Right. There are a huge number of skills which are common to many recipes.
> But, some people think that even if they've grilled steaks successfully a
> million times, they're incapable of grilling pork chops.

<lol> Too true!
I've only gotten those perfect since I bought a contact grill!
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

aem wrote:

> Donald Martinich wrote:
>
>>Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>
> [snip the article]
>
> This article tries too hard to make something out of nothing. It's
> hardly worth responding to except to correct the record. A few main
> points:
>
> * More complete directions in cookbooks doesn't mean today's readers
> are dumber, it means today's writers are smarter. James Beard and
> Julia Child demonstrated 40 and 50 years ago that careful directions
> are more valuable than "add 2 eggs" or "bake until done."

Honest to goodness, I came across a website with some pretty good
recipes. All the baked recipes started with *Check the oven for any pot
or pans, once cleared, turn oven to...* I know I bookmarked it in one
of the browsers so I'll post the link when I find it. Really though,
careful directions are better than vague ones.

>
> * That more wives work outside the home doesn't mean jack as to
> whether kids will learn about food and cooking at home. It may mean
> there are more opportunities for the kids to learn from Dad as well as
> Mom.
>
> * That food companies get more ignorant and weird questions from
> customers than ever before means they now have e-mail. If Fanny Farmer
> had e-mail she'd have got just as many dumb questions.

Email is just so easy and most times you get fast responses. If in
doubt, why not ask?

>
> * We're not talking rocket science here. Absolutely nothing is in
> danger of being lost. Food and cooking are still interesting and those
> who want to become proficient and to enjoy improving their skills and
> knowledge have more resources available to do so than ever before.
> -aem
>

"Doug Kanter" > wrote:
> Like any societal change, this one requires 2-3 generations (or more) to
> change. My teenage son has other things on his mind, like talking on the
> phone all day while functioning as a heavy weight to keep the sofa from
> flying out the window. During his occasional moments of partial awareness,
> I rag on him about how he might want to spend some time with me in the
> kitchen so he learns, and doesn't starve to death when he's living on his
> own. What would sons have been told in the 1950s? Maybe nothing? Would
> there have been the unspoken expection that as soon as they were done with
> college, a woman would magically appear to cook for them? I don't recall
> what I absorbed when I was 8 years old. What I *do* know is that in
> college, there were plenty of guys whose entire relationship with women
> involved having someone to do their laundry.

Maybe the sons were taught nothing by the fathers in the 1950s. But my
father taught us (1960s) how to work on the car, how to do plumbing and
electrical work around the house, and a lot of similar stuff. In fact, my
father bought an old 1948 Chevy that we restored specifically to teach us,
and we built a house so we could learn the trades a bit better than just
with the normal projects around the house. My mother taught us how to cook,
do laundry, iron, sew, and the financial stuff like budgeting and balancing
a check book. None of us were exempt, though some resisted more than others.
We were well prepared when we went out into the world.

One of my father's requirements for driving a car was knowing how to change
a tire. It was interesting with my sister and my father's 1971 Mercury
Monterey. My sister did learn the whole procedure, but she couldn't
physically lift the huge tire and balance it on the wheel studs. She could
just manage to get the tire up there, but couldn't get the studs to line up
with the holes in the wheel. So her girlfriend, a much huskier type, picked
the tire up for her and got it on the studs first try. It was kind of funny.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

"Goro" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>> > Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>> > As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>
>> Unfortunately, PIE isn't easy.
>>
>> > By Candy Sagon
>> > Washington Post Staff Writer
>> > Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>> >
>> > At Kraft Foods, recipes never include words like "dredge" and "saut."
>>
>> Would that be "saute"?
>
> I believe that "saut" (or is it "saute"?) is the 2nd personal informal
> tense of the verb "sauter". I'm not sure that it's ever used that way
> in cooking, though it is used that way in ballet (more commonly 2nd
> personal formal "sautez").

Using "saut" probably made the writer feel all cool & stuff, though. :-)

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...

> Honest to goodness, I came across a website with some pretty good recipes.
> All the baked recipes started with *Check the oven for any pot or pans,
> once cleared, turn oven to...* I know I bookmarked it in one of the
> browsers so I'll post the link when I find it. Really though, careful
> directions are better than vague ones.


I have a recipe for cardamom cake. I use twice as much cardamom as the
original recipe called for, so when I share the recipe, I make it clear that
1 measure is what the original recipe said, and 2 measures is what I use -
"start with one and double it if you like the taste and make the cake
again". Gave it to a friend who made like this decision was a major life
crisis. We were on the phone for 20 minutes about THIS ONE THING.
"Well....what should I do???? Do you think I'll like it with 2 measures???"

sigh.....

"Doug Kanter" > wrote:
> "Goro" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>> Donald Martinich wrote:
>>> > Cooking 101: Add 1 Cup of Simplicity
>>> > As Kitchen Skills Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, PIE isn't easy.
>>>
>>> > By Candy Sagon
>>> > Washington Post Staff Writer
>>> > Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
>>> >
>>> > At Kraft Foods, recipes never include words like "dredge" and "saut."
>>>
>>> Would that be "saute"?
>>
>> I believe that "saut" (or is it "saute"?) is the 2nd personal informal
>> tense of the verb "sauter". I'm not sure that it's ever used that way
>> in cooking, though it is used that way in ballet (more commonly 2nd
>> personal formal "sautez").
>
> Using "saut" probably made the writer feel all cool & stuff, though. :-)

I wondered about that word "saut" since I didn't remember seeing it in the
physical newspaper when I read the article. The writer used the word
"saute", but with the acute or accent mark on the final "e". When the
original poster copied the article over, the "é" didn't transfer correctly.
It is in both the physical newspaper and the online version (as "sauté").

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

~patches~ wrote:


> You'd be surprised at how many women have educations, have careers, and
> have kids yet still find the time to cook. If anything the cooking
> skills have increased in this segment of the population. Educated
> people in general tend to be more health conscious. Educated people
> with careers tend to have more money so can buy more exotic ingredients
> if they choose without the worry of breaking the bank. There are stats
> on educated vs uneducated that indicate both of theses comments. I'll
> try to find the link.

Thank you. That's me.

I'm on a medical leave right now, but I teach full time, take
professional development courses or graduate classes part time, and
raise my daughter the old fashioned way - as in, after school snack,
gets help if necessary to finish homework, then has time to play
outside (lately it's to run the new puppy around, good expercise for
both of them!), and maybe a few school-night chores. Notice that TV and
comuter do not make that list. Spare time she likes to read or play
with her stuffed animals and Barbies.

But by 6:30, Mom's headed for the kitchen. Some nights, the kiddo wants
to come help. Many nights, she stops by to see what's cooking and find
out if there's gonna be a fresh dessert. =) And grab a few nibbles off
the cutting board.

In an hour, I can make a fantastic meal, easily. If we're short on
time, I can pull of stir-fry or pasta or broiled fish in half an hour
no problem. Nights where we have committments I set up the crockpot
before leaving for work. Maybe one night a week we end up with carry
out, if I'm just too tired to cook and need to come home to put the
feet up and collapse.

Menus depend on the budget. When our pockets are full, I play around
with fun recipes and cool ingredients, exptoc sauces, and so on. When
money's tight, we eat bean burritoes that I actually make - gasp - I
roll the beans and cheese and onions into those tortillas all by
myself!! Or beans and rice, or simple pasta. I can pull off a cheap
meal for under $10. So time and poverty don'[t work as excuses for me.

I do agree that not everyone WANTS to come home and head straight for
the kitchen, though.Its kind of nice that one of people's daily
'chores' happens to be one of the hobbies that brings me pleasure.

The Bubbo wrote:
>
> I'm an observer, I watch people. I watch people's shopping habits, I watch
> people at restaurants, I watch how people drie and how they negotiate the
> skyways and how they bag my produce at the farmer's market. I pay attention
> and I notice things. The guy behind me bought 2 half gallons of 2 percent milk
> and 1 half gallon of chocolate milk. He paid with cash.

You mean to say you moved through the check-out and then waited around
to watch the person *behind* you check out and even waited long enough
to see how they paid... sheesh, you don't have a life... or you simply
just made this up... for a self-proclaimed observer you're not nearly
so observant as those reading your post. Anyone reading your post can
clearly observe that you are lying. WTF do you need to constantly make
stuff up just so you have something to post... every one of your posts
I've read is a fabrication... you're very ill.

Sheldon

wff_ng_7 wrote:

> "~patches~" > wrote:
>
>>You'd be surprised at how many women have educations, have careers, and
>>have kids yet still find the time to cook.
>
>
> I think a lot of it has to do with time management and priorities. Here are
> a few factors that I think lead to the "lack of time" perception:
>
> - The siren call of technology. People think things like microwaving frozen
> dinners is saving a lot of time, but often it is not. For a family of four,
> in the time it takes to sequentially microwave four dinners, one "real"
> dinner serving four could have been prepared.

Our microwave is a glorified breadbox most days but I do know what you
are saying.

>
> - Programming every minute of the children's time. In driving children
> around to all these activities, it doesn't leave much for cooking and
> eating. Plus the different schedules of multiple children's activities can
> make it impossible to have everyone home at the same time. There's something
> to be said for giving a child some of their own unprogrammed time to do
> things and interact with others in an unstructured way.

Exactly. Our kids were into a lot of activities. One year was
particularly bad that way so we sat them down and told each to choose 2
activities they really wanted to be involved in. I think they get just
as tired of overscheduling of their time as their parents do.

>
> - Long commutes. Some people insist on having the "perfect" house and then
> drive hours a day getting to and from work. That time could be spent on
> other activities, cooking being but one of them. At some point one has to
> say what good is the perfect house if you are never there.

I was guilty of this when I was getting my education. My daily commute
totaled 3 hours in good weather. The reason behind this is we decided
commuting was a better choice than moving our kids to a city. So for 10
years, I did that daily. Yet my kids ate home cooked meals every day
and they were healthy meals. DH and I made sure of that. DH is a good
cook in his own right and our kids all learned to cook. During that
time, I also did all my own home preserving - canning, freezing, drying
- and I still do.
>
> Of course, if you don't know what you are doing cooking, and don't have the
> interest, even an infinite amount of time isn't going to help.

That's so true.

>
> I think a lot of those older cookbooks, such as "Joy of Cooking" and
> "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" put a lot of emphasis on methods and
> less on recipes than a lot of current cookbooks. The thought was if you knew
> the methods, you could come up with your own recipes fairly easily. But it
> seems as people these days clamor for recipes even if they have no idea how
> to cook. They are not interested in methods, they want instant
> gratification. You see that here on rfc quite often. I know sometimes I'll
> post an idea (general methods and ingredients without amounts), and almost
> instantly there's the "recipe please" requests. I can't respond, because for
> the most part I don't use recipes.
>
> There was a very short article in the Washington Post last week interviewing
> Lidia Matticchio Bastianich, that gave some advice that I think is very
> good, kind of like the Nike "Just Do It" ads:
>
> Washington Post: You had the benefit of cooking with family in the kitchen.
> What advice do you have for people who are learning on their own?
>
> Lidia: Don't become a slave to the recipe. Follow it the first time, yes.
> But after that, don't worry so much about the measuring. Really.
>
> Washington Post: Easy for you to say.
>
> Lidia: Young people. They're busy working, they're bombarded with ethnic
> cuisines and they try to do it all. They should focus on a single one --
> like Italian. They should just get in there and do it.
>
> (Full article:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle)
>
>

The Bubbo wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:
>
>
>>What I find odd is how anyone could stand in line, anaylze someone
>>else's purchases, then feel self righteous because their food choices
>>were somehow better. I figure it is none of my business what others
>>buy. I hate standing in line anyway so I have a lot of ebooks on my
>>PDA. Once in line, I pull out my PDA and amuse myself. The good thing
>>is because of my shopping habbits this doesn't happen often.
>
>
> I finally got bored with my PDA a couple years ago so i don't really carry it
> with me anymore.
>
> I'm an observer, I watch people. I watch people's shopping habits, I watch
> people at restaurants, I watch how people drie and how they negotiate the
> skyways and how they bag my produce at the farmer's market. I pay attention
> and I notice things. The guy behind me bought 2 half gallons of 2 percent milk
> and 1 half gallon of chocolate milk. He paid with cash.

I'm not a people person outside my family and circle of friends. Quite
frankly I don't like people all that much when I'm shopping. They
either get too close to me or do obnoxious things so I tend to totally
tune them out. The person in line in front of me could be holding up
the cashier and I likely wouldn't see a thing!
>
> The guy behind him was buying chips, soda and his girfriend talked on the
> phone and grabbed impulse gum. I did nt see how they paid, I was gone by then.
>
> I always check out other carts, what could be more interesting than watching
> the eating habits of other people? it's like a lesson in anthropology. I think
> that honestly that may have been one of the reasons I stopped using the PDA,
> it ended up being an expensive gameboy for me, I mean how often do i need to
> whip out my grandmother's address when I'm at the hairdresser? It just became
> a green beeping distraction.

My PDA is always in my purse and I do use it daily from anything from
daily planning, contacts, shopping lists, gift details, appointments,
and entertainment. Just as my home computers games have almost no role
on my PDA. It's so much easier carrying around a lot of ebooks than an
actual book and no one can see what you're reading so you don't get
those nosey comments that interfer with your train of thought.
>
> Though I do sometimes miss playing Drug Wars during my layovers.
>

wff_ng_7 wrote:

> "Julia Altshuler" > wrote:
>
>>~patches~ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What I find odd is how anyone could stand in line, anaylze someone else's
>>>purchases, then feel self righteous because their food choices were
>>>somehow better. I figure it is none of my business what others buy. I
>>>hate standing in line anyway so I have a lot of ebooks on my PDA. Once
>>>in line, I pull out my PDA and amuse myself. The good thing is because
>>>of my shopping habits this doesn't happen often.
>>
>>
>>I was wondering if anyone else would comment on this. I don't even see
>>what's in other people's shopping carts. Why on earth would I care if I
>>did notice? And if I did notice, how could I know what the people were
>>doing with the groceries? A fat woman might be buying the junk food as
>>part of getting supplies for an office party. It could be part of her
>>job. (I don't speculate on people's sex lives either.)
>>
>>
>>As for what to do in line, the PDA is the wrong way to go. If you do
>>that, you'll miss the chance to read (but not buy) Archie comics and The
>>Weekly World News.
>
>
> I guess I don't look at whats's IN other people's shopping carts, but I most
> certainly do look at what's on the conveyor belt in front of and behind my
> order. I'm not sure if it is self righteousness as much as it is just
> curiosity. I do wonder about the single male with a big stack of frozen
> dinners. And I'm pretty sure it's not for an office party, etc. I do wonder
> about those who don't use the store's club card (week after week, so they're
> not making a one time visit to the store). Even with no conscious planning,
> they could be saving a fair amount of money. I might see something a person
> has on the counter I'm not aware of and it might give me some ideas. Since I
> buy slightly odd produce at times, often the cashier asks what it is, and
> sometimes how to use it. I don't mind explaining what one might do with it.
> And I don't mind if other customers behind me in line overhear the
> conversation.

None of this is my business and as long as they check out in a speedy
manner I could care less. I figure they should know what they are doing.

>
> I'm an observer of life, and I want to see what's going on around me. I
> don't have to be entertained with electronic gadgets. You can learn a lot by

It not like the PDA is entertaining me more that it puts up a wall that
says I don't want to have anything to do with you, leave me alone, do
your business and let me do mine. I'm not a people person outside my
family and circle of friends. I hate it when people get into my
personal space or ask nosey questions that are none of their business.
The PDA allows me to avoid interaction with such clowns until I can
check out and get out of there. OTOH, I really enjoy shopping farmer's
markets and U-pick. I have no problem interacting with other people there.

> being aware of your surroundings and what's going on. Maybe I'm a busybody,
> I don't know. A couple of years ago I had a neighbor who might have appeared
> to be a nice single mom with two small kids. But if one was more observant,
> one would see a drug addict/alcoholic with two small kids who rarely went to
> school and who got into various types of mischievousness due to lack of
> supervision. I'm not sure if she was technically a prostitute, but she got
> various "favors" in exchange for sexual services. I remember one "regular"
> who came around in his fancy car saying to his friend "the bitch stood me
> up", when he didn't get what he came for that day. She drove her kids around
> in her unregistered, uninsured, uninspected car, without a drivers license.
> One day when she went out on a drug buy at 4 AM, the police spotted her,
> arrested and booked her, and impounded the car. She was eventually evicted
> for nonpayment of rent. That last part, the eviction, is probably all a lot
> of the neighbors knew about the situation. If someone had intervened, in
> some way, I think she and her kids could have been helped. I know I pondered
> for a long time calling the truancy people at the school system about the
> kids, but never got to it before she was evicted. I'm pretty sure it's just
> going to be another cycle of inner city kids that repeats.

These types of suspicions should have been reported if only for the sake
of the kids. Re-read what you wrote. There are a number of agencies
you could have anonymously reported to that could have done something.
>