Update: Some pit in hell must be icy today because I nearly agree with Amanda Marcotte on something. Although, I do enjoy the “joys of housework,” and look forward to spending a few hours each week cleaning my apartment. Also, as a life-long crafter, Martha Stewart ideas are generally overrated.

In a post displaying all of the hubris that comes from being a liberal feminist writer, Newsweek’s Margaret Wheeler Johnson admonishes those under 35 for taking the time to cook. In response to a New York Times article on bread recipes, she writes:

The question that occurred to me reading every one of these pieces is how anyone trying to succeed in New York or a similarly pricey and competitive cosmopolis finds the time or reason to engage in elaborate culinary exercises like bread making. Perhaps these articles are geared to a middle-aged, upper-middle-class demographic secure in their careers with some leisure time to spare. But the Times articles also validate the idea currently floating in the zeitgeist that while building our actual careers, we under-35-year-olds should also be joyously training ourselves in the art of fresh-market-simple-slow-nouveau soul-food preparation. Think of the multitudinous cook-offs, the astonishing amount of cookware urban twenty-something engaged couples receive as shower and wedding gifts, the “young artisanal food scene,” or Noteatingoutinny.com. The overall implication is that if you stock your freezer with Trader Joe’s frozen entrees, or worse, anything non-organic, if you aren’t making your friends buttercream-frosted birthday cakes or whipping up truffle frittatas, you do not live “seasonally, locally, sustainably, cost-efficiently and healthily”; you are immature and possibly lazy; and the worst of all possible Gen Y fates, you are NOT WELL-ROUNDED.

What’s wrong with cooking? Even though I live in a busy metropolis and work hard at my career, I haven’t felt society pushing me towards culinary action. I have a crazy commute, several blogs, including a cooking blog, numerous weekly volunteer commitments, and relationships to maintain but I still find the time to cook each week. Why? Because I like it. Am I offending Ms. Wheeler Johnson by being more well-rounded than her?

I simply disagree with Ms. Johnson’s opinion that Millenials shouldn’t cook:

The truth is that unless you are a chef by profession or truly love cooking, spending a minimum of seven hours a week in the kitchen—and that’s just making dinner—is not the best use of an ambitious youngish person’s time. Wouldn’t the energy we expend making the meatloaf our mothers never did, or feeling guilty that we don’t, be better spent connecting with peers, putting in extra hours at work, or pursuing personal projects? If you want an Amy’s loaf, get it from Amy’s. Otherwise buy a sleeve of Nature’s Own, and leave the no-need bread for retirement.

Actually Ms. Johnson, cooking is not a waste of time for educated young workers. IT’S CALLED BEING A GROWN UP. Responsible adults think ahead about what they’re going to eat in order to be healthy and use their financial resources wisely. I’d rather spend a few hours a week cooking than spending my money eating out every night or defrosting TV dinners as Ms. Johnson suggests.

For many, baking or cooking is a way to relax. I spend my work hours in digital media and then come home to blog. Cooking provides an outlet to use a different part of my brain. There are many days that I spend writing emails or building websites while I’m thinking about a recipe or dying to try out a new cookbook. I’m not alone. My best friend’s husband calls her love of the Food Network, “cooking porn.” Why is cooking offensive?

Cooking also provides a better way to control our diets and budgets. Eating out is expensive. When trying to save money, the experts always say eliminate Starbucks and restaurants. One day when I’m finally free of credit card debt and student loans, will I look back and regret all my missed opportunities for Chinese takeout? Also, those Trader Joe’s dinners that Ms. Johnson praises are typically high in fat and sodium. As a Trader Joe’s customer, I’ve checked. The best way to stay on a budget and eat healthy is to cook.

Perhaps Ms. Johnson also failed at the most basic Millenial skills–time management and multi-tasking. Typically, I cook several meals on the weekend, freeze the leftovers and enjoy them during the rest of the week. I also package fresh veggies in sandwich bags after grocery shopping, so that I can throw my lunch together quickly in the morning (with a re-usable and fashion-forward lunch box even the trendiest Manhattanite would approve). It hardly takes time. Just a little planning.

Cooking also helps those concerned about buying environmentally-friendly products, fair trade or special diets. A friend of mine is now eating gluten-free at the advice of a doctor. Try going to a restaurant and finding gluten-free food. It’s difficult. My mother is a vegetarian, it is still hard to eat out decades after the vegetarian movement took off.

Honestly, what’s Ms. Johnson’s deal? Cooking isn’t sexist. Millenials who cook are just as likely to be men or women. It’s not a waste of time to enjoy being in the kitchen. Apparently, it is a crime for the New York Times Dining & Wine section to publish a recipe. Something struck a nerve with Ms. Johnson. I just don’t understand why she had to share it with everyone else.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed a number of feminism blogs and even the Wall Street Journal discussing the new Butch Bakery cupcakes sold in New York City. Billed as the “manly cupcake,” it comes in 12 different varieties such as, the Jackhammer, Campout and Driller.

While some of them sound really good like the Rum & Coke and Sidecar, my first reaction was to laugh. Do guys really look at desserts and deem them too feminine to eat? During my years working in various PR sectors, I’ve thrown a lot of events and fundraisers and attended even more. I’ve never seen men refuse sweets because they were too “girly.”

I think it’s an interesting gimmick, and I’m not going to fault anyone for being an entrepreneur. It does strike me as odd because the most masculine examples that come to mind never acknowledge the “masculinity” factor. Unless it’s some Tim Allen comedy routine, did the Marlboro Man or John Wayne ever discuss the inherent sexism in cupcakes? The concept of a manly cupcake simply conflicts with the image of masculinity. Would Don Draper put down his Lucky Strike to pick up a Butch Cupcake?

Is this an interesting sales pitch or masculinity interpreted through the eyes of an urbanized, metrosexual male? According to the web site, “Our objective is simple. We’re men. Men who like cupcakes. Not the frilly, pink-frosted sprinkles-and-unicorn kind of cupcakes. We make manly cupcakes. For manly men.” (They need James Earl Jones to narrate the site for the most impact.)

Are real men going to seek out the most masculine type of cupcakes available or wander clueless into the nearest Walmart and ask the bakery department for cupcakes because their wife/girlfriend/mother sent them? Is this like the dessert version of the cocktail? Real men aren’t going to eat cupcakes covered in sprinkles or order fruity cocktails with paper umbrellas?

I also feel like we’ve arrived at some pre-apocalyptic point in society when reality has turned into a Mel Brooks/Monty Python satire because people are seriously discussing the gender implications of cupcakes.

My friend and fellow Tennessee transplant, Matthew Hurtt, posted these videos on his blog. The first one is the Dodge commercial that did catch the wrath of feminists who weren’t busy complaining about the “inherent violence” in the Focus on the Family spot.

Both ads build on stereotypes. The feminist answer perpetuates the wage gap myth and makes the usual complaints about how awful it is to be a woman. I think these are silly since relationships are hard and there will always be communications issues between the sexes since we’re wired differently. Society also places different expectations on men and women. Deal with it. Men have issues too.  The only difference: men seem much more capable at laughing at these stereotypes, whereas women whine about them.

Warning: like most things feminist, the second video contains some language. The lefty gals enjoy being crass.

The Dodge ad is created to sell a product, but the feminist ad is a little long and doesn’t give a call to action. Whoever created it did a lot of work, but there’s no web site or activism appeal. Wasted opportunity for them.

Update: Not surprisingly, Broadsheet likes the ad calling it a “ego-blistering spoof!” Feministing claims “You must absolutely watch…” Amanda Hess at The Sexist has a full transcript of the video.

There you go. Feminists fighting the terrible front lines of silly Super Bowl ads. Glad to see that there aren’t more important battles out there.

It’s rare that a Washington Post columnist echos sentiments that were written here. Sally Jenkins, a sports columnist and self-declared feminist defends Tim Tebow over the silly media frenzy that NOW has concocted in a desperate plea for media attention. While I disagree with her politics, Jenkins nails it with her column on several points.

1) NOW doesn’t represent all women, just women who support abortion without restrictions. Jenkins writes:

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Now, where have I heard that before? Possibly here?

Many have complained that this isn’t fair because CBS has apparently changed a policy. Get over it. Do you really think they’re going to favor a fervently conservative organization? CBS is in the business to make money not win brownie points with Christians. If Focus was the first group to benefit from a policy change, that leaves feminist groups looking like whiny kids. At some point in women’s history, the “It’s not Fair!” charge has to end.

2) Free speech works both ways.

This is a lesson that both liberals and some right-wing groups could learn. Just because someone says something that you don’t like, you can’t silence them. Free speech is still a right in this country. As an organization, it is your job to ensure that your message is strong enough to withstand attacks from the other side. Clearly, NOW has issues with the validity of their message when they won’t even allow it to be debated. Jenkins explains:

Let me be clear again: I couldn’t disagree with Tebow more. It’s my own belief that the state has no business putting its hand under skirts. But I don’t care that we differ. Some people will care that the ad is paid for by Focus on the Family, a group whose former spokesman, James Dobson, says loathsome things about gays. Some will care that Tebow is a creationist. Some will care that CBS has rejected a gay dating service ad. None of this is the point. CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly. Just as I have the right to reject or accept them after listening — or think a little more deeply about the issues. If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.

Tebow’s ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it’s apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” This is what NOW has labeled “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” But if there is any demeaning here, it’s coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren’t real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.

3) The abortion debate should be about eliminating the need for abortion not destroying the other side. I absolutely agree with Jenkins here, and believe that pro-lifers could learn a thing or two.

There’s not enough space in the sports pages for the serious weighing of values that constitutes this debate, but surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the “need” for abortions wasn’t so great. Which is precisely why NOW is so wrong to take aim at Tebow’s ad.

A liberal friend of mine noted on Facebook that no one is winning the culture war. I agree. Rather than proactively working to reduce the number of abortions or the need for them, both sides just take pot-shots at each other and struggle to have the final word.

This is a touchy subject within the pro-life community. Perhaps I’m a pragmatist, but I believe that under any circumstance abortion is murder, so we should work to build a society where it is not accepted. Part of this is restoring the sanctity of human life, which pro-life groups work towards. It also involves practical public policy decisions regarding access to contraception and sex education. The jury is still out on what type of sex ed works (there’s a new study out today that shows abstinence does work). Even though I used to write grants on reproductive health programs at a nonprofit, I’m still unclear what works best, and I’m familiar with the data. However, I believe that pro-lifers need to be a little more willing to work on these issues.

Conversely, anti-lifers need to face facts about how terrible abortion is. There’s nothing wrong with parental notification or requiring a woman to have a sonogram before aborting. If you are willing to end a life that you created, you should have to face that life. Convicts facing the death penalty at least get to face their victims or families of victims. The unborn do not receive that right. Instead, the anti-life movement makes it appear that abortion is some magic pill that makes a baby go “poof!” I think they’d get a lot further with their “choice” argument and feeble attempts to claim that they want to “reduce” abortions, if they came clean about the horrors of the medical procedure.

This is a first. Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol are the cover story of In Touch this week.

Definitely taking a pro-life approach, the article features the two women and their roles as mothers of young children.

Jezebel mocks the Palin’s decision to grace the cover of In Touch:

According to its media kit, In Touch has a circulation of about 800,000 — 85% of whom are women, at a median age of 30. Will these people, who usually look to the magazine for Brad and Angie “news,” be curious enough about the former Vice Presidential candidate to buy the issue? (Wouldn’t they much rather see an in depth at-home with the Jolie-Pitts? We would!) On the other hand, the Palins could broaden the magazine’s reach: Those who have never picked up the celebrity glossy may find the Palins intriguing, and sales could get a bump that way. As for Sarah Palin, is she reaching out to these women, trying to convince them that she’s just like them — a working mom with issues, trying to make the best of it? Maybe.

My first reaction was surprise. Palin has the star power to be on the cover of practically any magazine. Why In Touch? Why  lower her image to a supermarket tabloid when she could do respectable press? Then I thought about it. I think giving an exclusive to In Touch does broaden her appeal to women. Jezebel discloses that the median readers are 30 and female. What they don’t mention is the median household income is $66,592, putting them comfortably in the middle class. These aren’t Glamour readers, nor are they picking up Town & Country.

Let’s think about this. Who are Palin’s supporters? Average middle class Americans. Who makes up In Touch’s readers? Average, middle class women who are bored standing in the checkout line at Wal-Mart. She’s transcending the political world and reaching directly out to her base, and I seriously doubt any of the Jezebel writers would grace Wal-Mart.

The general public doesn’t read political media. Sure, most people watch the news, but only a small segment follow it obsessively. If Palin is going to get her message beyond the politicos and echo chamber of the blogosphere, she has to do press like this. Once you get past the snobbery of the tabloid, there’s a smart strategy here.

Until Palin became a Fox News contributor (which was less surprising than the revelation that Mark McGuire took steroids. yawn.), she depended on Facebook to get her message out. Giving interviews like this one gets her off the same meme that the media won’t move past. I’m sick of hearing he said/she said comments about her VP debate prep. I’m sick of hearing about Wardrobegate. The media seems incapable of moving past the 2008 election. This type of story gives her another means of personalizing herself to average American women.

Traditionally, this group does not vote Republican, so it is critical to woo them if she has aspirations in 2012. This group is also less likely to be the obsessive political types and are busy. Therefore, they’re going to believe whatever talking points the main outlets put out there.

This article also gets a pro-life message out of the religious and political debate. I’ve said before that Christians are losing today because we stopped engaging in pop culture. It’s not very often that pro-life stories are positively protrayed in the media. Usually, we’re seen as religious zealots or potential bombers. Frankly, it’s nice to see a change.

Have you ever watched an episode of Lost when someone comes in the room and says, “I’ve never watched an episode. Can you tell me what’s going on?”

After explaining that it is absolutely impossible to explain the plot line because nothing makes sense, it is generally best to give said person the first season on DVD and say, “See ya in a few days. You’ll be hooked.”

Now someone has come up with an eight minute recap of Lost seasons 1-5.

In case you don’t understand the addictive nature of this show, Lost prompted the one and only time that the Obama Administration has used common sense. Robert Gibbs announced that the State of the Union would not be on February 2, the date of the season 6 premiere. I know that I wasn’t the only person on Twitter freaking out when I heard that it was a possibility.

This does make me wonder what’s worse: living under an Obama Administration or living on a mysterious deadly island where nothing makes sense. Honestly, I really don’t know.

H/T Go Fug Yourself

A new study from a Calvin College psychology professor claims that spanking or smacking children on their bottoms between the ages of two and six makes them more likely to be happier and successful later in life. This study unleashed a debate in the British press but hasn’t received much coverage in America aside from an article in Newsweek.

Majorie Gunnoe, the Calvin College professor, claims in a Times article:

According to the research, children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence showed clear behavioural problems.

This is an interesting study and goes beyond “parenting techniques.” If not spanking your kids makes them failures at life, that means that large numbers of adults will likely fail at life. This means problems in society and the workplace. The Daily Mail adds:

The claims made for not spanking children failed to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,’ Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told the Sunday Times.

‘I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool – you just don’t use it for all your jobs,’ she added.

Gunnoe, who lead the research, said 2,600 people were reviewed, of whom about a quarter had never been smacked.

It also included detailed interviews of about 179 teenagers who were asked how old they were when they were last smacked and how often they were smacked as a child.

She then looked at many outcomes parents generally night want for their teenage children such as academic rank, volunteer work, college aspirations, hope for the future, and confidence in their ability to earn a living when they grow up.

Walk through the mall or any other public area frequented by kids, and you’ll likely find yourself and advocate of spanking. I spent my college summers working in childcare for the YMCA and later had several jobs working with kids at two different nonprofits. It is easy to tell when children are disciplined by their parents and when they aren’t.

Since I’m not a parent, please take my opinions with a grain of salt, but I don’t find anything wrong with a swift smack on the bottom. One of my high school teachers used to say that God made our rear ends more muscular to absorb the pain from spankings. It should be noted that there is a distinction between spanking and child abuse. Focus on the Family has guidelines to spanking which seem reasonable.

I also believe that all children are different and spankings work for some while other discipline methods work better on others. I have observed that children who are spanked are more likely to have a healthy respect for their parents. Children who are “reasoned with” are more likely to be the obnoxious brats that make you thankful to have no offspring.  However, parents should have the freedom to discipline their children as they see fit, as long as the boundaries of abuse are not crossed.

Is there another angle to this study? Are parents who spank their children more likely to be examples of the traditional nuclear family? Are children raised with more modern discipline techniques likely to have divorced parents or mothers with busy careers? While I believe spanking is a legitimate way to discipline, that is only one factor in raising kids.

Could it be that parents who take the time to spank are more involved with their children’s lives?  Parental involvement and not the method of discipline seem to be the factor in raising happy and successful children.

This is an interesting study. Next time your co-worker drops the ball on a project or your significant other is consistently unhappy, ask if she or she were spanked as kids.

This week, I joined Tabitha Hale and Emily Zanotti for Tabitha’s Raisin’ Hale podcast. We discussed my favorite topic–feminism and some rather silly posts at Feministing and Amplify Your Voice. I’m sure liberals will be scared to know that there are at least two other twentysomething female bloggers out who don’t buy into the feminist propaganda.

I also learned that my always dependable Verizon cell phone likes to drop calls while recording podcasts. If I ever decide to take up podcasting, I need to invest in the right equipment (i.e. a Mac). It was fun though! There aren’t many voices out there countering liberal women and exposing their hypocrisies, which has quickly become my favorite issue to discuss. Plus, Tabitha and Emily are both smart, funny women to converse with.

Enjoy!

Truthfully, I didn’t realize that the decade was ending until Time Magazine informed me that this was the worst decade ever. I was under the impression that 2010 was the end of the decade not 2009. Wasn’t there a Seinfeld episode along these lines?

While Worst Decade Ever sounds like a VH1 special with Michael Ian Black, I don’t think it was that terrible. America faced a number of challenges, and only time will tell if we made the right decisions.

This decade, which I never quite figured out what to call, had a lot of terrible things happen, but positives did emerge. I think that historians will define the Industrial Revolution ending and the Technological/Information Revolution beginning at some point.

The 2000s were the decade in which I became an adult and went through all of the proverbial twentysomething experiences. In 2000, I graduated from high school, moved away to college and voted in my first presidential election. 2000 could be seen as an omen for a decade of divisive politics. I’ll always remember the cheer that erupted at the Knox County GOP party when Al Gore lost his home state. I’m still proud of that vote.

Technology and terrorism are the two takeaways of this decade. In 2000, I was shocked to fill up my 1 gig Gateway computer with songs downloaded from Napster. Those were the days when file-sharing was still murky. I would sit in class, writing playlists in the margin of my notes, and go back to the T1 line in my dorm room to download anything I wanted. Now, I have a $10 USB drive that has twice the memory of that computer and is the size of a band aid. It also cost a fraction of the Gateway desktop. Are Gateways even around anymore?

I never thought that I’d buy my last CD in 2005 with Coldplay’s XY? Who anticipated that we’d need iPods with hundreds of gigs in order to carry around every song ever recorded? I wonder if 20 years from now the Surgeon General will release a report detailing how headphones are causing generations to prematurely lose their hearing. It can’t be healthy.

When I got my first cell phone in 1999, I never thought that it could one day double as a computer. My Sprint Quaalcom was only analog and had a battery life of 3 hours. I kept it off and only used it for emergencies since I had about 1 hour of minutes per month. It was huge and would never die. Since it could also double as a self-defense weapon, I named it Mr. Clunky.

Social media wasn’t even a concept, and only a few nerds were blogging. Crazy to think that the technologies that have changed our society weren’t around ten years ago. My career field didn’t even exist when I graduated from college in 2004 and was just emerging when I got my master’s in 2007. When I wrote my thesis on social media there weren’t any academic texts to use. My adviser looked at me and said, “You’re on your own here.”

It’s been 10 years of huge changes in culture, society, economic and technology. A new generation entered the workforce, and 9/11 forever changed our way of life. Yes, it was a decade of challenges, but I’m hopeful that we can face those as a nation and be better for it.

Poster from the Blind Side

Last week, I saw the Blind Side, the new movie about Michael Oher, and loved it. As a sports tearjerker about SEC football*, it’s one of my favorite movies this year.  My favorite line was when Sean Tuohy comments, “Who’d have thought we would adopt a black son before we’d meet a Democrat.”

Last  night, 20/20 did a special on Michael Oher and the Tuohy family, who adopted him. The special is inspiring and makes you want to cry. As I watched it, I couldn’t help but think that if Christians lived our faith the way we should, these stories would be the norm and not the unusual. Hollywood wouldn’t make inspiring movies like this because they would be common, everyday experiences.

Oher’s story is a testament that education and parental involvement are the keys to success compared to government programs. While Oher succeeded, it’s sad to know that the first African-American president eliminated this opportunity for hundreds of low-income students when the DC Opportunity Scholars program was axed. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t mince words when discussing Obama’s involvement, or rather uninvolvement (his version of voting “present” in helping kids with worst backgrounds than him):

Let’s call them Sidwell Liberals, after the famous Washington, D.C., school where President and Mrs. Obama send their daughters. Despite this personal experience, Mr. Obama signed into law a provision passed by Congress that shuts down Washington D.C.’s voucher program, depriving 1,700 disadvantaged kids of the chance to escape failing public schools through the use of scholarships that let them attend private schools. Two of them attend Sidwell Friends School with the Obama girls.

Our public school system has failed nationally. If it was working, there wouldn’t be Michael Oher stories. There would be no demand for private school scholarships in DC. Government programs have failed. If these programs were successful, American school children wouldn’t be falling futher and futher behind. DC spends more money per student than any other state, yet dumping money into programs doesn’t work. Having volunteered with organizations working with DC youth, I’ve seen how horrible these schools are. I used to live near one of the better public schools in DC. That school would have been the “bad school” in nearly any other school district in America.

What does work? Individuals taking responsibility to help kids. Public-private partnerships like the DC Opportunity Scholars. Parents working with their kids and not dumping them into the lap of Uncle Sam for childcare. The system is broken. It won’t be fixed by expanding it but dramatically changing it.

Because Christians aren’t helping our communities, the government has stepped in. Bureaucracies will never be able to fix social issues, but individuals can. If we stopped growing government and started living out our faith, success stories would become the norm.

*Since I bleed orange, I loved the cameos with Coach Fulmer. I was upset by the way that my alma mater treated him, and it was nice to see him on screen. If I ever get a chance to meet the Tuhoys, I may have words with the way Lee Anne treats the Vols. As a Christian and a conservative, I respect her, but she’s sadly misguided with her football loyalties. Of course I am biased here. My entire family went to LSU, and I was raised to despise Ole Miss. One of the last things my grandfather said before he died was that the Devil lived in Oxford, Mississippi.