Skip to main content

Framing food

I came across two great posts this week that brought together food, feminism, and healthy choices. Freelance writer Jennifer Jeffrey wrote a pair of posts entitled The Feminist In My Kitchen. The question: is the sustainable food movement women-friendly?
I wonder if our little blogsphere sits here debating the provenance of our nectarines while the larger community of women – most of whom have no time for surfing blogs, let alone writing one – head out to work feeling more guilty than ever before, as the mountain of expectations and unattainable standards grows ever higher.

Can we call ourselves feminists (simply defined here as people who desire the equality of all women, everywhere) and still suggest that an ideal dinner consists of handmade ravioli and slow-simmered marinara from vine-ripened, hand-picked tomatoes and a salad composed of vegetables that (let’s be honest) are Not Available at Safeway?
By pointing out that convenience has been a friend to the working women, she could have easily turned this into one of the many 'local food is elitist' essays that seem to have sprung up lately. But she doesn't. In a second post:
The System is Broken. It’s not the fault of the farmer’s market that I feel overstressed. Rather, the game itself is rigged. The workforce rewards people who are willing to put in ridiculous hours and disregard personal health and long-term wellbeing. It does not reward self-nourishment or play or rest.
Over on the Cleaner Plate Club, a post titled "You Shouldn't Have to Be A Hero to Eat Well" picks up the conversation. Points out that personal health and diet matters are always framed as ones of individual responsibility, despite the fact that the prime factor in what people buy is what's available. She wonders why we force people to go to extraordinary lengths to eat healthy, why it isn't the default choice? Why isn't healthy convenient?
Think about what people say when someone’s lost weight: “how did you DO it???” Think about how people frame their relationships with food: like doing battle with the enemy. Think about how people talk about someone who’s actually able to be healthy in this world: “She’s my hero." (or worse: they say “I hate her,” because she’s accomplished the seemingly impossible).

It shouldn’t take heroic efforts to the things that every doctor recommends — to eat right, and move more. If it does take heroic efforts, then something is really, really f%$@ed."

She points out examples of people trying to make healthy convenient--starting a farmers market at a hospital campus, fighting to change the farm bill and changing school lunches:

Whenever people talk about trying to make people healthier, trying to create healthier environments, they get accused of taking away choices. Or lifting all of the responsibility from parents and individuals. They get accused of…I don’t know. A kind of negativity and blame that doesn’t fly with most Americans.

They’re not trying to remove people’s choices. Rather, they’re trying to increase people’s choices — by improving people’s access to nutrient-rich options, where they might otherwise be greeted by only a fast-food world. They’re actually creating a better, richer, more colorful world, while they’re at it.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

This post was a whole long longer and more emotional an hour ago...

First off: It's sad that I get better wireless reception in my backyard than in my apartment, right? Sigh. I normally try to stay out of the quagmire that is the abortion debate, but as usually, elyzabethe wrote something insightful about feminist issues that I had to comment on. Actually, I had to comment on the framing war that was going on in the comments section between elyzabethe and another friend. Then I ended up emailing back and forth with her for awhile. Then someone at work mentioned how the "choice" frame is starting to lose ground, even though advocates don't want to admit it. I started scribbling notes, sighed, and thought, "well, I'm gonna have to blog about this." Elyzabeth rants often against anti-choice organizations and legislation, as is her wont as a libertarian feminist. She’s particularly good at teasing out how anti-choice (A, if you’re reading this, bear with me, I’m referring to ‘anti-choice’ as more than just the abortion issu...

Obligatory OWS Post

I'll try and expand on this later, but a few links looking at the protest from marketing and demographic standpoints: OWS Demographics  or, "Duh, it's not just unemployed college dropouts" Protest, Music and #OWS Opportunism  or, "Hey, this thing ain't going away. Can we market it?" OWS Billboard?  or, "Really, you think Clear Channel will put this up?" and the Frameworks Institute analyzes the "We are the 99%" meme.
First off, this isn't a post about abortion. It's about how the personhood movement is dangerous even if you take abortion out of the debate. According to my friend Liz, More than 55% of voters in Mississippi yesterday   rejected the state’s  ‘personhood’ initiative —a development that certainly bodes well for reproductive rights in this country, and gives me a little more hope about our collective sanity, as well. What interested me about this issue (aside from the fact that I possess a uterus), was the way some of the groups fighting the Mississippi amendment were approaching the issue. The group  Parents against MS 26  pointed out that the personhood movement , "has far-reaching effects on infertility treatment, contraception, and women's physical health." Jessica Valenti cites several examples in her column in the Washington Post , including this one: In 1996, when Laura Pemberton in Florida refused a recommended C-section because she did not want su...