![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
commodorifiedIt is not actually the sole and only goal of parenting to get your child to go to sleep. I admit, it can feel like it when they're very small [1], but there is actually a whole lot of stuff you can and want to do with babies: feed them! Wash them! Play with them! Dress them in cute outfits and take them places! Teach them to walk, talk, and play the accordion!
You could, however, be forgiven for getting confused about this if you just scanned the titles at the bookstore.
Similarly:
Ok, look: first of all prescriptivist language about food is mostly[2] total bullshit.
But even were I prepared to stipulate the contrary: if your headline is "X food: not The Healthy Choice After All", is it too much to expect your thesis to be more like: "the iron in dark green leaf vegetables isn't very bioavailable, don't try to use spinach as a main source", not just "omg, X actually has A LOT OF CALORIES!!!"
Because, you know what?
Food is supposed to contain food. It's like we're supposed to believe that our single overriding goal when we buy food is the maximum number of chews with the minimum actual results.
And, um, no. Food is supposed to be made of food. Take your zero-fat fake-sugar flavoured gelatin mislabelled as yoghurt and stuff it up your jumper and give me some gods-damned breakfast.
I have shit to DO today.
ETA: I can tell the outside temp has gone up; the X-ray TV tonight at the nurses' station is all lungs and skulls instead of hips and arms and ankles
[1] it's not that all these tricks for getting kids to sleep don't work; trust me, by the time your kid is, say, 15, they'll sleep right through, no problem, and often well into the next day as well.
[2] And when I say "mostly" instead of "completely" it's to allow exceptions like "don't leave raw poultry at room temp, especially if it's stuffed, ok?"
You could, however, be forgiven for getting confused about this if you just scanned the titles at the bookstore.
Similarly:
Ok, look: first of all prescriptivist language about food is mostly[2] total bullshit.
But even were I prepared to stipulate the contrary: if your headline is "X food: not The Healthy Choice After All", is it too much to expect your thesis to be more like: "the iron in dark green leaf vegetables isn't very bioavailable, don't try to use spinach as a main source", not just "omg, X actually has A LOT OF CALORIES!!!"
Because, you know what?
Food is supposed to contain food. It's like we're supposed to believe that our single overriding goal when we buy food is the maximum number of chews with the minimum actual results.
And, um, no. Food is supposed to be made of food. Take your zero-fat fake-sugar flavoured gelatin mislabelled as yoghurt and stuff it up your jumper and give me some gods-damned breakfast.
I have shit to DO today.
ETA: I can tell the outside temp has gone up; the X-ray TV tonight at the nurses' station is all lungs and skulls instead of hips and arms and ankles
[1] it's not that all these tricks for getting kids to sleep don't work; trust me, by the time your kid is, say, 15, they'll sleep right through, no problem, and often well into the next day as well.
[2] And when I say "mostly" instead of "completely" it's to allow exceptions like "don't leave raw poultry at room temp, especially if it's stuffed, ok?"
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 12:40 pm (UTC)Groundbreaking new research released today suggests that under some circumstances, food may be not be as harmful as it's traditionally been thought.
"Of course, this is a small-scale preliminary study," said lead scientist Totally Made Up Name, "but it indicates that the human body may actually need a certain number of calories to function properly. However, it's possible that these results only apply to people who engage in intense activities like moving, talking or thinking."
Speaking on behalf of the National Association For Nutrition And Dieting But Mostly Dieting, J. Also Made Up Name cautioned that this research shouldn't lead people to adopt fad diets that are high in protein, fat or carbohydrates. "It's important for people to remember that food is still fundamentally evil."
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 12:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 01:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 01:48 pm (UTC)Possibly in the same section of the The Globe and Mail that once ran an article about how fruit is bad for you
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 03:05 pm (UTC)What's supposed to be wrong with bananas, for all love?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 07:13 pm (UTC)Scientists caution that food may contain calories!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 07:30 pm (UTC)I always reply, essentially, 'if you care you either don't like him or don't like sucking dick, either of which are totally valid but very different issues.'
Then I discuss the STI-related risk factors around swallowing, andnthen we move on.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-12 03:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-12 06:06 am (UTC)Also, I'm not actually sure anyone's ever bothered to find out; I don't happen to know the answer, though there are some fascinating urban legend-type numbers you can find by googling.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-12 03:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 06:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 01:22 am (UTC)What a silly reason.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 01:57 pm (UTC)You don't have to tell anyone it's a Ph.D. in English.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 05:02 pm (UTC)*beams*
Date: 2012-01-09 05:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 05:12 am (UTC)(Especially right after the end of the year.)
Again: So. MUCH.