The Restaurant World Is (Still) Sexist 
Time magazine has pissed off the international restaurant world. They’ve alienated female chefs. Oh wait—they forgot them altogether. The recently released November issue is titled “Gods of Food: Meet the People Who Influence What (and How) You Eat.” A bro-centric series of culinary stories about key influencers in food, the content includes a list of 13 “Gods of Food” (no female chefs made the cut) and a visual “food family tree” of heavy hitters who have pioneered the current restaurant scene. You won’t find ladies in there, either. 
Like a bad train wreck, Time issue editor Howard Chua-Eoan—the dude who edited this entire package—recently engaged in an offensively revealing interview with Eater’s Hillary Dixler to explain the sausage-heavy content. When asked about including groundbreaking female chefs to the “family tree” flow chart, Chua-Eoan responded, “the chart came about because men still take care of themselves. The women really need someone—if not men, themselves actually—to sort of take care of each other.” The chart failed to include key influencers like Alice Waters, Barbara Lynch, Anita Lo, Elena Arzak, April Bloomfield, Clare Smyth, and Dominique Crenn, for starters. And when it couldn’t get any worse, he added that the Time editors, “did not want to fill a quota of a woman chef just because she’s a woman. We wanted to go with reputation and influence.” 
The issue and Howard Chua-Eoan’s recent interview are revealing by-products of the pervasive sexism that continues to exist throughout all aspects of the culinary world. Or in the words of New York chef Sarah Jenkins, “the relentless circle jerk between the media, PR agents, and the chefs or countries who employ them than any kind of reflection on what’s truly happening out there in the real world.” 
London chef Margot Henderson—chef and co-owner of Rochelle Canteen, and wife of chefFergus Henderson—decided to call bullshit. Here’s her response to Time, the reality of women in the kitchen, and why she believes media will continue to promote men before women.
David Chang, René Redzepi, and Alex Atala look quite charming on the cover of Time, don’t they? I think that most of these chefs set out to become famous, putting themselves in front of newspapers. I think that women are getting on creating great restaurants, but men feel that they have to change the world. Australian chef Stephanie Alexander has one of the top restaurants in the world. She has now—admittedly—stopped cooking, but the people that she has taught are incredible. Her cookbooks are incredible. That’s the thing: women are better food writers than men, aren’t they [laughs]? And they often stop because they’re so successful and brilliant at writing books when the men aren’t [laughs]. That Time editor… what a wanker? To not even include Alice Waters in this piece? It’s pretty shocking.
If you think about it, women didn’t really start working in kitchens in the culinary world until about fifty years ago. We’ve got women like Angela Hartnett and Joyce Molyneux, one of the first female chefs to win a Michelin star. Angela is one of the chefs that influenced a whole generation of young men who went on to have great careers. Maybe men are better at taking? They recognize the good things that they’re doing and go with it. In all of these media focused articles, they’re often based on geography. Ferran Adrià is an amazing chef who has undoubtedly influenced food in this generation. David Chang is great, and so is René Redzepi, but it’s just that the hard hitting punch line of tacking the name “Gods” on the cover of Time, and the Time editor’s recent interview where he alludes to not including women—on purpose—is offensive.
Continue

The Restaurant World Is (Still) Sexist 

Time magazine has pissed off the international restaurant world. They’ve alienated female chefs. Oh wait—they forgot them altogether. The recently released November issue is titled “Gods of Food: Meet the People Who Influence What (and How) You Eat.” A bro-centric series of culinary stories about key influencers in food, the content includes a list of 13 “Gods of Food” (no female chefs made the cut) and a visual “food family tree” of heavy hitters who have pioneered the current restaurant scene. You won’t find ladies in there, either. 

Like a bad train wreck, Time issue editor Howard Chua-Eoan—the dude who edited this entire package—recently engaged in an offensively revealing interview with Eater’s Hillary Dixler to explain the sausage-heavy content. When asked about including groundbreaking female chefs to the “family tree” flow chart, Chua-Eoan responded, “the chart came about because men still take care of themselves. The women really need someone—if not men, themselves actually—to sort of take care of each other.” The chart failed to include key influencers like Alice Waters, Barbara Lynch, Anita Lo, Elena Arzak, April Bloomfield, Clare Smyth, and Dominique Crenn, for starters. And when it couldn’t get any worse, he added that the Time editors, “did not want to fill a quota of a woman chef just because she’s a woman. We wanted to go with reputation and influence.” 

The issue and Howard Chua-Eoan’s recent interview are revealing by-products of the pervasive sexism that continues to exist throughout all aspects of the culinary world. Or in the words of New York chef Sarah Jenkins, “the relentless circle jerk between the media, PR agents, and the chefs or countries who employ them than any kind of reflection on what’s truly happening out there in the real world.” 

London chef Margot Henderson—chef and co-owner of Rochelle Canteen, and wife of chefFergus Henderson—decided to call bullshit. Here’s her response to Time, the reality of women in the kitchen, and why she believes media will continue to promote men before women.

David Chang, René Redzepi, and Alex Atala look quite charming on the cover of Time, don’t they? I think that most of these chefs set out to become famous, putting themselves in front of newspapers. I think that women are getting on creating great restaurants, but men feel that they have to change the world. Australian chef Stephanie Alexander has one of the top restaurants in the world. She has now—admittedly—stopped cooking, but the people that she has taught are incredible. Her cookbooks are incredible. That’s the thing: women are better food writers than men, aren’t they [laughs]? And they often stop because they’re so successful and brilliant at writing books when the men aren’t [laughs]. That Time editor… what a wanker? To not even include Alice Waters in this piece? It’s pretty shocking.

If you think about it, women didn’t really start working in kitchens in the culinary world until about fifty years ago. We’ve got women like Angela Hartnett and Joyce Molyneux, one of the first female chefs to win a Michelin star. Angela is one of the chefs that influenced a whole generation of young men who went on to have great careers. Maybe men are better at taking? They recognize the good things that they’re doing and go with it. In all of these media focused articles, they’re often based on geography. Ferran Adrià is an amazing chef who has undoubtedly influenced food in this generation. David Chang is great, and so is René Redzepi, but it’s just that the hard hitting punch line of tacking the name “Gods” on the cover of Time, and the Time editor’s recent interview where he alludes to not including women—on purpose—is offensive.

Continue

An Idiot’s Guide to Time - by Warren Ellis
OK, so this one’s going to be a bit odd, but something came up in physics news this week that amuses the hell out of me, so you’re just going to have to put up with this.Time’s arrow. A perfectly horizontal line moving from past through present to future. This is how we understand time to work.If you smash some particles together in an accelerator, they turn into a spray of other particles. If you were to run the movie of that collision backwards—one that showed those other particles forming the original particles—that would, in fact, appear just as valid. This is called time reversal symmetry. Time is basically symmetrical at the quantum level. It’s all just particles and energy moving around. And this quantum bullshit dimension contains all the tiny machinery that decides how everything works.
But these people here discovered a subatomic process that doesn’t behave in that way. Working in antimatter physics, deep down in the hadronic depths with mesons (tiny things, found on a scale several powers tinier than the fields that nanomachines operate in), they found something that wasn’t supposed to happen. Down in the murk, these weird flavors of meson turn into different kinds of stuff all the time. In a world with symmetrical time, the conditions down there say that Thing A will become Thing B more easily than Thing B will turn into Thing A. It’s how the reversed movie makes sense.But it turns out that Thing B turns into Thing A six times more often. This is a bit like reversing a video of a glass of water being dropped, winding it back to the start—and finding it simply won’t go back to the point before the glass tipped over. Time has a preferred direction. Time is asymmetrical.
In fact, you could possibly conceive of time as being a downward slope. Our slide into the future is inexorable. Everything is slipping down time’s mountainside.Makes you wonder what’s at the bottom, doesn’t it?
Continue

An Idiot’s Guide to Time - by Warren Ellis

OK, so this one’s going to be a bit odd, but something came up in physics news this week that amuses the hell out of me, so you’re just going to have to put up with this.

Time’s arrow. A perfectly horizontal line moving from past through present to future. This is how we understand time to work.

If you smash some particles together in an accelerator, they turn into a spray of other particles. If you were to run the movie of that collision backwards—one that showed those other particles forming the original particles—that would, in fact, appear just as valid. This is called time reversal symmetry. Time is basically symmetrical at the quantum level. It’s all just particles and energy moving around. And this quantum bullshit dimension contains all the tiny machinery that decides how everything works.

But these people here discovered a subatomic process that doesn’t behave in that way. Working in antimatter physics, deep down in the hadronic depths with mesons (tiny things, found on a scale several powers tinier than the fields that nanomachines operate in), they found something that wasn’t supposed to happen. Down in the murk, these weird flavors of meson turn into different kinds of stuff all the time. In a world with symmetrical time, the conditions down there say that Thing A will become Thing B more easily than Thing B will turn into Thing A. It’s how the reversed movie makes sense.

But it turns out that Thing B turns into Thing A six times more often. This is a bit like reversing a video of a glass of water being dropped, winding it back to the start—and finding it simply won’t go back to the point before the glass tipped over. Time has a preferred direction. Time is asymmetrical.

In fact, you could possibly conceive of time as being a downward slope. Our slide into the future is inexorable. Everything is slipping down time’s mountainside.

Makes you wonder what’s at the bottom, doesn’t it?

Continue