but I still can't help thinking his penis is showing when he describes Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" -- which also debuted in 1963 -- as "the book that taught millions of American women to regard housework, cooking included, as drudgery, indeed as a form of oppression." Funny, I always thought Friedan became a feminist icon because she articulated what millions of women already felt, not because she brainwashed them into believing that repetitive, menial, unpaid labor might not be the best use of their talents.

So, I read "The Feminine Mystique" earlier this year. And I was surprised to enjoy it as much as I did, because I had always heard it stereotyped as exactly how Pollan describes it here. And it wasn't--it's a great book (Friedan's back-asswards assumptions about homosexuality aside).

But it probably *did* teach "millions of American women to regard housework, cooking included, as drudgery, indeed as a form of oppression." Because what Friedan is actually saying is *so* easy to over-simplify and get wrong, and *so* many people did, in the aftermath of its publication. Friedan wasn't saying that at all; she was saying it's wrong to expect women to use their intelligence and talents for nothing else in the interest of adjustment to their "feminine roles." She wasn't saying, at all, that cooking and housework are oppression.

Middle-class American women felt stifled and imprisoned because they were effectively denied the opportunity to do *anything* else besides housework and cooking. Not because housework and cooking are inherently oppressive, when they're part of a full and balanced life in which someone has opportunities to put her talents to their fullest use.

The reality is, even those of us who agree with many of Pollan's basic points about food -- to wit, that it would be delightful and probably healthier to eat only lovingly prepared, fresh, local offerings -- might not have the passion or talent for cooking that meeting that goal would require, let alone the time, energy or money.

Bullshit. I call total bullshit. C'mon, if you just don't like cooking, just be honest about it. You're not beholden to Michael Pollan. But it just doesn't take that much of any of those things. I enjoy cooking, sure, mostly because I enjoy eating. I certainly wouldn't say that I have a passion for it, though. Talent? It doesn't take talent, it takes being able to read. Time, energy and money...I work in independent theater production; that means I'm frightfully busy and underpaid. I *save* money by cooking. I improve my energy by cooking--it's a mental break, and the food is better quality than takeout or convenience food. The time it takes me to sautee a piece of fish and some veggies is about 20 minutes. I save time by cooking--making a casserole that can be eaten for multiple meals, or a chicken than can be cut up for sandwiches and salads.

No, I can't afford to use all fresh, local, organic ingredients--I've decided on a few items that I can afford to buy local or organic. Everything else is just from my neighborhood grocery store.

I made a quiche tonight. Dice onions and broccoli, dump into pie crust. Cover with shredded cheese and 3 eggs beaten with milk. Salt and pepper to taste. Bake till done. I dunno about "lovingly prepared," but it sure was good.

It just. isn't. that. hard.

I do not disagree with anything Michael Pollan wrote. Most of the article was about how something like The Food Network could become so wildly successful yet very few of us are actually doing anything remotely related to 'cooking' in our homes. I found it to be a very interesting and thoughtful essay.

Towards the end of the piece, Pollan wonders if we can rebuilt a culture of cooking, one in which men participate equally. I would hardly say his 'penis is showing' after expressing a sentiment such as that. Instead of pointing the finger at women in the workplace, Pollan states that both men and women work longer hours than ever before, which contributes to the decline of real cooking in the home.

Cooking real food every night is not particularly time-consuming and it certainly saves my family money. I enjoy Michael Pollan's column 'The Minimalist' in the NYT; all of the recipes are simple, fresh and easy.

We don't all have to be creating amazing french feasts every night for dinner, and I don't believe that is what Pollan was trying to say. He is an advocate of eating real food, minimally processed, and he also believes that joy can be found in creating something delicious in the kitchen.

I like to eat. I do not have the money to go out. I do not have the money to buy processed food. As a result, after years, I cook fairly well. When my wife invites friends over, she asks me to cook.

I am tired of being told by previous generations of women that I need to lighten up about my commitment to preparing quality meals for my family as if I'm a gender traitor. Although I agree with the author that not every home-cooked meal is a culinary and nutritional delight, the act of making the food requires thought and it can be an opportunity for the family to gather and work together. The alternatives, vegging out in front of the TV waiting for pizza or staring blanking at each other at one of the ubiquitous "family style" restaurants, won't bring about the downfall of civilization if chosen occasionally, but if we demonize cooking as anti-feminist oppression or an unnecessary waste of time, "occasionally" will quickly become "always." I also find it interesting that the author didn't mention the overly processed, overly salted, overly fried downside of packaged food and the vast majority of restaurant fare. Instead, she makes a glib comment about Pollan mentioning obesity rates as if that problems is old news and no longer worth our time. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that the poor nutrition of yesteryear can completely trump the engineered poor nutrition of today. I also think being shamed into ignoring the downside of not cooking is far more oppressive than cooking a roast. Do what you want and let me cook with pride.