Monday, April 27, 2009
Over the weekend, there was a tiny little kerfuffle that I may have had a hand in. What kind of surprised me - and it's not the first time someone has said this about this blog - is that apparently you can't do anything serious (like write about healthcare reform, the convention center hotel, or suicide) if you're also going to write about the frivolous - like American Idol and recipes. My blog, I believe, is pretty much a reflection of me. I like to cook. I get semi-geeky about American Idol, mostly because I used to be a music critic, and mostly because I enjoy train wrecks. But I also covered county, city and state government for years. I covered murders and corruption cases. A series on meth production made one major seller paranoid enough to leave town. I'm not bragging, I'm just trying to explain that I'm not one or the other - so why should my blog be? And before I say the following, I need to explain that I'm not one of those rabid, bra-burning feminists. I'm what I like to think of as a happy ala carte one, mostly because I think some of the arguments we have about gender inequality only exacerbate the problem. But that being said, I can't also help but wonder if I were male, and Rangers games and grilling technique took the place of American Idol and recipes, if the same people who criticize me wouldn't just love it, or at least find it acceptable. In other words, are they put off by the lighter fare, or is it that a dame would have the temerity to throw some brainy fodder out there?