Cupcake Fascism

I haven't published a blog post in quite some time because I have been unexpectedly busy over the last month. Since my schedule is yet to alleviate I thought it might be some time before I was able to write something. However, today I came across an article that enraged me to such an extent that I cannot possibly restrain myself from writing a rebuttal. 

What, you may wonder, could have evoked such apoplectic rage in this gentle soul? The Guardian today published an article portraying cupcakes as abominable and decrying their ubiquity as a form of fascism. As someone who bloody loves a good cupcake, I could not in good conscience let such a slander go unchallenged.

To start, author Tom Whyman pronounces that the cupcake "possesses none of the ideal essence of cakiness"; it is "neat, precise and uniform... dry, polite and low-fat." That is indeed a disparaging list of adjectives and I am left wondering where this poor sod has been acquiring his cupcakes. A good cupcake is absolutely smashing. Festooned with a crown of buttery, creamy magnificence, a cupcake is just as decadent as its full-sized brethren, just travel sized for your convenience. I know many splendid perveyors of baked goods who produce glorious concoctions stuffed full of jam, chocolate mousse, praline, gooey salted caramel, nuts and generously sized chocolate chunks. These gastronomical masterpieces are not uniform or polite and they are certainly not low-fat. 

I think poor Tom Whyman may have let his inexplicble bias against cupcakes blind him from their numerous advantages. He misconstrues their size as an attempt for "flat-stomached people who think consuming sweet things is 'a bit naughty'" to stop themselves from over-indulging. I don't eat cupcakes because I am under some illusion that they are somehow healthier due to their diminutive size. I don't eat cupcakes because I am trying to count calories or watch my figure. If I want to consume a whole, full-sized cake, I will do so. Unfortunately, cakes can be somewhat cumbersome and, luckily for me, cupcakes offer a far more convenient and portable alternative. I don't have the time to faff around acquiring crockery, cutlery and, ideally, a table every time I want to enjoy some sugary, spongey goodness. The cupcake, with its little paper cup negating the need for a plate, can be consumed anywhere and at any time.

Another advantage to the humble cupcake is the opportunity for variety. Tom Whyman seems to think that there is something inherently limiting about the cupcake. He dscribes them as "restrictive", "uniform" and "neat and predictable." But cupcakes are the very opposite of limiting and restrictive. The variety of available cupcake flavours these days is frankly mind-boggling. And, due to their small size, one is able to partake of a myriad of flavours in one go. If I eat a full-sized cake, I'm stuck with the same flavour from start to finish. If I eat four cupcakes (which, as friends and family will testify, I regularly do), I get a plethora of creative and varied flavours in one sitting! 

Tom Whyman goes on to argue that the "austerity of the cupcake-form" supposedly prevents us from embracing "the joy of being open to genuinely alternative possibilities." It utterly baffles me how anyone could argue that cupcakes prevent us from embracing alternative possibilities. The small size of the cupcake actually encourages risk taking. You might not be entirely convinced by a bacon, walnut and maple syrup cupcake, but you might as well give it a go since it's only little! Nothing encourages gastronomical discovery quite like the humble cupcake.

So, my poor Tom Whyman, I almost feel sorry for you for having evidently endured an entire lifetime of underwhelming cupcakes. I say 'almost' because once you are done disparaging the tiny but mighty cupcake, you then go on to disparage those who enjoy cupcakes and then I loose all sympathy for your plight; I will defend my fellow cupcake lovers with all the linguistic fortitude I can muster. 

Whyman's most damning criticism of cupcakes is that they are infantillising. The cupcake is for "never-never-land" adults; if you enjoy cupcakes you are "a cognitive child... drily conforming to a prescribed set of rules." Apparently my love for cupcakes has revealed me to be cognitively impaired and unable to "engage with the world in a way characterised by the joy of possibility." People who enjoy cupcakes are seemingly both stupid and narrow-minded; how infuriatingly patronising.

Tom Whyman's article is not the first time I have come across the argument that cupcakes are infantillising. It seems to be a pretty common opinion that those who enjoy cupcakes are developmentally regressive and desperately trying to cling on to an idealised childhood devoid of intellectual challenges or cognitive burdens.

Cupcakes are apparently infantallising because they are enjoyed by children. But there is something somewhat insidious with this argument. Fish and chips are enjoyed by children. As is mac and cheese. And yet these foods are not labelled as infantallising and those that enjoy them are not accused of "neurotically trying to remain a child." Why do cupcakes inspire such a fervently negative reaction compared to other beloved childhood foods?  Cupcakes are distinguished from other childish foods in that they are intrinsically feminine; cupcakes are not overwhelmingly associated with children but with women. Cupcakes have therefore been deemed by some people as childish and silly because women are still seen as childish and silly. The backlash against cupcakes is just part of a bigger problem in which anything associated with women or 'girliness' (the colour pink, dresses, the nursing profession) is seen as inferior or frivolous. 

I am an ambitious, intelligent, career-driven woman. My love of cupcakes is not an anathema to this. In fact, the conveniently portable cupcake fits perfectly into my busy, hectic, mentally stimulating lifestyle. So can people please stop denigrating things which are overtly 'girly' or feminine. It's not girliness which is the problem; it's the perception of girliness as inferior which is problematic. And someone please get Tom Whyman a good cupcake, maybe four...

Bits and Bobs

This last week has been pretty grim but I'm sure next week will be better. I have my first ever Office Christmas party, which I think will be fun (free food!), and then I've taken the second half of the week off so I can frolic in London's fairy-light festooned streets. I am yet to start Christmas shopping - beginning to panic a little.

- Want to see famous art galleries recreated in gingerbread? Yeah you do! Traditional gingerbread houses will now forever disappoint you.

- Check out these amazing photos of the Grand Canyon filled with fog - apparently a pretty rare occurrence requiring very specific weather conditions.

- Here's an interesting article about fact checking online media and whether we are seeing a drop in journalistic standards now that new sites are just copying stuff off twitter rather than carrying out traditional investigative journalism.

- I thought this was an interesting comparison: over at The Cut they have photos of women draped and camouflaged in their homes whereas at The Guardian, they have photos of women hidden behind curtains to get their children to stay still for photos. I thought it was interesting how very similar these two sets of photos are despite having two very different intents. Maybe it shows that homes and children are both equally capable of making women invisible.

- You have to see these photos of monkeys relaxing in a hot spring in Japan - genuinely made my week.

- Why are computer games the domain of men? Slate looks at home limited marketing budgets in the early days of computer consoles forced companies to focus on only one demographic and so they emphasised the masculinity of games. Now that women are increasingly playing computer games, marketing is having to change to accommodate this change.

- This report about so-called 'natural' differences in the brains of men and women has been popping up all over the internet this week. This article is probably the best critique of the report I've come across. It's always good to remember not to just accept scientific reports as fact just because we put a lot of stock in the infallibility of scientists.

The Internet is not (just) for Porn

Anyone who knows me knows that I am frequently annoyed by people saying stupid things on the internet. Most of the time when I encounter something moronic, I just ignore it and carry on with my life. Occasionally, I'll vocalise my frustration to whomever happens to be in proximity to me when I'm perusing the internet (thank you Anna, my lovely flatmate, for your unending patience in the face of my internet-fueled ranting). And sometimes, when I encounter something really egregious, I'll write a response.

The other day, while reading The Guardian's otherwise estimable new coverage, I came across an article containing three paragraphs that are just so very wrong that I'm pretty certain I audibly gasped. The article in question looks at the censoring of child porn images on the internet and how censoring is only a first step which must be followed by action in the real world in order to adequately protect children from predators. The article overall is pretty inoffensive and I don't really have any objections to the argument put forward by Jackie Ashley.

But what I do object to is the article's opening three paragraphs which describe the internet in such sensationalist terms that I momentarily thought I was accidentally reading the Daily Mail. Jackie Ashley describes the internet as such a hotbed of corruption and sexual deviancy that I can't help but wonder what kind of sites Ashley is perusing. 

Ashley starts her article by lamenting that, "there's something very sad about what has happened to the internet." She then follows this statement by painting an image of a bygone time when the internet was "a cornucopia of democratic wonders", making knowledge and independent entertainment freely available to the masses. However, instead of ushering in a new era of enlightenment and freedom of information, the internet has just unleashed an unending stream of paedophiles and sexualisation of children. The reader is urged to remember "that earlier, optimistic vision" of the internet rather than the sex-filled internet of today. This is a massive oversimplification of the wonderful diversity in information and entertainment available on the internet. While Ashley's article seeks to discuss the important topic of how best to protect children from sexual predation, she undermines herself by making shrill, tabloid-style proclamations about the degeneracy of society at the hands of the malicious internet.

I will be the first to admit that there are some utter cretins roaming the internet. Think of the horrific internet backlash experienced by the women who campaigned to get Jane Austen on the £10 note. Or how about this blog post from former National Review columnist, John Derbyshire, which argues that slavery in the US wasn't actually that bad of a deal for the slaves. Or how about this man who stripped his unconscious wife and bared all to the internet via webcam. But to conclude from this that the internet is "all about predatory paedophiles" is just wrong. And by saying that the internet has failed in its original vision to "bring the best information and entertainment to the billions" is doing a disservice to the intelligent, innovative and creative minds currently doing exactly that.

There is an amazing and ever-expanding treasure trove of education-related entertainment being produced. There's Vihart's youtube channel which wittily and artistically explains mathematical concepts, from the Fibonacci sequence to Pythagoras and irrational numbers. Her videos are as intellectually stimulating as they are visually arresting. Or how about Crash Course which has hundreds of videos covering topics including the history of atomic theory, stoichiometry, the poetry of Emily Dickinson and the Peloponnesian War. The comments sections on both of these channels are some of the most civilised I have ever encountered. 

Ashley's claims that the internet has failed to democratise tycoon-driven media empires overlooks the amazing range and quality of independently created media available on the internet. There are countless media channels available, covering current affairs, film critique, comedy shorts. I posted a few weeks ago about how the internet is retelling classic stories in fascinating and more inclusive ways. And the variety of mind-blowing, independently-produced music is incredible. How about Peter Hollens' incredible acapella songs. Or Pentatonix's beautiful musical arrangements that are bursting with enthusiasm. Or Lindsey Stirling, the dubstep violinist, making classical music accessible to the social media generation.

 
The internet is being awesome in ways that Ashley probably doesn't even realise because I get the impression that she doesn't actually spend that much time getting involved in online projects or communities. There are huge online communities of like-minded individuals that are making genuine contributions to improving the lives of the less fortunate. On a more personal note, when I was freaking out over medical tests that I needed for health problems that my doctor had trouble diagnosing (I was utterly convinced I had cancer), reading and watching testimonials from other people living with chronic illnesses was incredibly comforting. 

So, yes, campaign for protections that will ensure that children are safe on the internet. But don't malign the internet as universally abhorrent because of a few unsavoury factions; it does a disservice to all the incredible and talented individuals using the internet to create and propagate amazing ideas and projects.

War as a Driving Force for Civilisation

Andrew Brown at The Guardian posted an article at the weekend about war. I, unsurprisingly, have opinions.

The article itself is actually pretty good at showcasing a point that is often overlooked by people who aren’t as into war as yours truly. Brown discusses a recent study which uses computer modeling to show how war has been the driving force behind the emergence of civilised societies (societies with bureaucracies, networks of mutual trust, public order etc.) The authors of the study mapped Europe, Asia and North Africa and found a strong correlation between the development of military technology and the development of ‘ultrasocial’ societies. This is a fascinating rebuttal to those who, like Edwin Starr, think that war has only played a destructive role in the development of human societies.

While I don’t disagree with the content of the article, what irks me is that Brown is presenting this information as if it’s new! What about Charles Tilly? What about Philip Bobbitt? While the use of computer modeling to show the relationship between war and human society is new, the argument that war is a powerful driving force for societal innovation is certainly not.

Charles Tilly argued in 1975 that “war made the state”. According to his theory, military innovation (such as large, conscripted armies and gunpowder) made war extremely expensive. Only the richest, most populous states could maintain the military capability required to guarantee their security and survival. Thus the modern state, with its taxes, and the bureaucracies required to collect those taxes, developed as a way of feeding the war machine.

This idea is expanded upon by Bobbitt in his excellent book ‘The Shield of Achilles’. Bobbitt takes an epicly broad, historical perspective to demonstrate the importance of war in shaping constitutional innovation, the nation state and the free market. His book is too immense (the book’s nearly 1,000 pages long) to summarise for a blog but his core argument is that there is a reciprocal interplay between military strategy and constitutional innovation. So the French revolution brought about the Napoleonic revolution in military strategy, and the innovations in artillery during the Renaissance brought about the princely states.

Brown writes books on religion so I don’t really expect him to have an encyclopedic knowledge of war literature. But Tilly is a classic! Even the most perfunctory of Google searches on war and the development of the modern state would have revealed that the study Brown is discussing is hardly groundbreaking. Since Brown quite regularly discusses war, it might not be a bad idea for him to peruse some Bobbitt. 

Books:

Tilly C (1975) The Formation of National States in Western Europe 

Bobbitt P (2002) The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History

Bits and Bobs

The days are getting shorter, the weather is getting colder and the heating in my flat is refusing to cooperate. Ho hum, Autumn is undeniably here. At least there's lots of interesting reading to enjoy while huddled under a fluffy blanket...

- The Rolling Stones looks at various schools in receipt of state funding in the US that are discriminating against gay students despite the supposed separation between church and state.

- Disney claims that women are too hard to animate. Damn those females and their abundance of emotions!

- You had me at 'cyborg cockroaches'

- Here's a fascinating article written by a journalist who went undercover at a sweatshop in Bangladesh. A couple of days later I came across this article in The Guardian which similarly discusses whether cheap goods are worth the price we pay in terms of human costs. The Guardian article takes a broader look - not just discussing sweatshops but also human trafficking, low wages and the cuts to funding for services that look after the elderly.

- Tree houses for grown-ups?! Yes please!

- According to a recent study, just looking at food can help satiate hunger. This makes a lot of sense to me! Several months ago I had to fast before a medical procedure and I spent the entire day watching The Food Network and looking at pictures of food on pinterest. I thought I was being a masochist but clearly I was just trying to satiate my (considerable) hunger.

Bits and Bobs

It's been a while since I did a bits and bobs post (thanks to some pretty busy weekends) so I have loads of bits and bobs to share today. There's been lots of really interesting things about too - yay for high-quality journalism!

- A fascinating look at the woeful dirth of films about women. And speaking of women in films, here's an article looking at the newest incarnation of the Superman franchise and whether or not Lois Lane is a modern woman.

- The Atlantic tries to explain a mysterious mass extinction event.

- A woman shares her story about living with an adopted murderer in the family.

- Have you all seen the hilarious parody PSA about 'bitchy resting face'? If not, check it out immediately. And then read this great article about why women are expected to smile more. As someone who is frequently told by complete strangers to smile more when walking about minding my own business, this article resonated with me a lot.

- It has been pretty well established thus far that I am really into maps. Here's an awesome, hand-drawn map of the world depicting the adventures you can undertake in each country - it's like a cartographic bucket list.

- Here are some mind-blowing photos of space. I really want to check out this exhibition!

- The Guardian sheds some light on the atrocious ways that some ministers have been manipulating statistics recently.

Bits and Bobs

Last weekend didn't have a 'Bits and Bobs' post because I had a pretty busy Bank Holiday weekend. So here's some interesting things I've read over the last two weeks...

- Here's some amazing photography of elements taken up close.

- About a month ago I wrote an article about the 'princess phenomenon' and how the problem with young girls looking towards princesses as role models isn't really a problem with princesses but with our narrow definition of what a princess is (pretty, quiet and acquiescent). The Atlantic has just published a similar article looking toward a more expansive definition of princess.

- The Guardian has a pretty interesting profile of J Crew Creative Director, Jenna Lyons.

- I loved this poignant piece in the New Yorker about memory and war.

- Reading this article about the psychology behind 'fat talk' was pretty eye-opening. I'm now very aware of how often my friends and I engage in this type of conversation and just how damaging it is.

- In the wake of the murder of Drummer, Lee Rigby, in Woolwich, the Wall Street Journal suggests a new way to look at fundamentalism and terrorism.