History of French Cuisine

Published August 26, 2013 by joiceirmawati

When many Americans think of French cuisine the notion of expensive restaurants and French fries may come to mind. Like many Cuisines’ of foreign countries, French cuisine is much different then our own. It boasts its own rich history that evolved over time from the middle ages to present day. It has been revered as one of the world’s most refined culinary locations, and there are over 9,000 restraints in Paris alone.

The history of French cuisine dates back to the middle ages. During this time French meals where very similar to Moorish Cuisine, and were served in a style called service en confusion, meaning that meals were served all at once. Meals consisted of spiced meats such as pork, beef, poultry, and fish. In many cases meals where determined by the season, and of what food was in abundance. Meats were salted and smoked to preserve, and vegetables were also salted and put in jars to preserve for the winter months. During this time the presentation of the meal was also very important. The more lavish and colorful the display, the better, and cooks would use edible items such as saffron, egg yolk, spinach, and sunflower for color. One of the most extravagant dinners of this time was a roast swan or peacock, which was sewn back into its skin and feathers to look intact. The feet and beak were gilded with gold to complete the spectacle.

During the 15 th and 16 th centuries the French where influenced greatly by the advancing culinary arts in Italy. Much of this influenced was do Catherine De Medicis (a Florentine princess) who married Henry duc d’Orleans (who became King Henry II of France). Italian chefs where light years of ahead of French culinary experts, and had already begun creating dishes such as lasagna, manicotti, and had experimented using ingredients like truffles, garlic, and mushrooms. When Catherine married King Henry II, she brought along with her Italian chefs who in turn introduced Italian culinary practices to the French court. Even though the culinary cultures of these two countries have taken different roads, the French owe much of their culinary development to the Italians and their intervention in the 1500s.

The period between the 16 th and 18 th centuries was also known as the Ancien Regime, and during this time Paris was referred to as “… the central hub of culture and economic activity and as such the most highly skilled culinary craftsmen were to be found there.” During the Ancien Regime food distribution was regulated by the city government in the form of guilds, and these guilds put in place restrictions that allowed certain food industries to operate in assigned areas. Guilds were separated into two groups: people who supplied the raw materials to make food, and the people who sold already prepared items. The restrictions that were put in place by guilds hampered the development of culinary arts during this time, by restricting certain chefs to assigned areas.

Between the 17 th and 18 th century there was a development in Haute Cuisine or “High Cuisine”, and its origins can be found in the recipes of a chef named La Varenne. Varenne was the author of what is known today as the first “true French cookbook”. Unlike the cooking styles of the middle Ages, Verenne’s cookbook (Cvisinier François) contained new recipes which focused on more modest and less extravagant meals. This was an ongoing trend throughout the history of French cuisine, with more and more chefs continuing to tone down on the abundance of a meal, and focusing on the ingredients in the meal.

The French Revolution also brought about a turning point in the French food industry, because it led to the fall of guilds. With guilds no longer in place any French chef could produce and sell any type of food product he or she wished. This lead to a type of enlightenment within the French food industry, and more chefs began to experiment with different types of ingredients and dishes. One of the most prominent chefs of the 18 th and 19 th century was Marie-Antoine Carême. Carême based his cooking around the development of what he called his “mother sauces”. These sauces were made up of espagnole, velouté, as well as béchamel, and where also known as fonds or “base sauces”. Carême over the span of his career created hundreds of sauces, many of which are still being used today in French cuisine.

In the late 19 th century and early 20 th century there began a modernization of haute cuisine. Much of this new cuisine owes its development to Georges Auguste Escoffier. Escoffier was chef and an owner of many restaurants, as well as a culinary writer. Much of Escoffier methods in modernizing haute cuisine were drawn from the recipes of Carême. By simplifying Carême recipes as well as adding his own touches Escoffier was able to develop a new modern French cuisine. In his efforts to modernize French cuisine Escoffier also developed a system to organize and manage a professional kitchen. The system was called a “brigade system” and separated the kitchen into five sections. In this system each member of a designated section created a specific part of the dish. The sections included the “garde manger” that prepared cold dishes; the “entremettier” prepared starches and vegetables, the “rôtisseur” prepared roasts, grilled and fried dishes; the “saucier” prepared sauces and soups; and the “pâtissier” prepared all pastry and desserts items. By reorganizing the manufacturing of dishes within the kitchen Escoffier was able to cut down on the time that was required to prepare a dish, in turn making professional kitchens more efficient. Escoffier is a legend in the world of French Cuisine and he has written many famous cookbooks, his most famous being Le Guide Culinaire which includes over 5,000 recipes.

Since the days of Escoffier there have been many changes in the anatomy of French Cuisine. Over time new techniques have evolved, and chefs have become more inventive. There has been a tendency to shy away from larger menus, and the focus has changed from the abundance food included in a dish, to the quality of the ingredients in the dish. Present day French meal structure is divided into Le petit déjeuner, Le déjeuner, and Le dîner (Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner). Breakfast often consists of “tartines” which are small slices of French bread which are then spread with jelly, and or pastries. Lunch was once known as one of the largest meals of the day, and in many professional situations workers would be allowed a two hour lunch break. Though in today’s French society many French workers are allotted an hour for lunch, which most use to eat out or at the business or school’s cafeteria. Dinner in most cases consists of three courses: the entrée, the plat principal or main course, and the cheese or desert course. Some popular French dishes include Blanquette de veau (blanquette of veal), Coq au vin (rooster in red wine), Bouillabaisse (fish soup), and Boudin blanc (Delicate flavored sausage similar to bockwurst). Wine is essential item in French meals, and it to has a rich history in France. In many cases a different wine is paired with each course in a meal, and each wine is picked depending on what is being served for each course. Though France is know for its wine, there has been a 60 percent drop in the consumption of wine during meals throughout France. Instead there has been a rise in fruit juice, water, and beer consumption, as well as other alcoholic drinks mixed with cider or other mixers.

French cuisine has a rich history, and like many other native cuisines, French cuisine owes it development to brilliant chefs as well as the some helpful influences from neighboring countries. It can be assured that French cuisine will continue to evolve and change and that in years to come brilliant French culinary experts will continue to push the boudaries of the culinary world. Like many cultures it has taken many years for the French to perfect their cuisine, with each generation adding something new to the mix. Yet it is because of the chefs of the past generations that a country’s cuisine can develop to what it is now.

 

Women and Shoes: A Love Story

Published August 23, 2013 by joiceirmawati

First there was Cinderella, then there was Carrie Bradshaw. We explain the fascinating reasons why footwear is seducing our imaginations — and emptying our wallets — more than ever.

shoes arranged in a heart

Long before spiked heels with exotic names (Louboutin, anyone?) became objects of desire, chicks have been shoe-crazy. But recently, we got proof of exactly how crazy: While sales of most things have plummeted thanks to the recession, footwear sales have gone up compared to the same period last year. Yes, buying a pair of shoes has always had near-supernatural effects — like instantly updating an outfit from last year or just making you feel hotter than hell — but that doesn’t fully explain how footwear is beating the odds in sales. Trust science to have the answer: Turns out, we’ve always been wired for shoe lust, even when the going gets tough.

Happy Feet

First of all, there’s some serious mood-boosting going on when you try on any kind of apparel. “The neurotransmitter dopamine is released, providing a feel-good high, similar to taking a drug,” says Martin Lindstrom, a branding expert for Fortune 100 companies and author of Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy. “The dopamine increases until you swipe your debit card.” Usually, the high then flatlines, and guilt starts creeping in…except, that is, when the item you’re purchasing is a pair of shoes. “Shoppers rationalize shoes as a practical buy — something they can wear multiple times a week — so they hold on to that pleasurable feeling longer,” says Lindstrom.

But it’s not just dopamine at work. Shoes’ mood-altering traits also come from another brain reaction, says Lindstrom. Buying new footwear stimulates an area of the brain’s prefrontal cortex termed the collecting spot. “Shoes are a collector’s item, whether women realize they perceive them that way or not,” says Suzanne Ferriss, PhD, editor of Footnotes: On Shoes. Just think of how they’re often stored artfully on shoe trees and shelves. “They’re like sculptures,” says Ferriss. As a result, collecting each type provides a mini-adrenaline rush similar to the satisfaction a stamp collector gets when he acquires a rare find.

A Higher Power

All those wonderful feelings are intensified when you choose high heels…but again, it’s biology, not Jimmy Choo, at work. “Like most animals, we’re wired to associate height with power,” says Helen Fisher, PhD, professor of anthropology at Rutgers University. “High heels can literally raise your status because you’re taller when you wear them.”

Heels carry historical significance as well, adding to their appeal. In previous centuries, only the wealthy wore high heels — everyone else had practical footwear to do manual labor. “Shoes were a measure of class,” says Fisher, “and we still have a bit of that mind-set ingrained in us.”

The 7 Most Baffling Things About Women’s Clothes

Published August 23, 2013 by joiceirmawati

There are a lot of annoying things about being a woman, like periods, childbirth and not being able to play basketball in a way that keeps spectators awake. But near the top of the list has got to be buying clothes.

I know one way to fix it is just to be ballsy and wear men’s clothes, and that’s a bold choice. But you take a social hit for wearing “masculine” clothes, and most women don’t want to take that hit. So they go to buy clothes made specifically “for women,” and generally find a set of the most impractical, low-quality, high-maintenance crap that a sweatshop can make.

Here are a few of the many, many awful things about the clothes that manufacturers want women to wear:

#7. The Material Is Too Thin

Go through any women’s clothes section and put your hand inside all the shirts and dresses and see if you can see it. (If you are a man, try to make sure no one is looking first.) About 50 percent of the time, you are going to get a pretty good view of your hand. And you don’t have to go to a fancy boutique; this holds true for my neighborhood Target.

Wet Seal
I assume the men and lesbians among our readers would prefer I had this photo from the opposite side.

That means if a girl wears just that shirt, you are going to see her bra, or even boobs, which I’m sure sounds exciting and positive to many men, but violates workplace and school dress codes, as well as many public decency laws. Also, these are clothes for all women of all ages, not just young, attractive women.

This isn’t a mistake. The solution is supposed to be layering, which has really caught on in recent years. All of these stores also sell plenty of tank tops, camisoles and plain form-fitting T-shirts, sometimes dedicating entire sections to clothes specifically designed for use in layering. Catalog photos will often show girls wearing three or more layers.

JC Penney
Count ’em. One, two, three. Or as JC Penney sees it, $, $$, $$$!

I can’t prove they do this deliberately to make women buy more pieces of clothing, but once you found you could sell this concept to people, why wouldn’t you? Someone who used to buy one shirt is now going to buy three from you. And you get to use less material.

On top of that, super-thin cloth isn’t very durable, and its evil cousin, the lacy sweater with huge holes, easily catches and tears in a washing machine. So you get to spend even more money replacing them more often or dry cleaning them.

#6. Fake Pockets or No Pockets

One thing I think a lot of men take for granted is pockets. It seems like men always have pockets. They’re a requirement in men’s pants, men’s coats always have functional pockets and I guess even men’s prison jumpsuits must have them, since I hear about people smuggling goods into prison all the time.

Women’s clothing manufacturers, on the other hand, seem to believe women can’t be trusted with pockets. Something like 99 percent of dresses have no pockets at all, and the more formal you get, the more likely a women’s coat or pants pocket is going to be a fake, decorative pocket.

LLYMLRS
It looks like it has pockets, but it does not.

I know the arguments — “But women’s clothes are so carefully cut and tailored. If you put anything in a pocket, it would bulge and look bad!” That’s bullshit. I just went to the store with my bridesmaids and picked out some bridesmaids’ dresses with pockets.

David’s Bridal
It doesn’t look like it has pockets, but it does.

Sure, there will be unsightly bulges if they put too much in their pockets, but the solution isn’t to take them away — the solution is to trust women to have the common sense to not put a bag of rocks in their pocket. These pockets are just fine for carrying a key or some cash or credit cards, and it’s stupid to not give anyone that option because some idiot might try to put, I don’t know, night-vision goggles or a piece of cake in their pocket.

But it’s OK, because instead of functional pockets, we get a ton of decorative pockets, as well as numerous other nonfunctional decorations, like extra buttons, and buckles, and flaps. Look at these ridiculous boots.

Sure has a lot of buckles and stitching and all that, I bet these must be complex to put on. Oh wait.

It’s just one zipper up the inside.

The only possible conclusion is that Rob “Pouches” Liefeld moonlights as a women’s clothing designer in his spare time.

#5. Too Cold

Another problem is that women’s clothes are too damn cold. Part of it is the thinness of much of the material, as mentioned before, but no matter how thick the material, many, many styles involve increasing exposure, like dipped necklines, three-quarter sleeves or skirts and dresses.

It can be easy to chalk this up just to women who dress “provocatively,” but the truth is that a fairly normal, unprovocative women’s style exposes a lot more skin than men’s clothes. A below-knee skirt still exposes your shins. A three-quarter sleeve isn’t terribly provocative unless you have a thing for forearms. And necklines don’t need to go anywhere near the boobs to still be a lot wider than the average men’s neckline.

Uniforme Vogue
Not a lot of men could get away with wearing that collar.

The obvious question, which might come up on a bunch of these points, is why we don’t just avoid these styles. It’s harder than it sounds, because they’re everywhere. It can be hard to find a shirt with a neckline between “look at my bust” and turtleneck, and when you do, it turns out to be a three-quarter sleeve. If you find a dress with full sleeves, they’ve pulled the hem up to your ass.

American Apparel
Amish up top, streetwalker below.

What makes this all worse is that this is almost inevitably the case with all “professional” styles that are OK to wear at the office, and women being cold at the office is an enormous, widespread workplace issue, as I’ve covered before.

I don’t think colder clothing is the cause, as bundled-up women complain of the cold just as much. I think it’s just adding insult to injury that they’re already feeling cold, and that there is no “professional”-looking outfit that will let them bundle up properly without looking like they are in a Christmas special.

AdventurousFoodie.com
Hard to get people to take you seriously in meetings like this.

#4. Arbitrary Clothing Sizes

Men’s pants sizes are logical and come in measurements of at least waist size, and often inseam, too. Women’s pants sizes, and clothing sizes in general, are meaningless, arbitrary numbers that come, as far as I can tell, from having kittens bat around a 20-sided die.


Can’t make an analogy like that and not make a picture of it.

This isn’t just a recent trend. Women’s clothing manufacturers have been making up sizes as far back as sizes have existed. According to one fashion historian, a 32-inch bust would have come out to a size 14 in a 1937 Sears catalog, while being labeled a size 8 in 1967, and coming down to a size 0 in today’s terms.

Even today, you apparently inflate and deflate like a balloon when you go from brand to brand, according to their sizes. A woman who is size 6 at American Eagle might be a 0 at Ann Taylor, as mentioned in the above article.


If we’re being logical, shouldn’t a size 0 look like this?

Obviously they’re pandering here, trying to flatter women by making them sound thinner with a skinny-sounding number, because when you make people feel good, they buy things. As long as the market keeps rewarding for it, they’ll keep doing it, so I guess there’s no hope for making women’s sizes any easier to buy.

On the other hand, if we can’t make things easier for women, apparently they are making things harder for men these days by doing the same thing with their pants. According to Esquire, various brands of men’s pants labeled as having a “36-inch waist” actually had waistlines ranging from 36 to 41 inches (Old Navy was the fattest liar). In an era where action heroes can no longer sport beer bellies (John Wayne, young Captain Kirk), I guess men need flattery about their waistlines, too.


Nobody used to mind a bit of a tummy on a leading man.

In attempting equality, I would have preferred making pants-buying easier and more consistent for everybody instead of making it suck for everybody but I guess that’s the way they decided to go.

Eiffel Tower

Published August 16, 2013 by joiceirmawati

The Eiffel Tower (French: La Tour Eiffel, [tuʁ ɛfɛl]) is an iron lattice tower located on the Champ de Mars in Paris, named after the engineer Gustave Eiffel, whose company designed and built the tower. Erected in 1889 as the entrance arch to the 1889 World’s Fair, it has become both a global cultural icon of France and one of the most recognizable structures in the world. The tower is the tallest structure in Paris[10] and the most-visited paid monument in the world; 7.1 million people ascended it in 2011. The tower received its 250 millionth visitor in 2010.

The tower stands 324 metres (1,063 ft) tall, about the same height as an 81-storey building. During its construction, the Eiffel Tower surpassed the Washington Monument to assume the title of the tallest man-made structure in the world, a title it held for 41 years, until the Chrysler Building in New York City was built in 1930. Because of the addition of the antenna atop the Eiffel Tower in 1957, it is now taller than the Chrysler Building by 17 feet (5.2 m). Not including broadcast antennas, it is the second-tallest structure in France, after the Millau Viaduct.

The tower has three levels for visitors. The third level observatory’s upper platform is at 279.11 m (915.7 ft) the highest accessible to the public in the European Union. Tickets can be purchased to ascend, by stairs or lift (elevator), to the first and second levels. The walk from ground level to the first level is over 300 steps, as is the walk from the first to the second level. Although there are stairs to the third and highest level, these are usually closed to the public and it is usually accessible only by lift. The first and second levels have restaurants.

The tower has become the most prominent symbol of both Paris and France, often in the establishing shot of films set in the city.

joiceirmawati