. . . I have been sensing a patronizing tone here (and elsewhere!) when people start talking about Alice.
Or Rachael. Or Sara. Or Nigella. Or, (duck and cover!) Martha. These women could not be more different, but they have two things in common. They are all successful and good-looking.
I have no particular wish to stir up the Gender Wars here, because I'm not sure that I'm correct. Tell me, I'm not, in fact. It's just a nagging creepy-crawly Feeling . . .
Lots of "girls" are successful and accepted by men without a hint of sexism (there are more than a few on this site). And plenty of men get nailed here when they overreach -- Emeril Lagasse, Bobby Flay and Jamie Oliver come immediately to mind. Note that it is rarely their cooking that takes the hit. It's their attitudes, their egos and their ambitions that offend. My observation is that that offense is transgender in nature.
I've seen AW a couple of times on the show belonging to that other target, Martha Stewart. She is charming and informative, but like Martha, she seems oblivious to the fact that what she thinks people ought to do (and I use "ought" in the moral sense, as Alice often does) is simply not possible for many, many of them. This creates a great deal of resentment on the part of the preachees -- they feel like they have been given a choice between guilt or heresy. Some choice!
Having read and digested many Martha posts on this site, and having to come to a reappreciation for her because of that, I'm willing to give AW the benefit of the doubt -- maybe I already feel guilty and Alice is simply uncovering it. That's not her fault.
But the article (rgruby's synopsis, anyway) that opened the thread makes her sound like a hypocrite, and moral hypocrites are easy (and, sad to say, often justifiable) targets.
(I'm pretty sure Rachael, Nigella and Sara get smacked down as often by women as by men. So if you want to play the gender card, we'll have to discuss reverse sexism, too.)