What/Who is a "Foodie"?

[Andrew Fenton]

I think you're reaching here, John! 

←

Know of some "ie" words that are used to label people and that are flattering?

Aussie, lassie, goalie, Mountie, smartie, sweetie are a few.

But it's also true that -ie is a diminutive, and diminutives aren't usually flattering.

[The Old Foodie]

←

Know of some "ie" words that are used to label people and that are flattering?

Aussie, lassie, goalie, Mountie, smartie, sweetie are a few.

←

I'm relieved that you include "Aussie" and now feel secure enough to put in my "two bob's worth".

This thread is reminding me of the old joke "I dont care what you call me, as long as it's not too late for dinner".

[hungryCAT]

I think you're reaching here, John! 

←

Know of some "ie" words that are used to label people and that are flattering?

Aussie, lassie, goalie, Mountie, smartie, sweetie are a few.

But it's also true that -ie is a diminutive, and diminutives aren't usually flattering.

←

. . . and cutie, John, or is that demeaning as well?

I really can't believe you are putting so much emphasis on "ie" and comparing

the word foodie to words such as commie, druggie, and weinie. Also, I wasn't

aware that trekkie and newbie were used to denigrate people , but hey, you live and learn

[Jaymes]

I really can't believe you are putting so much emphasis on "ie" and comparing

the word foodie to words such as ... weinie.

Which also isn't aways derogatory. As in, "that's quite a weinie you've got there."

[johnsmith45678]

Also, I wasn't aware that trekkie and newbie were used to denigrate people 

←

Seriously?

[hungryCAT]

Also, I wasn't aware that trekkie and newbie were used to denigrate people 

←

Seriously?

←

Well, yeah . . .

Isn't a trekkie a fan of Star Trek and/or one who follows the Star Trek

conventions? They are very enthusiastic fans . . .That's demeaning?

Or a newbie? - One who is, um, "new" to the forum, club, etc. That is

demeaning? Really?

Help me understand!!!!

Now, I am not saying they are necessarily "complimentary", but they are not

"denigrating" either. Aren't they just neutral?

Edited August 3, 2006 by hungryCAT (log)

[johnsmith45678]

Also, I wasn't aware that trekkie and newbie were used to denigrate people 

←

Seriously?

←

Well, yeah . . .

Isn't a trekkie a fan of Star Trek and/or one who follows the Star Trek

conventions? They are very enthusiastic fans . . .That's demeaning?

Or a newbie? - One who is, um, "new" to the forum, club, etc. That is

demeaning? Really?

Help me understand!!!!

Now, I am not saying they are necessarily "complimentary", but they are not

"denigrating" either. Aren't they just neutral?

←

So you don't think outsiders use those terms to demean, belittle, trivialize those the terms describe? Or the insiders using those terms themselves in a self-disparaging manner?

[hungryCAT]

Also, I wasn't aware that trekkie and newbie were used to denigrate people 

←

Seriously?

←

Well, yeah . . .

Isn't a trekkie a fan of Star Trek and/or one who follows the Star Trek

conventions? They are very enthusiastic fans . . .That's demeaning?

Or a newbie? - One who is, um, "new" to the forum, club, etc. That is

demeaning? Really?

Help me understand!!!!

Now, I am not saying they are necessarily "complimentary", but they are not

"denigrating" either. Aren't they just neutral?

←

So you don't think outsiders use those terms to demean, belittle, trivialize those the terms describe? Or the insiders using those terms themselves in a self-disparaging manner?

←

No, quite frankly. I least I don't . . .

I've not ever used/heard these terms used in an insulting, belittling manner.

I guess that's just me . . . and Jaymes! (What's up, Jaymes!?)

You know, I'll have to ask my hubby what his views are on this new

sub-topic. I'm guessing he'll be on the same wavelength as I, but when he gets home (from playing softball), I will ask - just out of curiosity.

[Andrew Fenton]

I don't think we want to take this too far-- "Trekkie" or "newbie" aren't derogatory terms in the same way that, say, racial epithets are. If you call somebody a Trekkie, I don't think you have to worry about them beating you in the face with their Spock ears or plastic phaser.

Still, I think the point is that, as I said, -ie ending words are diminutives. In some cases, they're neutral-- Royal Canadian Mounted Police becomes "Mountie"-- and in other cases, they're clearly negative: "druggie".

Diminutives often indicate a difference in power, as when you're talking to or about children. Think about the difference between "dog" and "doggie"; you wouldn't use the latter when talking to an adult. (I hope). Think, too, about the difference between "communist" and "commie". You'd describe somebody as a "commie" if you wanted to discount or dismiss their political beliefs, as childish, for example.*

If somebody were to take offense at "foodie", it'd be because the term is perceived as similarly dismissive. That said, I don't think it's offensive; and I'm even less worried about offending foodies than I am Trekkies. If they wanna come at me waving foie gras and pecorino foam, I say, bring it on.

Whew, I'm tired. And hungry. Maybe I'll go cook up some wienies for dinner...

*You mentioned "cutie". I'd suggest that "cute" and "cutie" differ in a similar way. "Cute" has a wide range of meaning, but it can include a sense of sexual attractiveness: "that girl in the blue dress is cute! I'll ask her out." But "cutie" or "cutie pie" are terms that are more likely to be applied to children, or other people are attractive in a non-sexual way.

[Holly Moore]

A foodie is an aspiring eater. Once a foodie forgoes the ritual and falderal, he/she evolves into an eater - the culinary equivalent of achieving Nirvana.

[johnsmith45678]

Also, I wasn't aware that trekkie and newbie were used to denigrate people 

←

Seriously?

←

Well, yeah . . .

Isn't a trekkie a fan of Star Trek and/or one who follows the Star Trek

conventions? They are very enthusiastic fans . . .That's demeaning?

Or a newbie? - One who is, um, "new" to the forum, club, etc. That is

demeaning? Really?

Help me understand!!!!

Now, I am not saying they are necessarily "complimentary", but they are not

"denigrating" either. Aren't they just neutral?

←

So you don't think outsiders use those terms to demean, belittle, trivialize those the terms describe? Or the insiders using those terms themselves in a self-disparaging manner?

←

No, quite frankly. I least I don't . . .

I've not ever used/heard these terms used in an insulting, belittling manner.

I guess that's just me . . . and Jaymes! (What's up, Jaymes!?)

You know, I'll have to ask my hubby what his views are on this new

sub-topic. I'm guessing he'll be on the same wavelength as I, but when he gets home (from playing softball), I will ask - just out of curiosity.

←

Wow. You've never seen Trekkies made fun of? Triumph the Insult Comic Dog did a bit completely ripping Star Wars fans (which are the same as Trekkies - just different show). In computing circles, newbie is most definitely a denigrating term.

[johnsmith45678]

I don't think we want to take this too far-- "Trekkie" or "newbie" aren't derogatory terms in the same way that, say, racial epithets are.  If you call somebody a Trekkie, I don't think you have to worry about them beating you in the face with their Spock ears or plastic phaser.

Still, I think the point is that, as I said, -ie ending words are diminutives.  In some cases, they're neutral-- Royal Canadian Mounted Police becomes "Mountie"-- and in other cases, they're clearly negative: "druggie".

Diminutives often indicate a difference in power, as when you're talking to or about children.  Think about the difference between "dog" and "doggie"; you wouldn't use the latter when talking to an adult.  (I hope).  Think, too, about the difference between "communist" and "commie".  You'd describe somebody as a "commie" if you wanted to discount or dismiss their political beliefs, as childish, for example.* 

If somebody were to take offense at "foodie", it'd be because the term is perceived as similarly dismissive.  That said, I don't think it's offensive; and I'm even less worried about offending foodies than I am Trekkies.  If they wanna come at me waving foie gras and pecorino foam, I say, bring it on.

Whew, I'm tired.  And hungry.  Maybe I'll go cook up some wienies for dinner...

*You mentioned "cutie".  I'd suggest that "cute" and "cutie" differ in a similar way.  "Cute" has a wide range of meaning, but it can include a sense of sexual attractiveness: "that girl in the blue dress is cute!  I'll ask her out."  But "cutie" or "cutie pie" are terms that are more likely to be applied to children, or other people are attractive in a non-sexual way.

←

Andrew nailed it. Even if an "-ie" word isn't outright denigrating, it almost always takes on a "cute" or "childish" or "amateurish" connotation.

[ThatGrrl]

Hey, I even think that the word cute is offensive! But then, I'm a 42 year old chick who has lived her whole life being called "cute," largely due to being slight in stature. Small does not equal cute, people! Puppies, kittens and bunny rabbits. THOSE are cute. Not anyone over the age of about 12. But that's my own personal issue. Nevermind!

I like your "would they punch you in the face?" test, Andrew. In that sense, I certainly agree that "trekkie" really isn't offensive. Or, at least, neither I nor my trekkie friends take offense. It's just a way of identifying with a group.

Great. Talk about an over-share. My name is ThatGrrl and I'm a cute trekkie.

[Pontormo]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but my general impression is the word was coined in recognition of a new demographic: people who love & obsess over food in a non-elitist--possibly more democratic--way that distinguishes them from gourmets.

For this reason, "foodie" does not bother everyone. It serves a purpose. It's respectable. It's especially worn well by people with a self-deprecating sense of humor .

Over time, foodies and gourmets became virtually indistinguishable, except for the fact that the former word is new and because it marks a trend that is no longer novel, some of us find ourselves cringing a little when we hear it. Who uses the word "yuppie" anymore? Yet new waves of young professional urban men and women swell every year, come June.

Because the word "gourmet" has been around a bit longer, fewer people react the same way. It's a bit self-conscious or even pretentious--again, ONLY when viewed from certain perspectives--since it smacks of class and there's that French thing going on.

I find the word "foodie" a bit twee. Yet I am at a loss for finding a nice, short simple word in English that serves its role--other than gourmet.

This is where the beauty of German comes in. We need a nice Noun composed of a gazillion syllables ending with perhaps mitSchlagessenzulieben (with-whipped cream-to eat-to love).

Edited August 4, 2006 by Pontormo (log)

[Simon_S]

...when he gets home (from playing softball)...

←

Does that make him a softie?

Si

[MarketStEl]

Thank you for putting everything in proper perspective, Holly.

This discussion was getting just a little queer.

[Jaymes]

Another thing with the word "foodie" is that it ends in "ie." Such words are usually intended to denigrate those people they describe: trekkie, commie, kiddie, bookie, druggie, floozie, groupie, hippie, kookie, newbie, rookie, stoolie, weinie, ...

Okay, so how about foodee.

[duckduck]

The age old debate. Are we really going over it yet again? I have a friend who thinks that a foodie is someone who has dined in the finest establishments and it all about stars and zagat whatnot. I say it's a person with a great love of any food that is an adventurous eater. We will never agree on this point. EVER. (And he acts like he's right. Hah!) When I talk to him I just use the words "foodie - my definition" or "foodie, your definition". One day he just may see that I'm right!

[trufflelover]

I had never given any thought to whether foodie was elitist ... I just thought it was a useful way to explain away my tendency to spend vastly more time researching where to eat when I travel than I do on the *other* stuff (you know, museums, castles, art and whatnot )

[fiftydollars]

I prefer the term gastrophiliac.

[abooja]

I'm currently wading through this article in the Atlantic Monthly and am increasingly baffled by the author's outrage. Perhaps the reason for his or her hatred of "foodies" will become clearer when I'm done.

[lancastermike]

I read this as well and agree that the guy seems a little whacked. However, deep inside I think there is a point. It is just food and some people can be a little pretentious and elitest about things.

The absolute frenzy whipped up here regarding the modernist cookbook can be an example.

[gfweb]

If you listen to Tom Coliccio's inane "respect the protein" spiel or the "farm to table" people's novel idea that food starts at a farm and ends up in my mouth, it is easy to think that things are a bit on the silly side in foodland.

I think a lot of this is driven by food TV and food mags that need to have things to talk about and are happy to push nonsense if it sells.

I suspect that the term foodie arose in advertising/marketing circles as a label for the demographic that they were trying to reach and then came into widespread use. Personally I find the name stupid and in some way demeaning. I can't think of a less stupid name, but I don't feel pressured to do so.

[JBailey]

The advent of computers and the internet has allowed groups of common interest to gather such as we do here. Over the last decades there has been an explosion of books on all subjects, given technology's gift of making research, printing and communication more affordable. When magazines were limited in number, we looked forward to when titles like Look and Life were some of the few delivered by the postman to our homes, while today racks are full of specialized titles. There has been a vast increase in the number of subject titles and books on every subject whether common or rare.

What I think this guy has done is focus on an area of popular interest to sensationalize the edges for his article. I might imagine if one did similar research on travel books and magazines or automotive ones or home decor subjects, that you could find extremes and quotes which might paint those readers as being not caring or outside of the 'norms'. One could pull quotes from articles about trekking a trail in a remote jungle to observe an indigenous tribe or test driving Bugatti's or looking at photos of vacation homes in some exotic locale to determine that everyone who travels or drives a car or buys a home is moving toward fanatic behavior. Bottom line, he made a buck by writing the article whether he believes what he says or not.

Edited February 11, 2011 by JBailey (log)

[Mjx]

I'm with gfweb, with regard to the term 'foodie' being very likely a part of the problem (besides, who needs a name to state that one has an interest in/passion for food?).

The more serious problems are the high-visibility celebrity figures whose behaviour is guaranteed to draw fire – regardless of whether they're sanctimonious, or arrogantly loutish – and are so beloved by the media for the very behaviour that makes them so aggravating, and the less visible, but equally aggravating private individuals who can't seem to control their urge to shove their views in other people's faces.

But notwithstanding their visibility, these people are in the minority, when it comes to those who love food and cooking.

It is hard to believe that any intelligent person would conclude that what they see in the media constitutes the greater part of the landscape it supposedly represents.

It seems a bit odd that Myers has so easily gulped at the media pap that's churned out, then complains of its flavour: Does he honestly believe that the tip of the iceberg represents the whole? Looks like it: His entire article strongly suggests that he's never noticed the vast number of people who are focused on making something delicious, even with very limited means; good food is one of the few remaining affordable pleasures, if you care enough to take the time and effort. I believe that part of the increased interest in good food emerged because of a harsher economic landscape: You may no longer be able to afford the speed-boat, but you can still produce deeply flavoured braises from cheap cuts of meat and a handful of seasonings. And exploring modernist cuisine needn't be any more expensive or elitist than trying to restore a 1981 Yamaha in your garage at weekends; to suggest this is merely inverted snobbery, which I believe lies at the heart of this entire article.

To mock 'the stomach-driven life' is to condemn 99% of the human race; Jerome K. Jerome had it right when he wrote:

People who have tried it, tell me that a clear conscience makes you very happy and contented; but a full stomach does the business quite as well, and is cheaper, and more easily obtained. One feels so forgiving and generous after a substantial and well-digested meal—so noble-minded, so kindly-hearted.

It is very strange, this domination of our intellect by our digestive organs. We cannot work, we cannot think, unless our stomach wills so. It dictates to us our emotions, our passions.

. . . .

We are but the veriest, sorriest slaves of our stomach.

(Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog))

When he speaks of Bourdain's writing, there is a strong suggestion that the concept of irony is lost on him. This effectively means that he may never be able to fully appreciate food as anything more than a source of nutrients, since even the most carefully and lovingly prepared item is destined to finish in the same place as a fistful of protein tablets.

Can he honestly say that his considered opinion is that the majority of those who care deeply about food would find it amusing or acceptable to violate someone's religious restrictions, or revel in the protracted death throes of some animal? The relationship between these sorts of things, and the attitudes the majority of those who really appreciate food is analogous to the relationship between haute couture fashion shows or Vogue, and what most fashion-lovers choose to wear on a regular basis. One is fantasy, designed to generate attention, the other is reality.

By focusing on the most garish and decontextualized figures and incidents in food culture in the media, he promulgates the very thing he condemns. His insistance on seeing 'foodies' as comprehensively and universally superficial is itself the essence of superficiality, and he betrays himself as possessing that 'littleness of soul' against which he rants.

Edit: It might be interesting to invite Myers to debate this: If the decencies of debate were observed, I think it could be a fascinating discussion.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Mjx (log)