A real man not only eats quiche, he makes it
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
In the 80s, I think it was, when men were begining to be belittled in advertising, that the world was excessively masculine, and men were blamed for it, and then there was advertising for men's eyeliner and shadow and fou-fou hair shampoo, etc, there was a tv commercial, product not remembered, but probably one of the above, saying "Real men don't eat quiche." Well, since I have been making quiche since the late 60s when I was in France, and have made it perennially on Christmas morning for half a century, I was offended by the ad. I said to myself, I not only eat quiche, I make it!
No conditions and no definitions necessary. If you don't know what quiche is, look it up.
I.a I launched this debate because I love quiche, and I relish making it. By the title, I am not implying that unless all real men make quiche, they are not real men. I understand that, probably, most men do not regard the kitchen as a room to cook in; it is more regularly a room to grab a snack and eat it down without use of the table, plates or utensils, or for anything else but to inhabit briefly, and get out. Either that, or eating out is preferred. I regret that condition, but there it is. There are, then many real men [and I don’t need a definition that real men are just those who attend gyms more than kitchens] who do not eat quiche, and probably never would. Yeah, it sounds frou-frou, but, to an American, a lot of French does. That means nothing to me. I’m not a big fan of off-road vehicles, and admire people who do.
1.b There are also plenty of people who do eat quiche, but would not make it. So be it. My line is that of those who will eat quiche, but would not make it, does not deserve to be known as a real quiche-eating man. Only by taking the time and energy to make it, does one attain that privilege, relative only to eating quiche, and in no other respect. I mean no offense to Arnold “It’s Not a Tumor” Schwarzenegger.
1.c This is why I happened to add my personal recipe to the comments [#5]. My opponent has already chided me on this [#9]. No, this is not a cooking website. But it is a conversation website, and when I want to converse in recipes, well, now, that’s my privilege. No one is compelled to read or reply. There it is, already an argument, and I’ve not finished the first round.
1.d Nevertheless, I reject being dragged down. This is supposed to be a lighthearted debate, and I will try to make it so.
II How to eat quiche
II.a No, this is not going to be another recipe offering. As the title, and the argument, suggest, making quiche is a totally different exercise than eating it. Don’t get me wrong, eating a really good quiche is one of life’s pleasures. Everything about a good quiche is good, fresh ingredients. Some people are cholesterol-counters, and, for them, manufacturers of commercial-branded quiche, and, even some restaurants, will substitute ingredients to pacify those counters.
I claim they are not making quiche, which is, at the root a custard; they are making a frittata, basically an exotic omelet [nothing wrong with that], to masquerade as a quiche. If the package would say that, instead of “quiche,” I’d be okay with that. I chose my source because it draws another distinction; it says, first, that a quiche is a quiche, not a frittata, because quiche has a crust. Well, it does then say, “A quiche is an unsweetened custard pie.”
II.b Well, I might even distinguish further because a frittata is not often sweetened, either, and I have made quiche with a very naturally sweet lobster meat, but let’s not quibble; this is not Food Network.
IIc. The alternative to making quiche, if you want to eat quiche, is to eat out [and that’s fraught with the issues raised in II.a, or buy manufactured, fresh or frozen.
But either choice prevents the sheer pleasure of anticipation, having to deal with the ingredients, with one’s aroma-filled hands and yet deal with pleasure-delay tactics. These feed the senses, literally, and start salivation, which improves flavor. On the other hand, hold a frozen quiche to your nose and inhale. What do you smell? Ice. Usually stale ice. Yum.
III Why eat quiche
III.a Philosophy is not usually a kitchen subject, but there just happens to be an identity crisis I am not wont to expose, but it is essential to the argument at hand. First, well, last as well, quiche, one of the most French of French dishes, actually has a different origin, even though geographically, even that is confusing. I bring it up in hopes that it helps the argument I propose. Quiche is really German in origin. I may have a bias, but when I think of Germany, my thoughts do not often run to cuisine. They just don’t. I think of robust people, which is not exactly what one thinks when discussing the French. That’s a sore point with me because I am of French ancestry, though I would never be mistaken as such. I’m a big guy; 6’3”, 250 lbs, big boned, blond [well, it’s white, now…] France is not what one thinks looking at me.
III.b I digress. In a medieval kingdom, Lothringen, appears to be the origin of kuchen,meaning “cake.” Parenthetically, is reviewing this referenced site, I was pleased to see, in variation, the “myth” with which I began this debate: “real men don’t eat quiche,” but does a convincing job of making it and eating it. This region of France, in the northeast of that country, was once Germany, even before the latter was known by that name, and did not become part of France until the early 20thcentury. Known now as the French province of Lorraine, the kuchenbecame quiche, the fare became French, and the recipe that bears the province’s name remains basically unchanged, an egg cream custard featuring smoked bacon pieces in a bottom crust. It was the French who later adopted cheese as a primary ingredient. The proximity of Lorraine to the French/Swiss border, the region of apparent origin of gruyère cheese makes that the cheese variety of choice. I know of few people as robust as the Swiss. I’ve lived among them for a time. Even Hitler avoided trying to occupy that country.
III.c As a result, the filling, and very satisfactorily so, quiche Lorraine, the classic variety of the dish, is so tied to a robust temperament, and region, “real men” become an obvious feature of its enjoyment. I will not try to convince that I infer women are not makers of this fare; that is absurd. Other than in restaurants, and I am not going there, either, women are the gender one normally thinks of when “kitchen” and “cooking” come to mind. I have no doubt that, even now, even in consideration of restaurants, there are probably more women making quiche than men. And enjoying it.
Yes, I’ll say it in closing; real women not only make quiche, they eat it, too.
- I will start my argument on the night of 4/11/2020 because tomorrow I have a long event I have to do at home, and thus I most likely wouldn’t be able to do any research on it, so everything you see is copy-pasted onto the file. I will add refutations once I have time, which means after Monday. Don’t ask, there are unquestioned answers.
- Define man(You said no definitions given): Any human being with Xy chromosomes in their cells are considered men. Any person with Xx chromosomes in their cells is considered a woman and thus cannot be considered a man. Any woman that has converted their gender to male and have been identified as male are counted as men. Biologically-speaking, any person with a penis and two testicles are men, along with transgender men also counting as men if they did gender-conversion. Socially speaking, a man has to be older than 16, 18 or even 21.
- Define Quiche: A kind of tart or pie.
- Based on this, a real man(which is authentic) would just be a man, and an MtF trans person would not be a real man. A man has every right to cook, eat and even poop Quiche. A man also has every right to not make Quiche.
- If you are going with the “slang term”, then, a real man would work SMART instead of HARD. Digging hard NEXT TO A TUNNEL will not help you and no matter how hard you work, you are not smart. A real man, with any level of average intelligence, would not dig next to a tunnel to pass to the other side.
- In other words, every real human, male or not:
- Has rights to eat and not make the Quiche;
- Tries to work smart instead of hard, and focus on acquiring the goods instead of explicitly making it.
- The average GDP for an earthling is about $18,000. A quiche is nowhere that expensive, the most expensive one at the restaurant will cost about $100, and the frozen one at the mall costs about $30 or so. The average man can afford a quiche on his own, and he doesn’t have to make one, considering the ingredients will probably cost more than the one in the supermarket, frozen between the ice.
- The requirement of the debate only says “make the quiche”, but does not concern the quiche’s quality. Since the average quiche you can find savors your appetite and can grant you enough for a whole meal, no matter how mad and bad the quiche is, it still counts.
- In other words, a real man buys the quiche, instead of making it.
- I had met men. My dad, my grandfather, my uncle, my other uncle, my older cousin… None of them know how to make quiche, make it, or even know what it is. These men do not make nor eat quiche, yet they are still men. So, your proposal is flawed: Not every man can make quiche, and men can buy quiche instead of making it. Men can make quiche, but men are not bound by the fact of “making quiche” as my mom does make quiche and still does(She made sounds outside that are making quiche whilst I wrote this segment, and I help her with it, but that doesn’t make me a man because I am just 14); but because she is not trans and does not identify herself as a man, so not all people who make quiche are men.
- "Yes, I’ll say it is closing; real women not only make quiche, but they also eat it, too."
I.a Regarding Con’s round 1: May I reference Shakespeare’s Macbeth,beginning “Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow… signifying nothing.” You know the soliloquy; I don’t need to quote it entirely, or if needed, look it up. That given, it suffices as attitude. Count them, the rebuttal arguments of my opponent – I know you won’t – thirteen. Well, who’s counting? Like I said, you won’t, and don’t matter. [That’s purposeful alliteration, not ignorant grammar]
I.b  is not an argument; it’s an excuse. Count it if you will.
I.d  I’ve already, in context, defined quiche: an egg/cream custard. [round 1, IIa]. For sake of putting an argument to bed, I’ll accept “tart,” and “pie.” Settled.
I.e  The debate has no relevance to rights, or even lefts. Nor ups and downs. Nor forwards and reverses. Eh bien, ce n’est rien.
I.f ,  How one works is an existential discussion, much too heavy for this endeavor. This debate is supposed to be fun; entertainment. Few people would agree to that definition of existential. Well, I find it entertaining, but I’m weird. Ask my wife. As for GDP, which I believe is an acronym meaning goddam plants [as in weeds], point 9 is exactly in the goddam weeds. Dismissed as ce n’est rien, oui?
I.g  Quality? I did not mention quality!? [not ignorant grammar [punctuation], but the only way one can simultaneously represent an obviously exclamatory question. The current English syntax has no such single cipher.] Well, by the very word, no, I don’t think I ever did write “quality.” However, what I did say, “good, fresh ingredients” [r1, II.a], “naturally sweet lobster” [r1, II.b], “aroma-filled hands” [r1, IIc], and “gruyere cheese… variety of choice” [r1, III.b], make abundant statements of quality, which, in my profession, is known as meaning a sufficiently high customer delight, not even just satisfaction, to encourage purchasing a product or service repeatedly. Open for rebuttal.
I.h  Due to the irrelevancy of , , , , and , though hiding behind an argument of buying v. making, this argument joins the other five, because the debate of buying v. making is a red herring. The debate is eating and making. I have, of necessity, allowed for buying, except that my argument is refined to buying ingredients, not a pre-fabricated finished product. Ce n’est rien.
I.i  Since my opponent merely quoted my statement regarding women making and eating quiche, but offered no rebuttal at all, I accept the quote – I wrote it – but I dismiss the non-extant argument. Bye-bye, love.
I.j In summary of these rebuttals, in round 1, I offered argument to the first half of this debate, that real men not only eat quiche… with little mention of making it, yet my opponent, making 13 complaints, did not address my virtual lack of arguing for making. My argument headings were: I How to eat quiche,and II Why eat quiche. Nope, not much there on making, is there, although I do talk around it in both sections.
However, in contradiction to a concept Steppenwolf once sang about, ”…Fire all of your guns at once and explode into space,” I do not, and am not obligated to reveal all in the first round. Dramatic effect, and all that Hollowood nonsense. [Not a spelling error in ignorance, but intended personal reference to the current quality of Hollywood activism]
II MICHAELANGELUS BONAROTUS FLORENTINUS FACIBAT
II.a No, Michelangelo is not related to this debate other than the possibility that he may have had the pleasure of eating the delicacy, though he surely was not of a temperament to make it. But the story of the Pietàin the funerary Chapel of Santa Petronilla, created at the request of Cardinal Jean de Bilhères, and sculpted in the place it was to be displayed when finished,is so poignant, it bears mention. Who knows? It may inspire one to make a quiche.
When Michelangelo happened upon the chapel to continue work, his unfinished labor of love and devotion featuring the body of the dead Christ laying in the lap of his mother, literally dead weight for a woman likely not older than 50 years of age [we look upon as late as the 18th century to discover the average life expectancy was all of 37], frail enough in that era, he was incognito among a few men commenting on the work. He was horrified to hear one remarking his question of who the sculptor might be, because it was, as was customary for Michelangelo to leave pieces unsigned. Another said, “He is our own Gobbo of Milan.”
That evening, Michelangelo locked himself in the chapel, and, with mallet and chisel, etched into the wide hem of the bodice of her robe, crossing her heart, the Latin words, “MICHAELANGELUS BONAROTUS FLORENTINUS FACIBAT” Translated: “Michelangelo Buonarroti made this.”
II.b The work was of such unquestioned quality that Michelangelo may have thought the identity of the sculptor should have been obvious. Shamed, he made it so. Such is the devotion that could be applied to making quiche. If it can be made well enough to earn the praise of others, should the chef remain unidentified? And is that not sufficient cause to be considered a real man?
II.c Making things by one’s own hands justifies the pride in it. It is a tradition that extends backward in time to the creation of earth and heaven. Not to bring a religious slant to the discussion – and, in fact, I contend that the mention of God need not be strictly religious in appeal; believe in Him, or not – it can be philosophical to consider that the detail of organization of the world’s elements in such beautiful grandeur, it is difficult to imagine it managed it by simple random self-selection without external design [consider just the extensive, obvious repetition of the so-called “golden ratio” [1: 1.618] from multiple evidences in plants and animals] – but also of secular appeal. After all, Galileo Galilei made the claim that, “Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe.”And Plato, in Republic, said, “He who can properly define and divide is to be considered a god.”
II.c.1 So, did God, the Fabricator, sign his work? Yes, witness that very desire to be recognized in the pervasive, intentioned application in nature of that golden ratio. After all, we easily recognize the sense of that most elegant of Greek words, λογο, or, in English, “word.” What was God, according to the first words of the Gospel of John? What may not be so well known is another definition of λογο: ratio.
II.c.2 Is there a relation to the golden ratio in the making of a quiche? Refer to my recipe in comments, post #5. Refer to any recipe example you may find, by comparison. Regardless of the quiche, the volume in liquid ounces of eggs and cream, the two primary substances of a single custard is 1.25 cups of cream to 4 eggs [the large classification is the typical average of medium, large and extra-large sizes]. 1.25 cups is 10 liq. oz. 1 large egg is 1.625 liq oz; 4 eggs is 6.5 liq oz. The ratio of eggs to cream is 1:1.538; less than the golden ratio [1:1.618]. However, the reduction from the golden ratio is only 30 drops out of a total of 909 drops; a 3% difference, which is well within the typical variation we see of evidence in nature of the golden ratio.
II.c.3 Under this philosophic discussion of a Fabricator God, might the logic hold that:
1. A Fabricator God has his signature in creation by virtue of the golden ratio.
2. The making of quiche exhibits the use of the golden ratio.
3. Therefore, when the Fabricating God makes quiche, He is a real man.
I will combine a few, as they are related. 99 percent of you understand what is meant by “man,” by the mere mention, without definition, even if you are inclined to alphabet soup instead of the M & F we have had for, what, shall we say for the sake of many on this site, some 60 centuries, or 2.2M days, before we became enlightened to alphabet soup? I mean no disrespect, but the weight of sixty centuries is too great for practical sustenance of the 24 other ciphers of our Latin alphabet. This rebuttal services , , , , and  as irrelevant. Ce n’est rien.
The debate has no relevance to rights, or even lefts. Nor ups and downs. Nor forwards and reverses. Eh bien, ce n’est rien.
This rebuttal services , , , , and  as irrelevant. Ce n’est rien.
I.a No, yet my opponent went to great length to prove my point: gender-wise, anything other than M or F is alphabet soup, as witnessed by official decree of Canada, whose Bar Association gave us “LGBTQQIP2SAA.” I note, in that string, a distinct lack of an ‘M,’ [or an ‘F’] the exact gender [the former] this debate is about [plus a reference to the latter]. An argument about gender is not part of the debate. Therefore, this item of argument from Con is dismissed out of hand.
II. No relevance to rights, or even lefts. Nor ups and downs. Nor forwards and reverses.
II.a In spite of the above claim by my round 2 argument, rebutting Con’s round 1 argument, that this debate was about human rights, my opponent still insists that it is. I ask Con to show me the relevance of human rights in the debate title, which I quote yet again: “A real man not only eats quiche, he makes it.” Nope; not a nod to human rights, men’s rights, women’s rights, or lefts, or ups and downs, etc. The trailing description in my round 2 argument relative to this string of ‘nors’ was a joke. Levity. You know, in keeping with my note in comments, post #1, and in the Description, referring to “men’s eyeliner and shadow and fou-fou hair shampoo,” not to mention in my round 1 argument, 1.d, “This is supposed to be a lighthearted debate.” So, my opponent turns it into an issue of human rights and gender diversity. Therefore, this item of argument from Con is dismissed out of hand.
III. Why men [do not] have to make quiche, and other mandates
III.a Well, speaking of mandates, let’s review the original mandate: “…Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:” Curious that God should begin a discussion of mandates by beginning with eating…? Only, that’s not a mandate, is it? It’s actually a statement of free will. The man was allowed to eat from any fruit of any tree in the garden; any one at all, or all of them. Just so, where, pray tell, did I say men had to eat quiche? Or make it, for that matter? All I’ve said is that, since most men do not make quiche, by my judgment, it is a real man who will enjoy making it. No mandate, just an invitation. Men do not have to make quiche. They don’t even have to eat it. Is that so hard?
III.b Probably, somebody is going to pick up on verse 17 of the reference above. Okay, it reads, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Is this a mandate? No. It is also a choice; a part of the previous choice, which stipulated everytree may be eaten of. By the correct interpretation of the grammar, while every tree may be eaten of, only one tree has a dire consequence. That condition was death. So be it. It’s a choice, not a mandate. However, since a mandate is not part of the debate definition, this item of argument from Con is dismissed out of hand.
IV. Ce n’est rien
IV.a This might, in context, be translated as, “This argument is dismissed out of hand.” And my opponent, specifically with regard to his round 2 argument #6, said, “6 is not an argument at all.”Yes, he is correct – as opposed to right [see argument above, II.a]
IV.b My opponent’s round 2 argoument offered 13 points of argument. Six, is a confusing argument; 1, because it is numbered in the same fashion as the other 12, as if just another argument, but does not make sense as written, and 2, because it needs more verbiage. Actually, the key to understanding that it needs additional words is qualified by the colon [:], which indicates more to follow. Does one assume the seven following arguments are extensions of #6? There is no definition. According to the layout, yes. Every following argument is to be filtered through #6:
 speaks to a right of choice. Fine, except there is no argument of choice. See IV
 speaks to working smart instead of hard. Another choice, See #7, then IV
 speaks to GDP. Has naught to do with anything within this debate. See IV
 speaks to quality of the quiche made, and that I did not define it. See my argument, round 2, I.g, which defines specified qualities of quiche, then IV
 speaks to buying, not making quiche. A non sequitur. See IV.
 speaks to gender, again. See this round’s argument 1.a, then IV
 a quote of from within my argument, round 2, III.c, but without a rebuttal. See IV.
Show me which of these last 7 items relate to #6, since 6 clearly indicates a following, and which are independent arguments. As I will have no opportunity to rebut those arguments [except I already have in round 2, and in this round’s IV.b] my opponent has not fairly defended them. Therefore, Ce n’est rien, since they are already defeated by this argument section [IV.b]
V Boring historical fact: “men must eat quiche.”
V.a I could just refer the reader to III.a, III.b in this round 3, but, that would be boring, and our esteemed opponent is already yawning. Pity. This young fellow has no interest in history, boring or not, and I suppose that is his call, but his call does not compel my argument. No, I will not stop. But somewhere in this lighthearted debate, my opponent has made this [am I repeating myself?] an issue of human rights and gender diversity. Isn’t that the argument of just about every generation, wanting to re-invent the wheel? There’s history for you, and, as we know, somebody had a thing to say about that, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” History is memory. Do without, one repeats our mistakes, my young friend. Have a care to remember.
V.b Meanwhile, at no time did I say that anyone was compelled to make or eat quiche, just that it is a pleasurable activity, or are rights and identity contrary to that?
V.c So, for argument’s sake, and history, just what is said about eating quiche? Let’s start with the New York Times: “In the ’80s, “quiche eater” was a casual slur to describe feminists and liberals, effeminates and intellectuals alike, prompting T-shirt sloganism and tote-bag activism in response.”
V.d So goes eating, so goes the history of making quiche: “Some say it’s really quite simple to make; the phrase “set and forget” is used often. Maybe for some, but while I was putting our lunch menu into place, I made three quiches a day, and I, myself, never achieved anything worth crowing about with such a laissez-faire approach. But when I took all the pains with every step — researching the distinction between Lorraine and Alsacienne (it’s onion); keeping the dough cool and working it with a fork so my hands didn’t melt the fat while blending; blind-baking the shell; raising and reducing the temperature of the oven; grating the Gruyère on the medium teardrops of a box grater — it produced this stunner. It wobbles in the center, and the crust is crisp yet tender and the extra step of blanching the pancetta sands down the domineering top note of the pork and yields an elegant bottom one instead. The pinch of nutmeg is fleeting, but so captivating on first bite, you want to chase after it. Every human working in the restaurant from ages 19 to 53 couldn’t stop commenting on its perfection. It was, like, totally, the platonic ideal.”
What have I been saying since round 1? We are listening to a chef, here, not some office worker. Her name is Gabrielle Hamilton. She’s real, too, and if she can do it, I maintain that men can, too.
Or, consider this offering from Wall Street Journal, an office worker’s encyclopedia. They make it, and eat it if they want to, and not because they have deep-seated resentment that rights are being trampled and identity is under attack. They just want to do it, and not because they are compelled, as my opponent would insist. “The maligning started as far back as 1980, when the B-52s released ‘Quiche Lorraine,’ a song about a poodle who sounds a lot like a dog drag queen. The ‘sweet, sweet puppy’ is ‘dyed dark green, about 2 inches tall with a strawberry blonde fall, sunglasses and a bonnet.’ Though the pastry of the same name has been persistently feminized stateside, that bacon-filled quiche is named, not for a female—human or canine—but for the French region of its origin. Full-blown discrimination arrived in 1982 with Bruce Feirstein. In an attempt to poke fun at the contemporary state of masculinity, and all the ‘perplexing moral dilemmas’ that came with it, he wrote a book titled ‘Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche.’”
II. No relevance to rights, or even lefts. Nor ups and downs. Nor forwards and reverses.