(For those of you who have not read the article discussed in this post, it can be found here)
I went back and forth on blogging about this because I know it’s going to be somewhat controversial. I don’t enjoy being a buzzkill, I really don’t, but I also don’t like people being duped into thinking crass, poorly written humor is clever or unique.
I went back and forth on blogging about this because I know it’s going to be somewhat controversial. I don’t enjoy being a buzzkill, I really don’t, but I also don’t like people being duped into thinking crass, poorly written humor is clever or unique.
Now obviously, comedy is subjective. Some people enjoy Larry the Cable Guy, some people own the movie Norbit, and no I don’t mean to equate this particular article directly to those two entities. People have different opinions on what’s funny and that’s swell, but the problem I have with this piece is that so many of my peers who I know have a lot of the same comedic preferences that I possess are linking to it like it’s the funniest thing since lolcats. Well, let me try and explain why I disagree.
First of all, this isn’t some fanboy defense of Whole Foods. I’ve shopped at a Whole Foods maybe 3-5 times in my entire life. I have shopped and love to shop at food co-ops and other health food stores, but the bulk of my grocery shopping is done at places like Safeway. Second: there are plenty of reasons to hate on Whole Foods, chief among them the Tea Party hero and CEO John Mackey, a libertarian who exploits left-leaning sensibilities like sustainability and organic growing for huge corporate profits with the occasional shady practice thrown in here and there for good measure. But lets leave the politics and social issues out of this and instead just focus on author Kelly MacLean’s piece. This is how she begins:
“Whole Foods is like Vegas. You go there to feel good but you leave broke, disoriented, and with the newfound knowledge that you have a vaginal disease.”
Is this comparison humorous? Well, let’s break it down. I’m fine with the joke about how Vegas and Whole Foods will make you poor - it’s not exactly breaking much comedy ground, but it works - but the vaginal disease comment? What is she implying? Is Whole Foods supposed to be “dirty” or “unclean” in the sense that a person who has a STD or STI could be perceived to be “dirty”? Is she making a crude allusion to rape? How does this at all apply to shopping at Whole Foods? Also, by stating “vaginal disease” instead of saying something more gender-neutral like “sexually transmitted disease“ it appears that her perspective is geared towards a female readership. I wonder how that female readership regards MacLean’s implied notion that a woman who goes to Vegas will end up with a “vaginal disease” and should thus be presumed to be irresponsibly promiscuous. Wouldn’t those more versed in feminism than I am (of which a couple of you have linked to this particular article) certainly take issue with such a “sex-negative” comment?
Soon after the article devolves into crass comedic territory:
“The first thing I see is the great wall of kombucha -- 42 different kinds of rotten tea. Fun fact: the word kombucha is Japanese for 'I gizzed in your tea.' Anyone who's ever swallowed the glob of mucus at the end of the bottle knows exactly what I'm talking about.”
Obviously, Kombucha isn’t rotten, it’s fermented, but she’s making a joke and I get that. Kombucha is ripe for comedic deconstruction because of its clear differences and eccentricities - the taste, the live bacteria strains, etc. But gizz? OH MY GOSH HOW FUNNY. Cause it looks like JIZZ GUYZ. BATHROOM HUMOR NEVER AGES! KELLY TALK ABOUT HOW KALE LOOKS DIARRHEA-COLORED! CUCUMBER DICK JOKES! WHERE ARE THE CUCUMBER DICK JOKES?! Point being, this is really surface comedy guys, which is fine if that’s your thing, but I know many of you are deeper than this.
MacLean then delves into some really effed-up bullshit about how poor people don’t have allergies or diet issues. (What?):
“I skip this aisle because I'm not rich enough to have dietary restrictions. Ever notice that you don't meet poor people with special diet needs? A gluten intolerant house cleaner? A cab driver with Candida? Candida is what I call a rich, white person problem.
First of all, this isn’t some fanboy defense of Whole Foods. I’ve shopped at a Whole Foods maybe 3-5 times in my entire life. I have shopped and love to shop at food co-ops and other health food stores, but the bulk of my grocery shopping is done at places like Safeway. Second: there are plenty of reasons to hate on Whole Foods, chief among them the Tea Party hero and CEO John Mackey, a libertarian who exploits left-leaning sensibilities like sustainability and organic growing for huge corporate profits with the occasional shady practice thrown in here and there for good measure. But lets leave the politics and social issues out of this and instead just focus on author Kelly MacLean’s piece. This is how she begins:
“Whole Foods is like Vegas. You go there to feel good but you leave broke, disoriented, and with the newfound knowledge that you have a vaginal disease.”
Is this comparison humorous? Well, let’s break it down. I’m fine with the joke about how Vegas and Whole Foods will make you poor - it’s not exactly breaking much comedy ground, but it works - but the vaginal disease comment? What is she implying? Is Whole Foods supposed to be “dirty” or “unclean” in the sense that a person who has a STD or STI could be perceived to be “dirty”? Is she making a crude allusion to rape? How does this at all apply to shopping at Whole Foods? Also, by stating “vaginal disease” instead of saying something more gender-neutral like “sexually transmitted disease“ it appears that her perspective is geared towards a female readership. I wonder how that female readership regards MacLean’s implied notion that a woman who goes to Vegas will end up with a “vaginal disease” and should thus be presumed to be irresponsibly promiscuous. Wouldn’t those more versed in feminism than I am (of which a couple of you have linked to this particular article) certainly take issue with such a “sex-negative” comment?
Soon after the article devolves into crass comedic territory:
“The first thing I see is the great wall of kombucha -- 42 different kinds of rotten tea. Fun fact: the word kombucha is Japanese for 'I gizzed in your tea.' Anyone who's ever swallowed the glob of mucus at the end of the bottle knows exactly what I'm talking about.”
Obviously, Kombucha isn’t rotten, it’s fermented, but she’s making a joke and I get that. Kombucha is ripe for comedic deconstruction because of its clear differences and eccentricities - the taste, the live bacteria strains, etc. But gizz? OH MY GOSH HOW FUNNY. Cause it looks like JIZZ GUYZ. BATHROOM HUMOR NEVER AGES! KELLY TALK ABOUT HOW KALE LOOKS DIARRHEA-COLORED! CUCUMBER DICK JOKES! WHERE ARE THE CUCUMBER DICK JOKES?! Point being, this is really surface comedy guys, which is fine if that’s your thing, but I know many of you are deeper than this.
MacLean then delves into some really effed-up bullshit about how poor people don’t have allergies or diet issues. (What?):
“I skip this aisle because I'm not rich enough to have dietary restrictions. Ever notice that you don't meet poor people with special diet needs? A gluten intolerant house cleaner? A cab driver with Candida? Candida is what I call a rich, white person problem.
Celiac disease - people who risk injury to their intestines by consuming gluten - is estimated affect up to 1 in 105 people in the united states. Millions more may have gluten sensitivity that won’t physically hurt them by eating grains, by will make them feel like shit. I get that gluten-related jokes come at the expense of the expanding gluten-free industry and increased gluten awareness, but to say that it’s a rich white person problem is not true, not funny, and not right. I’m poor as shit and I can’t eat wheat. So are thousands of others, and what is most unfortunate for those who are poor is that they might never get a proper diagnosis. “Candida” as MacLean fails to elaborate on, is yeast, or yeast infections. It is not a new trend nor a new problem created by Whole Foods or anyone else.
Apparently MacLean is rich enough to afford (albeit not happily) $313 on groceries as she mentions in the last part of the article. I’ll jump ahead to this section, which also seems to encapsulate MacLean’s overall sentiment that so many of my friends responded to so positively:
Apparently MacLean is rich enough to afford (albeit not happily) $313 on groceries as she mentions in the last part of the article. I’ll jump ahead to this section, which also seems to encapsulate MacLean’s overall sentiment that so many of my friends responded to so positively:
“A thousand minutes later, I get to the cashier. She is 95 percent beautiful. "Have you brought your reusable bags?" Fuck. No, they are at home with their 2 dozen once-used friends. She rings up my meat, alcohol, gluten and a wrapper from the chocolate bar I ate in line, with thinly veiled alarm. She scans my ladies acidophilus, gives me a pitying frown and whispers, "Ya know, if you wanna get rid of your Candida, you should stop feeding it." She rings me up for $313. I resist the urge to unwrap and swallow whole another $6 truffle in protest. Barely. Instead, I reach for my wallet, flash her a quiet smile and say, "Namaste."
Throughout the article MacLean has riffed on the idea that 1) people who claim to be spiritual, mindful Whole Foods shoppers/staff can be just as pigheaded and flawed as everyone else and that 2) Whole Foods’ new-agey atmosphere is ridiculous, overpriced and should be met with scorn. Lot’s of people have said something to the effect of “THIS IS SO TRUE” when sharing the article. My problem with this sentiment isn’t so much that it’s “wrong” but that it’s very poorly executed. I believe it’s poorly executed because it doesn't quite know if it wants to be a "bit" or a first-hand humorous account of one person’s actual trip to Whole Foods. As such as it neither. If it was written as an anecdotal experience with less hyperbole instead of a crude send-up of kombucha tea then I would better understand its point of reference: a regular Whole Foods shopper who one day became fed-up with health food store culture. Instead it reads like a virulent condemnation of a store neither MacLean nor anyone else is required to shop at. Maybe the article was doomed from the start because, well, why is Huffington Post trying to slag off Whole Foods anyway?
Throughout the article MacLean has riffed on the idea that 1) people who claim to be spiritual, mindful Whole Foods shoppers/staff can be just as pigheaded and flawed as everyone else and that 2) Whole Foods’ new-agey atmosphere is ridiculous, overpriced and should be met with scorn. Lot’s of people have said something to the effect of “THIS IS SO TRUE” when sharing the article. My problem with this sentiment isn’t so much that it’s “wrong” but that it’s very poorly executed. I believe it’s poorly executed because it doesn't quite know if it wants to be a "bit" or a first-hand humorous account of one person’s actual trip to Whole Foods. As such as it neither. If it was written as an anecdotal experience with less hyperbole instead of a crude send-up of kombucha tea then I would better understand its point of reference: a regular Whole Foods shopper who one day became fed-up with health food store culture. Instead it reads like a virulent condemnation of a store neither MacLean nor anyone else is required to shop at. Maybe the article was doomed from the start because, well, why is Huffington Post trying to slag off Whole Foods anyway?
Which brings me to my next point of contention. I’d expect this article to clean-up with conservative readers who are more likely to already scoff at things like reusable bags, diet cleanses, and organic produce. But why is it such a viral newsfeed hit with the mid twenties/early thirties liberal demographic? Is everyone a self-hating health food shopper? I’m not. I legitimately get pissed at myself when I don’t bring a bag, I don’t secretly hate the cashier for asking me if I need one. I legitimately want to eat broccoli that isn’t sprayed with pesticides (which apparently means I shouldn’t shop at Whole Foods). There's a reason health food stores exist and thrive and there’s a reason stores like Safeway, Food4Less, and Smart and Final thrive. If you don’t like one of those places, you shop at the other. You either care about things like organic food, homeopathic remedies, sustainable practices, or you don’t. If you do, you’re going to spend more money to shop at places like Whole Foods. If you don’t, then you are fine shopping elsewhere for less.
I’m not angry or upset with anyone enjoying and liking this article, nor am I thumbing my nose at you. I'm just baffled by its success. To me it’s a big fat flop. I am not leaving out the possibility that I am the one who just doesn’t get it, but I think many of you may have just wanted to laugh at this article because it was on a site you enjoy and thus you gave it a free pass. If I am wrong I would love for you to tell me why!
