Anyone "Out" There Have a Recipe For "Savage Sausage Salad"?

I miss Mrs. Salad, my dear wife, every day, but I miss her even more when I see articles like this on at the College Fix: ‘Queer food’ course at Boston U. explores what ‘polyamorous’ and ‘non-binary’ people eat.

I would have loved to see her reaction. There's a video, and it's kind of a hoot:

[Amazon Link]
(paid link)

That's Boston University Metropolitan College Gastronomy Director Megan Elias, and BU's description says she "explores just what makes some food 'queer,' and explains the way food studies can help us interrogate gender roles and norms in societies, and even the wider world."

You might be asking: are they kidding? I know I was.

But apparently not. There's an actual book, co-edited by Megan, at Amazon (link at your right). And here's YouTube's transcript of the BU video:

What is queer food? This is a question that's coming up a lot lately. And when I'm asked this question, what I always say is I'm not interested in making a definition of queer food, but a recognition. So to understand that uh queer food has always been, right? That um queer people have always been cooking. They have always been eating. They have always been part of the food landscape. And so to acknowledge that is really to show us a new way of thinking about food. Now, I teach about food and gender and I write about food and gender. And when I'm doing that, and I guess why I'm doing that is because the way that we think about food, preparation, provisioning, all tends to get entangled with um gender norms. So, even the idea that there's a mom's home cooking, right, really leaves out any household um where there isn't a mom, right? And it it it also sort of creates the person who is doing the cooking in this particular mold, right? This this this the mom p persona. And we know that if we talk to people um we find that there's a whole range of people doing home cooking. And so to acknowledge that, to recognize the range of people who are involved in food is what thinking about queer food can do for us. As I teach food um food studies classes, as I talk with our amazing food studies students here and our faculty, we all find that questioning the assumptions about gender and food really help us to see a wider world of food. So thinking about, you know, just things that might seem silly at first, which is like what would you eat on a first date, right? We talk about those kinds of things. How are how is your food choice sort of representing your um your your your gender identity? Um how is that different if you're gay? How's that different if you're non-binary? How is that different if you're polyamorous? Right? We really feel that talking about queer food is a way to disrupt um kind of ideas about food that really obscure human experience. And that is what we do in food studies, right? We use food to understand the bigger picture of human experience, right? You can look at food and see so many things more than just the food. Oh, this wonderful book that I love that we have in our cookbook collection. You look at this book and you see this great thing is called the Savage Sausage Salad. And we don't even need to read the recipe to understand that someone is having fun with food. We can understand the humor of the the era when this book was written. we can understand what made people laugh, what they took seriously, what was available to them in the marketplace, what was available to them as as ideas of what they should look like, right? Or how they should behave. Um, and how they challenge those ideas.

For those keeping score at home: I count 9 occurrences of "right". That's a lot, right?

And the handwaving, both figuative and literal? Off the charts!

My own reaction is (mostly) amazement that BU thought the Whole Wide World would be favorably impressed with their example of what their "amazing food studies students" are being taught. But (as I do not need to tell you) make up your own mind on that.

Also: Gastronomy Director Elias waves the book containing the "Savage Sausage Salad" recipe at the camera, but not closely enough so we can get the title. Sounds as if it might be tasty, though I can't promise that making it would make me interrogate gender roles.

Also of note:

  • Speaking of interrogating gender roles… John R. Puri notes the latest transition: And Now Trump Is Taking Over Defense Contractors. (archive.today link)

    People say this administration is anti-trans, but the president himself is rapidly transitioning into a woman. Namely, Elizabeth Warren.

    First, he went after institutional investors buying up homes, a longtime bugaboo of the Massachusetts progressive. Warren was quick to take credit for Trump’s proposal to ban large landlords from the rental market, and she’s right to claim it. But, just like the president’s campaign pitch to exempt tips from income tax, mindless economic policies tend to jump the fine line between right-wing and left-wing populism.

    Now, Trump is embracing another of Warren’s favorite premises: that private companies that do business with the government should therefore be controlled by the government. If corporations depend on the government for revenue or assistance, she believes, public officials should be able to set the terms of their existence. With a federal bureaucracy as expansive and intrusive as ours, that means a lot of firms are eligible for manipulation. Under this formulation, contractors aren’t just service providers; they are the rightful domain of the state.

    First, he went after institutional investors buying up homes, a longtime bugaboo of the Massachusetts progressive. Warren was quick to take credit for Trump’s proposal to ban large landlords from the rental market, and she’s right to claim it. But, just like the president’s campaign pitch to exempt tips from income tax, mindless economic policies tend to jump the fine line between right-wing and left-wing populism.

    OK, the trans stuff is funny, but probably unwarranted. Where Senator Liz and President Bone Spurs are truly akin is in their naked desire for power and control over what we used to call the "private sector".

  • Or for a different sort of transitioning… Is the president turning into a different species? A cuter one? George Will notes that we have A president who treats Washington like his chew toy. (WaPo gifted link)

    It is incongruous that Donald Trump, who advertises his disdain for things European, wants to give us something that no one in his or her right mind wants: a knockoff of France’s Arc de Triomphe. Which is bad enough.

    Worse, he wants to situate it on a Washington site where it will clutter one of the world’s great urban vistas. He would place it on the Virginia side of the Memorial Bridge, below the Custis-Lee mansion, which sits on high ground in what became Arlington National Cemetery.

    […]

    Given Trump’s gargantuan exercises of executive discretion regarding great matters of state, it might seem quaint to wonder why he cannot be stopped from treating Washington as his chew toy. This would be unworthy of our nation if he had exquisite taste. The fact that he revels in being a vulgarian takes a toll on the nation’s soul.

    Back when I lived in the D.C. area, the Kennedy Center (aka the "Shoebox on the Potomac") was everyone's favorite example of lousy local architecture. Trump seems to be saying "Hold my beer."

  • Nuuk is lovely this time of year. Tyler Cowen says ‘Buying’ Greenland Is Not an Option. Or at least it shoudn't be. But:

    After catching President Donald Trump’s eye in his first term, Greenland has reemerged as a prospect for U.S. acquisition. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has told lawmakers that the U.S. seeks to buy the island, Trump asserts that we need it for defense reasons, and White House adviser Stephen Miller insists that Greenland should “obviously” be part of the United States.

    Overall, I am becoming more nervous rather than pleased, as I hold two views firmly: The United States eventually should come into possession of Greenland; and right now, the United States should back off altogether.

    Where do those views—seemingly at odds—come from, and how do they fit together?

    Tyler envisions the best case for Greenland as eventually getting a similar status as Puerto Rico enjoys today. I'm inclined to agree, because he's thought about it, and I haven't. (I'm a little puzzled as to why Denmark wants to hold onto it.)

  • A side effect of electing "fighting fighters that fight". As Jim Geraghty points out, Elected Officials Don’t Really Want Peace or Calm. He compares the statements made out in Portland, Oregon in response to a shooting incident. Contrasting the just-the-facts remarks of (unelected) Portland Police Chief Bob Day and (unelected) DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin with (elected) Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, (elected) Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, (elected) Oregon State Senator Kayse Jama, and (apparently also elected) chair of Multnomah County, Jessica Vega Pederson.

    Read for yourself! Jim's conclusion:

    To sum up, right after the police chief called for calm, the mayor warned that “reckless” “militarized agents” who cannot be trusted are bringing violence to the streets “all across America.” The governor warned that “lawless,” “reckless,” untrustworthy agents of the federal government “are hurting people and they are destroying day by day what we hold dear.” The state senate majority leader declared his intention to legislatively impede the federal agents, pledged to “fight” for it, and told federal agents they need to “get the hell out of our community.” And the county chair accused federal agents of shooting people, causing “terror and violence,” called them “a threat that is growing every day,” and says they are “cruel and authoritarian.”

    Good to see everyone is on the same page urging the public to “remain calm,” right?

    None of these elected officials really want the public to remain calm or peaceful. Mumbling some brief pro forma call for peace does not mitigate the lurid demonization of federal law enforcement officials. If you consistently describe U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as an illegitimate occupation force committing acts of violent terror against innocent people, then not every last member of your citizenry is going to respond peacefully.

    Jim further observes that public officials "show up to the fire with a firehose full of gasoline." That's what you get with demagogues. Their first instinct.


Last Modified 2026-01-12 9:29 AM EST