Review: <i>Feeding Fascism: The Politics of Women’s Food Work</i>, by Diana Garvin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| November 01 2023 Review: Feeding Fascism: The Politics of Women’s Food Work, by Diana Garvin Feeding Fascism: The Politics of Women’s Food Work, Diana Garvin, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2022 292 pp. Illustrations. $36.95 CAD (paper); (eBook) Carole Counihan Carole Counihan Millersville University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Gastronomica (2023) 23 (4): 96–97. https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2023.23.4.96 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Carole Counihan; Review: Feeding Fascism: The Politics of Women’s Food Work, by Diana Garvin. Gastronomica 1 November 2023; 23 (4): 96–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2023.23.4.96 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentGastronomica Search This splendid book explores how the fascist Italian state used food to expand its power and regulate women as well as how women responded through their management of food as agricultural laborers, factory workers, entrepreneurs, cookbook authors, and custodians of domestic kitchens. The book focuses on the ventennio fascista (1922–1943) in north central Italy, principally in the regions of Lombardy, Piedmont, and Emilia-Romagna, but it has broad relevance to the interplay between the state and women everywhere and to the ways women enact and resist political imperatives in their quotidian food labor. Garvin’s analysis of this process harks back to Anne Allison’s (1991) groundbreaking paper on Japanese mothers’ perpetuation of the ideological state apparatus through their labor to produce appealing lunch boxes for their children. Feeding Fascism is full of fascinating details resulting from exhaustive and meticulous historical research. It makes a major contribution by focusing on food material culture,... You do not currently have access to this content.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.026 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".