To the old saying that man built the house but woman made of it a "home" might be added the modern supplement that woman accepted cooking as a chore but man has made of it a recreation. ~Emily Post
I love Top Chef. Absolutely love it! My Wednesday nights are governed by the Top Chef schedule. I have watched with devotion all four seasons. Despite how much I love the show, I admit that there are flaws and overarching issues that really irk me. Mainly, I see a problem in the trend of male winners of the past three completed seasons.
Now, I understand that this is a competition based on skill and talent and the sex of the winner cannot be controlled. But what does it say about the culinary arts, professions, and industry as a whole when female chefs have a history of losing out to male chefs. Does this mean that women cannot cook as well as men? Does it stem from lack of training, or lack of opportunities for training or an arena to display talents?
Whatever the reason, I think that it is extremely ironic that women, who have been so confined to the domestic realm and the kitchen in particular, it is often men who are honored and revered as ‘top chefs’. After all these centuries of cooking, you would think that women would certainly have an advantage over men. It seems, however, that male chefs have managed to turn this daily duty of the home into a successful career that promises prestige and fame.
Look, for example, at the Food Network. I do feel that the hosts/chefs/celebrities/ or whatever you might like to call them are well distributed between the male and female. Take a closer look at the types of shows, then. On one hand we have shows such as Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee, Quick Fix Meals with Robin Miller, 30 Minute Meals with Rachel Ray, and Everyday Italian with Giada De Laurentiis. On the other hand we have The Essence of Emeril, Emeril Live, Boy Meets Grill, Tyler’s Ultimate, Good Eats with Alton Brown, and Throwdown with Bobby Flay. Notice anything special? How about the difference between shows hosted by men and women. Now, don’t get me wrong, I love almost all shows on the Food Network, and love watching anything on this channel when I don’t have anything else to do, or don’t want to do anything else. But I can’t help noticing that more shows by women chefs than men are geared towards making cooking easier. Why and how is it that the shows hosted by men seem so intense, filled with complicated and showy recipes and techniques, the science of food, and competition, whereas a large portion of the female chefs are shown in a calm atmosphere in a “naturally” lit set kitchen, easily demonstrating how to make cooking simple enough to handle on a daily basis, while also managing to share lovely anecdotes about their childhood and food. I don’t have any problem with making cooking easier and more accessible to the masses. But seriously, can’t these women add some spice to their shows? All I have to say is, thank goodness for Cat Cora, the Iron Chef who is able to kick some major butt in the intense “Kitchen Stadium”.
And thank goodness for the women on this season of Top Chef, all of who seem very eager to have a woman win the title this time. Stephanie, my personal favorite, is also quite adamant about wanting a woman to win the fourth season. I couldn’t agree more. There are so many talented chefs this season, and I personally much prefer the women on the show to some of the men, who can often come off conceited, or just down right annoying (did you see them in the clip above?). So, personally, I hope that Stephanie wins, and she really has been doing well so far! But whoever ends up in the final 5, 4, 3, 2… I hope the NEXT TOP CHEF will be a woman. It would be about time!
Meet Stephanie
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Historical Culinary Women
"I am love," said the maiden. "I am a strength giver, I am the nourisher, I am the provider of men and animals. They all love me." -Penobscot Corn Mother Myth
I am a woman and I love to cook. Is that enough to say? I don’t think so.
There is an assumption, a stereotype, a social construction about females and food. One might think that this stereotype should have died away after the 1950s, or the second wave feminist movement of the 80s, or certainly by the late 90s, and definitely by the start of the 21st century. I, however, have found otherwise.
Often, when talking about my life, my childhood, and my home, people are a little surprised to find that my dad cooked just as many if not more of the meals in my childhood than did my mom. Looking back, I know that my mom also cooked dinner quite often. But for some reason it is the image of my dad standing in front of the stove that stands out in my mind. Now I am sure there are many factors that contributed to this memory and the past reality. Yet, I still wonder why this image is so striking within my memory, and more generally, why gender and the act of cooking is so engrained in our culture.
I have recently begun reading A Thousand Years Over a Hot Stove, a book that studies, through historical relations, memoirs, stories, and recipes, the history of women and cooking, discussing these issues for a large portion of the writing. In addition, as an anthropology student, I hear a lot about different cultures and societies around the world, past and present. With this background, I wonder if women have been obligated to fulfill the position of food provider since the days of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies. If so, how has this idea of obligation changed, yet stuck with us through the millennia? How did this idea become so trivial, passed over in recognition, but admired as a true necessity at the same time?
In the study of these hunting and gathering societies, I want to point out that women are often grouped into the gatherers without any question or discussion. The men hunted. The women gathered. Simple enough. Yet, when I hear this, I can’t help but picture in my head- strong brave men venturing forth to kill the beast. The women, in the meantime, frail and weak, surrounded by many children, (picture: damsel in distress) wandering aimlessly through forests picking berries and nuts. Not all that impressive when you compare the women to the brave men who conquered and killed a mammoth in order to feed the group, right?
Let us pause for a moment and ponder the reality of this situation.
The men, without armor, and equipped only with handmade spears of wood and shapes stones must attempt to bring down a wild animal. This animal would also likely have to be pretty large in size in order to feed the whole group. So, unless the men happened upon a large enough brood of rabbits or squirrels, we can imagine the men would have had to go after larger animals: deer, buffalo, or mammoth. That couldn’t have been easy. Nor could it have been likely that they would always bring food back after the hunt.
On the other hand, we have the women gatherers. The ones on whom the entire community depended when the men could not provide. These women were forced to find food to sustain her people. On their shoulders were the weight, expectations and dependency of an entire society. She had to find food, to begin with, but also investigate whether her findings were safe to eat, insure there was enough provisions for the whole, and learn how to prepare what she found to make the most out of it. So, yes, the woman easily became the one on whom everyone relied, the one who might be destined to hold the fuel for and survival of the people. But it was not because her purpose and worth was somehow valued less because of her sex. It was because she truly held the power. Without her, the people could not eat; without eating, the people could not survive. Therefore, there is a strongly misconstructed idea of women and food. Women were not originally confined to the kitchen because they could do no better. They went to the kitchen to claim their power and authority. It was then society that determined that women were best suited to reside in the kitchen. After all, it was the only place where they might have any power.
I think, perhaps, the reason that women have been so misrepresented and so confined to this single role is that men, who originally could not guarantee support and provisions for his people, wanted that power out of jealousy. And so, with the invention of better weapons and tools for hunting, men stole a title that was not rightfully theirs, forever labeling as women as domestics who clung to their only remaining power source.
I am a woman and I love to cook. Is that enough to say? I don’t think so.
There is an assumption, a stereotype, a social construction about females and food. One might think that this stereotype should have died away after the 1950s, or the second wave feminist movement of the 80s, or certainly by the late 90s, and definitely by the start of the 21st century. I, however, have found otherwise.
Often, when talking about my life, my childhood, and my home, people are a little surprised to find that my dad cooked just as many if not more of the meals in my childhood than did my mom. Looking back, I know that my mom also cooked dinner quite often. But for some reason it is the image of my dad standing in front of the stove that stands out in my mind. Now I am sure there are many factors that contributed to this memory and the past reality. Yet, I still wonder why this image is so striking within my memory, and more generally, why gender and the act of cooking is so engrained in our culture.
I have recently begun reading A Thousand Years Over a Hot Stove, a book that studies, through historical relations, memoirs, stories, and recipes, the history of women and cooking, discussing these issues for a large portion of the writing. In addition, as an anthropology student, I hear a lot about different cultures and societies around the world, past and present. With this background, I wonder if women have been obligated to fulfill the position of food provider since the days of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies. If so, how has this idea of obligation changed, yet stuck with us through the millennia? How did this idea become so trivial, passed over in recognition, but admired as a true necessity at the same time?
In the study of these hunting and gathering societies, I want to point out that women are often grouped into the gatherers without any question or discussion. The men hunted. The women gathered. Simple enough. Yet, when I hear this, I can’t help but picture in my head- strong brave men venturing forth to kill the beast. The women, in the meantime, frail and weak, surrounded by many children, (picture: damsel in distress) wandering aimlessly through forests picking berries and nuts. Not all that impressive when you compare the women to the brave men who conquered and killed a mammoth in order to feed the group, right?
Let us pause for a moment and ponder the reality of this situation.
The men, without armor, and equipped only with handmade spears of wood and shapes stones must attempt to bring down a wild animal. This animal would also likely have to be pretty large in size in order to feed the whole group. So, unless the men happened upon a large enough brood of rabbits or squirrels, we can imagine the men would have had to go after larger animals: deer, buffalo, or mammoth. That couldn’t have been easy. Nor could it have been likely that they would always bring food back after the hunt.
On the other hand, we have the women gatherers. The ones on whom the entire community depended when the men could not provide. These women were forced to find food to sustain her people. On their shoulders were the weight, expectations and dependency of an entire society. She had to find food, to begin with, but also investigate whether her findings were safe to eat, insure there was enough provisions for the whole, and learn how to prepare what she found to make the most out of it. So, yes, the woman easily became the one on whom everyone relied, the one who might be destined to hold the fuel for and survival of the people. But it was not because her purpose and worth was somehow valued less because of her sex. It was because she truly held the power. Without her, the people could not eat; without eating, the people could not survive. Therefore, there is a strongly misconstructed idea of women and food. Women were not originally confined to the kitchen because they could do no better. They went to the kitchen to claim their power and authority. It was then society that determined that women were best suited to reside in the kitchen. After all, it was the only place where they might have any power.
I think, perhaps, the reason that women have been so misrepresented and so confined to this single role is that men, who originally could not guarantee support and provisions for his people, wanted that power out of jealousy. And so, with the invention of better weapons and tools for hunting, men stole a title that was not rightfully theirs, forever labeling as women as domestics who clung to their only remaining power source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)