Why So Few Women Are Great Chefs ...

[Carrot Top]

I believe the correct term is ADHD, which could only stand for Attention Deficit Husband Disorder. Speaking from my own experience, I can confirm that yes, younger men seem to have that problem.

←

Yes, Katharine....one might want to add that 'hyperactive' category in there if you think about it...

But not all men are like this, not even most younger ones. My belief, anyway.

And let's face it...unless the guy is homosexual, there's a female in this equation somewhere.

It is very amusing to me, that the idea of this ADHD thing in this situation actually came from my own ex-husband...who suddenly decided he had this disease, then insisted to me that this was the root of his 'problem'...in an attempt to persuade me that being married to him would be a good thing to do....and indeed, I would even be 'helping the world' by feeling sorry for one such afflicted person.

I tell ya, life is a hoot!

[Carrot Top]

Here is an exercise I entertained myself with last night.

I imagined myself as different people.

I was first a business person...first a male one, then a female one, taking clients out for a meal.

Then I became a man taking a woman out to dinner. (P.S. Why do I say man taking woman out...because that is still the 'norm' and I must say it is staggeringly impressive to me how a guy ever gets the guts up to ask a woman out in the first place....that is one task most women do not usually approach...so thank you for those that undertake this daunting thing --or so it seems to me--). You could substitute woman taking man out, though, too, for purposes of the exercise.

Then I became an individual woman or man going out to dinner.

And I thought about...which I would choose, and why....if the option of two equivallently excellent restaurants were placed before me, one with a woman chef...and one with a man chef.

This was an interesting internal exercise to do. Try it, if you like....

Tell us what you came up with, and why....

[Carrot Top]

OK I promise this is my last post for a while. This promise is to myself as much as to anyone else...

I can not get any further in thinking about the ratings systems or critical acclaim because it is not my subject. Hopefully some one of the 16,000+ members of egullet will be able to shed some light on this if they hold any knowledge about this subject.

Here is my final thought. In Rachel's blog this week (rsincere) she made the comment about a certain dish that 'You can't polish a turd'.

Great line...and I hope she will not mind if I take it and twist it a bit for my own purposes.

Sometimes all we have is a turd. (It might be said that the idea of women entering the world of professional kitchens and aiming for the top as in 'great chef' has certain turd-like aspects to it....)

If there is only a turd, personally I would rather set to work on figuring out a way to polish it....rather than sit around and stare at it in endless fascination, discussing its shape, size and general stench.

There's got to be some way to polish a turd.

Edited October 16, 2004 by Carrot Top (log)

[arielle]

Okay, so this is a little OT because it's not about women as top chefs, or even women working in kitchens at all, but I think that it's relevent, particularly considering Wendy's comment about women 'drawing in the weak' in order to support their own points of view. I think that it's relatively obvious that the women who have posted in this thread have all encountered some level of resistence to their efforts to succeed in their chosen professions, whether or not it was because they were women. But we have all managed to work hard and get through this in order to do well. What bothers me the most is that I often see other women, not men, being the ones trying to make it harder for us. When I was in 2nd year Law, I clerked over Summer at a local firm. I was treated with respect and equality by the male and female lawyers there, who, after having seen that I did work hard and that I did work well, entrusted me with some pretty serious work. The female support staff tried to cut me down at every opportunity, something I found extremely disappointing. There was one other girl clerk, and two guys, and the guys found that everything was great: the secretaries and assistants helped them. For the other girl and for me, we could never use the photocopier, we could never get any help in researching something.....etc etc. And these girls were horrid gossips, and would try to criticise us constantly regarding our dress, behaviour etc. It was simply disappointing to see that some women cannot look beyond their own noses and realise that we should all be supporting one-another, not trying to make it harder....

Mes deux centimes!

[Katherine]

...I think that it's relatively obvious that the women who have posted in this thread have all encountered some level of resistence to their efforts to succeed in their chosen professions, whether or not it was because they were women. But we have all managed to work hard and get through this in order to do well. What bothers me the most is that I often see other women, not men, being the ones trying to make it harder for us...It was simply disappointing to see that some women cannot look beyond their own noses and realise that we should all be supporting one-another, not trying to make it harder....

←

I have observed the same thing. When I was the only woman working in the maintenance department of a large company, the admin of that department used to take it upon herself to do things that would interfere with my ability to do my job. She had no knowledge of what went on in the environmental department, but she didn't let that hold her back.

My department was responsible for hazardous waste shipments. Every Friday the company making pickups would call us with the manifest number, which we would need to write on every drum before it could be loaded onto their truck. I was the contact. One day I was working in the yard when the call came in, and it was transferred to her office. She told the person on the phone that a worker such as myself was not allowed to receive phone calls of any sort (even official work calls!), so we missed that shipment. And then we had to go out and relabel all the drums. WTF?

I am reminded of the boss's bitter secretary in Dilbert.

[jmcgrath]

There have been a few comments about lack of participation in this thread. I have been reading it with great interest, but just don't feel qualified to comment.

I am a male in a totally different profession. I'm a software engineer, and I think women are really treasured in that field. A lot of engineers, not me in particular, are introverted and a bit geeky. Just having a woman in the same room brightens up the day. I hope that last sentence doesn't come across as the least bit sexist, because it is absolutely not intended that way. Ability is a combination of aptitude and intellect. Programming in gender neutral.

This is way off topic, but I wanted to comment on why I haven't commented.

Jim

Edited October 17, 2004 by jmcgrath (log)

[Gifted Gourmet]

There have been a few comments about lack of participation in this thread. I have been reading it with great interest, but just don't feel qualified to comment.

This is way off topic, but I wanted to comment on why I haven't commented.

←

First of all, this thread was/is/always will be open for discussion to anyone desiring to express an opinion on this unique topic! And 'experience in the field' doesn't necessarily qualify or even disqualify, anyone from adding their comment(s).

You need offer no comments about your lack of comments, jmcgrath, and welcome to the fray! Thanks for the post!

Ability is a combination of aptitude and intellect

... ain't that the all time truth?!

[arielle]

QUOTING MELISSA:

Ability is a combination of aptitude and intellect

... ain't that the all time truth?!

HELL YEAH!

(and willingness to use a little elbow grease! )

[Gifted Gourmet]

QUOTING MELISSA:

Ability is a combination of aptitude and intellect

... ain't that the all time truth?!

HELL YEAH!  

(and willingness to use a little elbow grease! )

←

Make that Melissa quoting Jim Mcgrath .. actually ... credit goes where it truly should, at least that is how I feel ...

[Carrot Top]

There is one aspect (at least) of Sinclair's philosophic viewpoint that I feel should be thoughtfully addressed...and that is the philosophy that bottom-line, there are things more important than aiming to build a career, which of course would be one's family.

And she also noted that her feelings on this had evolved over time, in coming to this decision.

Sometimes age, and time, do make changes in how one approaches this subject. In general, people in their twenties are not thinking...about the same things someone in their thirties forties or beyond...would be thinking about, or in the same ways.

The thing is...that life is a progression, and if there is something 'important' in a way of finding truth... to learn, we each must do it themselves.

And one person's truth might finally, not be another's.

..................................................

I fell across a quote that seemed appropriate for this discussion yesterday...Picasso....(an old guy, you know, and perhaps his personal life was not what one would consider 'ordered' but nevertheless he did bring certain other things into the world)..."People ask me how I managed to do the things I did. My answer is 'I just did them, that's how'."

[Wendy DeBord]

I think the bottom line comes down to numbers. There just aren't alot of female chefs (at least in the US). If we were 50% of the working head chefs or even 50% of the kitchen work force thru out the country it would seem unbalanced that more men are given "great chef" status. But as things stand now I'm not convienced that the numbers are out of balance.

I agree that there are possibly tons of reasons why the women aren't working in mass in kitchens (several examples already mentioned). The strange thing (that stands out to me) is there are other industries that are dominated by females where they are payed low rates and have poor work conditions. It seems to me that the kitchen should be equally as apealing to female worker. The only difference I can think of is: they won't find other females there for support. Perhaps females don't like to work in male dominated atmospheres?

In my own area, I'm not aware of any Head Chef in the country clubs that are female. I'm only aware of 1 female sous chef and she's a co-sous with a male.

I see more females in self-owned smalled food service businesses. In small privately owned food businesses the numbers might be fairly even male to female. But when it comes to working for others-thats where the females aren't in kitchens.

[slbunge]

I just read through this thread this morning, great discussion. One thing that I thought was missing was a comparison of the 'dining' industry to the rest of the business of society. If we go back to Rogov's original definition and we set aside the fact that this is food we are talking about, I think that the number of women who are 'great chefs' likely closely follows the number of women who are great managers of large companies in other sectors of the economy.

If we look around there are lots of women who are in command of small to mid-sized restaurant kitchens, bakeries, etc in the same way that there are a sizable number of women who own or run small to mid-sized businesses. So while I think there are too few women at the top, I see healthy activity in the middle.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't injustice (either in the past, now, or in the future). I think there certainly was a glass ceiling and it appears to continue to be intact now excepting a few holes in it where women have broken through. I think the reasons for it are varied and nuanced as demonstrated by the vibrant discussion above.

That said, I do think that change is coming and we will all be better off when everyone has a fair shot to live their dream.

[Carrot Top]

I see more females in self-owned smalled food service businesses. In small privately owned food businesses the numbers might be fairly even male to female. But when it comes to working for others-thats where the females aren't in kitchens.

←

Yes, it is in small self-owned food businesses where women thrive, it seems.

It also would seem to make the most sense, in all ways, to take this route if one wanted to do something well and avoid a lot of mess and do things their own way.

But then, of course, we come to the question of where a woman will get the start-up money in the first place.

Here, in the US we are lucky to have SBA programs of all sorts that help people start businesses.Even some programs specifically for women wishing to start small businesses.

But if for some reason one does not qualify for an SBA loan (you do need some of your own money at the very least), then one either has to have personal financial resources or someone to sign off on a loan.

We are luckier than women in Israel, it seems, for Rogov stated that women there generally need two men as co-signers to apply for any loan.

We don't need that here, but we do need some form of collateral.

The forms of collateral that a loan would be assesed as being worthy or not to give, is both financial (which means one generally has had to work to get it unless one has a trust fund or family resources) and quantitative business experience which would state capability in the business being entered into.

There are ways around this if someone is extremely canny and determined, to start on a shoestring and work towards more.This is becoming more difficult than it was in the past, though, for not only are customers demanding more in the way of how a place looks and the chi chi it gives off...but even health regulations are growing tighter and more restrictive, to the point that in some places, the older businesses are being grandfather'd in as exceptions to the newer rules, for many of them would not be able to remain open without total retro-fits. The equipment being demanded and the regulations of things like plumbing and even ceiling levels can turn into a budgetary nightmare.

Even otherwise the amount of money needed to start up even the smallest food business is not small change. Rent or lease....insurance of various sorts...overhead....labor....equipment...smallwares....stock food items and fresh food items....decor....seating....more insurance....

The bank will require that the person taking the loan be viewed as capable of managing all these things in a capable manner.

So therefore, it goes back to being able to attain...and show accomplishment...in the workplace, to begin with.

[arielle]

We are luckier than women in Israel, it seems, for Rogov stated that women there generally need two men as co-signers to apply for any loan.

We don't need that here, but we do need some form of collateral.

There are ways around this if someone is extremely canny and determined, to start on a shoestring and work towards more.

Even otherwise the amount of money needed to start up even the smallest food business is not small change. Rent or lease......insurance of various sorts...overhead....labor....equipment...smallwares....stock, food items and fresh food items....decor....seating....more insurance.

←

I don't know if I should laugh or cry about the situation of women in Israel - laugh, because this is happening in a supposedly democratic, non-sexist society that constantly complains of the prejudice of others that they have been subjected to for the last few millennia; cry because I hate to see anyone living in such a repressive atmosphere.

I can attest to the difficulty of owning a restaurant on a shoestring budget. We have our own little place, that we purchased from the previous owner. There were so many extra costs that we simply didn't anticipate (and we did do a lot of planning, and I've been in the industry since I started at University - about 9 years, and my husband for 15 years, so we knew most of what we were getting ourselves into), and it *is* very difficult to get through when you don't have a trust fund or some such backup as Karen said.

But you just have to keep working hard and hope that you'll succeed.

[emilymarie]

Here is an exercise I entertained myself with last night.

I imagined myself as different people.

I was first a business person...first a male one, then a female one, taking clients out for a meal.

Then I became a man taking a woman out to dinner. (P.S. Why do I say man taking woman out...because that is still the 'norm' and I must say it is staggeringly impressive to me how a guy ever gets the guts up to ask a woman out in the first place....that is one task most women do not usually approach...so thank you for those that undertake this daunting thing --or so it seems to me--). You could substitute woman taking man out, though, too, for purposes of the exercise.

Then I became an individual woman or man going out to dinner.

And I thought about...which I would choose, and why....if the option of two equivallently  excellent restaurants were placed before me, one with a woman chef...and one with a man chef.

This was an interesting internal exercise to do. Try it, if you like....

Tell us what you came up with, and why....

←

I tried to reply earlier but my computer crashed RIGHT as I was re-reading my post over. GRRRR!

This is a good exercise, Karen, because when I imagine finishing a wonderful meal and meeting the chef, I can't say that I would care one bit if it were a man or a woman. In fact, I might be more interested if it were a woman, and a lot more anxious to talk to this person about how she did it!

Going back to that unpublished article I wrote, all of the women, regardless of whether or not they believed that women actually have a tougher time in the kitchen, agreed on 2 points: Ultimately, one of the major barriers to women working their way up thru the ranks was the lack of women mentors; and in the end, talent equals success.

To address their first point, I think that a lot of us have already hit upon this idea--there are just so few women in high ranking positions in kitchens, not that many precedent-setters. All of the 5 or 6 women I interviewed were mentors to young, female culinary students through programs with Women Chefs and Restaurateurs, New York Women's Culinary Alliance (which was co-founded by Sara Moulton in the 80s), and Les Dames d'Escoffier (though probably to a lesser extent here than with the former 2).

Obviously, mentoring is important to anyone starting out in this industry, and especially for women, who may not experience the same sort of camaraderie and friendship that men would have with eachother and could foster on a daily basis. Not to say that men and women can't be friends in a kitchen environment, but to go beyond that level and have someone to confide in, ask questions of, guide you, give you advice, make an investment in your future success, etc. is probably not as common for young women. Just this weekend I noticed that the chef was talking with his line cooks (all men) about Charlie Trotter and about his thoughts on food, in general. This kind of talk is so valuable to a young person starting out, I think, and if the comfort level isn't there between people, you just won't get that.

One of the women I spoke with worked with Lidia Shire in Boston and said that what Ms. Shire did was unheard of at the time. But she did it--and the lesson this future chef took away from working with Ms. Shire was that if you wanted to succeed, you can.

Edited for spelling...

Edited October 18, 2004 by emilymarie (log)

[Carrot Top]

I just read through this thread this morning, great discussion.  One thing that I thought was missing was a comparison of the 'dining' industry to the rest of the business of society.  If we go back to Rogov's original definition and we set aside the fact that this is food we are talking about, I think that the number of women who are 'great chefs' likely closely follows the number of women who are great managers of large companies in other sectors of the economy.

If we look around there are lots of women who are in command of small to mid-sized restaurant kitchens, bakeries, etc in the same way that there are a sizable number of women who own or run small to mid-sized businesses.  So while I think there are too few women at the top, I see healthy activity in the middle.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't injustice (either in the past, now, or in the future).  I think there certainly was a glass ceiling and it appears to continue to be intact now excepting a few holes in it where women have broken through.  I think the reasons for it are varied and nuanced as demonstrated by the vibrant discussion above.

That said, I do think that change is coming and we will all be better off when everyone has a fair shot to live their dream.

←

Your thoughts seem accurate and knowledgeable to me...and as it seems I have to keep poking at this to best understand it...some further thoughts came to my mind in response.

There is this 'healthy activity in the middle' in both professional kitchens and other sectors of the economy in general, but the leaps to the top are not happening as much with women as with men.

Recently I came across an article (might have been in the WSJ) that was discussing this phenomena, and the overall thesis of the article was, that after interviewing many 'top management' types in business as to why men were continuing to be promoted to the upper echelons over equal numbers of women, one vital fact was cited. When analyzing the skills needed to to operate well at the upper management levels, in performance evaluations the women overall were coming up short in one particular area...that of being assertive in business situations. Men, overall, scored higher in areas like...having a 'take-charge' attitude....being able to take an unpopular stance when they believed it and standing up for it within the corporate structure rather than being 'yes' men, and overall sheer assertiveness in business situations.

This may not seem like it is something that would be required in a woman that wished to be a 'great chef' but unless she is going to be doing all the cooking, prep, service and every job in the restaurant herself, she has got to be able to delegate and lead well, so the comparison is valid, in my mind.

When I read the article, immediately a bell went off in my mind that said "Yes! Exactly." For I remembered seeing this myself, in business situations.

Taking this a bit further for comparison purposes, I ran three scenarios through my mind, all with women and men in the same situational arena.

Let us imagine we are in Goldman Sachs, in the Private Dining Rooms, at lunch time.

Again, I can compare this business atmosphere to the stressful atmosphere of a professional kitchen, for though it is quieter and much more 'elegant', the demand for 'now' and the demand for excellence exists here.

In the first room, we are looking in on about twenty five people. Most are in their mid-twenties. They are all well-prepared for their work, all well-educated with newly-minted MBA's from Harvard or Wharton or wherever, and have been hand-picked for inclusion in this business. Right now, however, these well-educated people are actually the 'newbies', and they will undergo massive and stringent tests of endurance and smarts to see how they measure up and who will last. (For a good read on this particular subject, Jim Cramer's book 'Confessions of a Street Addict ' is wonderful, not to mention scary and hilarious. Jim was a 'newbie' when I was Executive Chef at GS...and he was in these meetings...) The meeting is started, questions are raised, comments are asked for, and the participation of the attendees is waited upon.

You will see mostly men jumping in, talking, insisting something should or should not be done a certain way...being the 'squeaky wheels'. The women do not, on a comparative percentage level, raise their hands as much, insist as much, or jump in as much.

Next room we will view a room of VPs...mid-level...men and women...dining with a client. Let's say its Bronfman. Or both Bronfmans. Two Bronfmans are always better and more entertaining than one.

Here, you will see the women that have made it to this level, participating in the sense of 'outgoingness', in the sense of directing the conversation, much more closely equal to the men...but except for rare times (and rare...women...) still the men seem to dominate a bit.

In the last room we will look in on...well let's imagine someone like (of course now we are just imagining, we are not speaking specifically and in no political sense whatsoever) ...let's make it two women and two men. Let's make it Henry Kissinger, Edward Kennedy, Golda Meir, and Geraldine Ferraro. In this room, you will find that there is no dominant male or female speaker...it is almost exactly equal in terms of who is taking the floor and who is directing the conversation in the ways they each individually wish.

(There is one unbalanced tone to this group of people, and it is the intensely dominant male voice of Kissinger...a filling of the room happens when he speaks and it is dominant. But the other speakers compensate by lowering their tones, and speaking clearly and at a good level, giving impact to their words, so this dominant male thing does not take over...)

What this says to me, this viewing of women and men at various levels of 'climbing the ladder' is that unless (again, sorry here I go) a woman has sufficient 'fire in the belly' to be somewhat assertive when in the company of men, the men will continue to dominate, for assertiveness is valued in the doings of business.

It can be quite fearsome for most women to be assertive. It makes them feel like people will not like them, and that they are doing something 'wrong'.

Could be true, that they won't initially be 'liked' for it. But if a person wants to head for the top, being 'liked' is not on the top of their wish list. Being respected, is.

[chefette]

I am sorry if this comment - or comments- that I am about to make has been made but I ran out of patience and time after 2 pages of posts and had to jump in with my 2 cents.

It seems that maybe this discussion is not starting at the right spot. Why don't we go back to Karen's early list of profession, vocation, occupation, job... categories that had nothing to do at all with men or women.

What makes any human (man or woman) want to be a chef/cooking professional?

Is it the sexy long hours? The heat? The heavy lifting?

Perhaps the answer to many of our questions is more appropriately in the question - do both men and women become chefs for the same reasons?

If men and women's drives in becoming cooks are different then the results will be different - no?

Then ultimately we go back to the question - are men and women only different from one another in average body size, hair growth, and appendages? Do we view the world the same? Do we approach problems the same? Are we the same?

We are also accepting that being a chef is somehow great. That publicity, hype, and high prices are the determinants of great chefness.

We are not actually talking about the ability to do great cooking or great food. And, if you look at the biographies of many of these great male chefs they seem to acknowledge the source of their cooking interest and cooking skills to their mothers and grandmothers.

But another question is this: Is great cooking the primary basis of being a great chef?

Is it possibly part good fortune, management skills, a feel for publicity, good connections, the same basic stuff from most professions?

So ultimately the question being debated here is the same old question about why women are less represented in the upper echelons of power.

So - what are the success factors for a chef?

1- Mentoring - getting associated with the acknowledged, recognized top people and establishments in the field

2- Flexibility - willingness and ability to go to where the opportunity du jour is

3- Networking - making sure that you know where the power is, who has it, who is going up and who is going out. Building bridges and relationships, making sure that people know who you are and see you as good, as available, as an asset. Being able to leverage and maximize your relationships

4- Balderdash - being good at just unabashed self promotion, sucking up and feeling confident about it the whole time - no self doubt - being vocal and observed

5- Empire - leveraging all the above to build an empire

Forgive me - but I think that this is the path to great chefness that many in our current environment have taken or are busy taking. The whole hard work, grindstone, earning respect and all are but quaint mythology for many if not most. This is not to say that I do not believe that there are many chefs out there who have not risen to greatness through their hard work and innate skills - but this is the very hardest way - a true Cinderella story. I believe that it is rare that the good hearted, dues-paying, hard working good cook becomes a great chef.

[Daniel Rogov]

Chefette, Hello....

It seems to me that you left out several items in your list of qualifications to attain great chefdom - those being a good palate, knowledge of food and foodstuffs, a devotion to one's profession and of course, talent. It would be a sad, sad day when any woman or man perceives success in any profession, especially one involving issues of taste, as merely a matter of manipulation. Please correct me if I am wrong but it is entirely manipulation to which your five points speak.

From the point of view of either people who perceive excellent dining as part of the civil and civilized life style as well as from that of the great chef we are indeed (in your words) "talking about the ability to do great cooking or great food". If not that, why are we even discussing the issue?

[Busboy]

So - what are the success factors for a chef?

1- Mentoring - getting associated with the acknowledged, recognized top people and establishments  in the field

2- Flexibility - willingness and ability to go to where the opportunity du jour is

3- Networking - making sure that you know where the power is, who has it, who is going up and who is going out.  Building bridges and relationships, making sure that people know who you are and see you as good, as available, as an asset.  Being able to leverage and maximize your relationships

4- Balderdash - being good at just unabashed self promotion, sucking up and feeling confident about it the whole time - no self doubt - being vocal and observed

5- Empire - leveraging all the above to build an empire

←

So, ability to cook? Not a factor?

[Carrot Top]

So, ability to cook?  Not a factor?

←

I would guess that that is where all else would have to flow from, or it would be total bullshit, wouldn't it?

[Carrot Top]

chefette...I didn't copy your full post here, but I must say I love the way you express yourself.

'The sexy long hours'...different 'hair growth and appendages' really, I can't read this without laughing out loud, with real pleasure.

Thanks...beautiful post.

[Carrot Top]

Rogov...I admit that in this thread the original questions and responses that you posed in your article have been braided into a somewhat different loaf at times by my persistent and neverending aggravating (even to me) posts.

I saw an opportunity to follow the path you had opened up...and rather to talk of the more basic parts of becoming a 'great chef', I took a bit of a turn and used what I perceived to be a chance to talk about things that usually we do not talk about out loud. What can I say? My sense of direction is bad, I get lost easily.

So chefette's comments could be perceived as being 'right on the button', at least in terms of my posts. I did not go deep into the psyche of 'why' we want to cook...which of course is really the point of wanting to do good at anything... the reason for which seems to me to be an outpouring of the soul in a giving way. That, for me, is the basis of all interest in food at all.

There is something sort of 'yucky' about the whole 'chef as a great thing' idea.

But the people out there in the real world seem to like it...it seems to entertain them...therefore creating a sort of 'theatre' about the whole thing.

Inescapable.

Anyway...just wanted to clarify...whatever...a bit.

Oh, plus. One of the original reasons for my getting lost down the path of 'how-to's' rather than 'why's' was that I got several PM's and emails from women who were unwilling to post for themselves in the thread, because they were afraid to expose themselves to possible criticism for the (natural) worries and fears they had.

So I got mad. For them.

Don't get a redhead mad.

[Busboy]

I would guess that that is where all else would have to flow from, or it would be total bullshit, wouldn't it?

←

Well, I wanted to tweak chefette for two reasons. First, she seems to accept the definition of "greatness" as one defined by clebrity and monetary success, not culinary achievement. Emiral being "greater" by this standard than Keller, for example.

And second, that one is more likely to rise to greatness -- by this definition? -- through a bureaucratic than a culinary approach.

Not that ass-kissing and shameless self-promotion haven't paid off for many people in many careers, but I'm curious which "great chefs" she would hold up as being, in effect, mediocre chefs but great manipulators.

More to the point, would her advice to a rising female chef be to spend less time in the litchen and more time schmoozing?

Edited October 19, 2004 by Busboy (log)

[Carrot Top]

chefette...here is a more serious answer to your thoughts.

It seems to me that when one starts in the kitchen, obviously it is vital to spend an immense amount of time and effort learning every possible thing there is to know. Each station. What can go wrong. What can go right. How to make things better when things do go wrong. Food. Beverage. Wine. Equipment. Plating. Endless amounts of things to learn.

But when the time comes, if the situation is such where there is an Executive Chef...the responsibility of that person is to direct and train others and to maintain the support systems that will enable them to do their jobs in a pleasant and fruitful manner.

It is important overall, for a restaurant that prides itself on consistency and excellence, to not be dependent on one person that is the technical star. What happens if that person gets sick?

Therefore the job of an Executive Chef is to bring as many cooks right up to the same OR BETTER capabilities that they themselves hold.

This means that everyone grows. Everyone profits.

Also...it is good to remember that the experience of a meal is not just about the food. It is about feeling cared for. People do want to see and shake the hand and see the face and feel for themselves whether the care they saw in the food was a technical spoof or whether it came from the heart.

Technique and hard work matter. But overall, the bottom line experience is to make the guest feel just plain loved...if that can be swung.

That's what food is all about, to me.

There's too little of this 'nowadays'. But then again, there probably always was....

[emilymarie]

What makes any human (man or woman) want to be a chef/cooking professional? 

Is it the sexy long hours?  The heat?  The heavy lifting? 

Perhaps the answer to many of our questions is more appropriately in the question - do both men and women become chefs for the same reasons?

If men and women's drives in becoming cooks are different then the results will be different - no?

Then ultimately we go back to the question - are men and women only different from one another in average body size, hair growth, and appendages?  Do we view the world the same? Do we approach problems the same? Are we the same?

We are also accepting that being a chef is somehow great.  That publicity, hype, and high prices are the determinants of great chefness. 

We are not actually talking about the ability to do great cooking or great food.  And, if you look at the biographies of many of these great male chefs they seem to acknowledge the source of their cooking interest and cooking skills to their mothers and grandmothers.

But another question is this:  Is great cooking the primary basis of being a great chef? 

Is it possibly part good fortune, management skills, a feel for publicity, good connections, the same basic stuff from most professions? 

Forgive me - but I think that this is the path to great chefness that many in our current environment have taken or are busy taking.  The whole hard work, grindstone, earning respect and all are but quaint mythology for many if not most.  This is not to say that I do not believe that  there are many chefs out there who have not risen to greatness through their hard work and innate skills - but this is the very hardest way - a true Cinderella story.  I believe that it is rare that the good hearted, dues-paying, hard working good cook becomes a great chef.

←

I think that you have made some interesting points here, especially when you broadened the discussion to ask the question why women are so underrepresented in the upper echelons in most industries.

And part of me thinks that despite all of my expressed resentment when other posters have said that women like to work quietly and more in the background than men (I apologize to this poster but I can't remember exactly what was said. I read it to say that women, by nature, did not require the outward praise, pomp, and circumstance that some male chefs want when they reach a certain level) and can't make it to the top b/c of our biological clocks, our desires for family and relationships, I think you may have asked a good question: Do men and women become chefs for the same reason and if they don't, then will the outcomes be different for men and women?

I want to become a cook/chef because I love food. I know that sounds so simplistic, and I can't articulate how exactly I feel about eating and cooking, but it's just a feeling that excites me and that gives me energy. And I'm just gonna go with that for the time being. Some other things that appeal to people I know is the adrenaline that takes over during service, the constant striving for perfection, consistency, more knowledge and experience. To do better all the time. The ability to create things all day and to feed other people, to make them happy.

It's what comes after all of this that may make a difference to men versus women--but let's not underestimate the appeal of money, fame, etc., etc., to women. And so maybe this is why more men are famous, star chefs? Maybe they go that extra mile to get a certain amount of public attention, celebrity status.

I have to say, however, that after reading your post that I was very deflated, disappointed, thinking: Ok, so now what? If, in fact, as you say: "The whole hard work, grindstone, earning respect and all are but quaint mythology for many if not most" what are the rest of us supposed to do? I think a lot of what you said is true--but that one's ability to cook, taste, and create is the most important thing to success. There is also a bit of luck and understanding of what the public is looking for and is ready to stomach, so to speak.

Thomas Keller is who he is because he has some sort of an innate understanding of food and of how to put ingredients together, to create dishes and plate things that go beyond what most of the rest of us can. Same with someone like Grant Achatz and even Daniel Boulud, Jean Georges, and Eric Ripert (tho these last 3 came out of a bit of a different system than the first 2). I think they were all just born with these ideas that make them rise above everyone else. There are a lot of external factors here that contribute to their success but it is all rooted in their talent.

Now, having said all of this I come back to the idea of precedence and the fact that there are fewer female precedent-setters, fewer successful women to act as teachers and mentors to young women, fewer women to challenge and push young female cooks in the same way that someone must have done with Keller and Achatz, and certainly with Daniel, Jean Georges, and Eric Ripert (regardless of whether or not they were inspired to cook initially by their mothers).