Why So Few Women Are Great Chefs ...

Carrot Top · October 20, 2004

Oh Karen,
Having said that, I can laugh at myself, and I think others should too.....so I inflict this humour upon them on a regular basis.
←

Inflict away, arielle. You might even see a silent giggle coming from me.... :biggrin:

arielle · October 20, 2004

Inflict away, arielle. You might even see a silent giggle coming from me....
←

Giddeeyup!

On a more serious note, how do you feel about the loves to cook/to feed others angle that sinclair and emilymarie and chefette were talking about? I know that you said that you fell into the industry by accident, but were you in love with cooking, passionate, or even obsessive, as Wendy (sinclair) said?

If so, did you find that you became somewhat disillusioned? - you said that the more advanced you became in the hierarchy, the less time you were able to spend in the kitchen, the more time you had to do management/bureaucratic functions...?

Carrot Top · October 20, 2004

On a more serious note, how do you feel about the loves to cook/to feed others angle that sinclair and emilymarie and chefette were talking about? I know that you said that you fell into the industry by accident, but were you in love with cooking, passionate, or even obsessive, as Wendy (sinclair) said?
If so, did you find that you became somewhat disillusioned? - you said that the more advanced you became in the hierarchy, the less time you were able to spend in the kitchen, the more time you had to do management/bureaucratic functions...?
←

I 'sort of' fell into the industry by accident, but not really. I had decided it was time to go back to work after a brief 'time off' that was spent being newly married and working on the restoration of the 'classic' old wooden yacht that we lived on.

But for at least three years, I had been obsessively reading and cooking to the point of really thinking about not too much else. So when the ad for the job appeared, it seemed heavensent.

There was nothing about cooking that I did not want to know. It was what I did with all my time and thoughts.

Was I disillusioned? The first day I worked in the kitchen I made a linzertorte. It was so hot that the dough was melting faster than I could work with it. The other cooks were all guys, some had gone to the CIA and were openly contemptuous of me. My feet felt like they were made of blown-up hot rubber halfway through the day. The chef did not come out to show me how to work the larger equipment, so I had to swallow my pride and ask the guys. They were happily snotty to show me.

There was some batter that I made in the large mixer. After struggling to even get the bowl off the hooks, I realized my arms were not going to be able to lift it to pour. The guys were studiously avoiding looking at me while they snuck glances out of the corners of their eyes. I got pissed off. So I hauled the thing onto my shoulder and strutted across the kitchen to the pastry table, all 5'2 ninety-eight pounds of me (that was then, :laugh: pre-children) and carefully poured the f'ing thing into the sheetpans.

Halfway through the day, I was so physically and emotionally tired I went into the only private place which was a small dirty bathroom for the staff use. I laid a tea towel on the floor and laid on it, staring up at the underside of the rusty disgusting sink with my back squooshed up against the even filthier toilet base. Stayed there for ten minutes then went back to work.

:laugh: Was I disillusioned? You betcha. But more than that, I wanted to cook, and I wanted to be in that kitchen. So I went back, and gradually earned some sort of grudging respect from the guys.

They had to give me that respect in a way, for the pastries I made from my own recipes (the previous pastry chef had used mixes and cans of glop) started to become 'known' and made the restaurant a destination place for dessert.

There were many other times during this process over the years of disillusionment. One major one was when I became the Executive Chef (this is much later and in a different place) and was given a staff of mostly men that totally resented me. It took a long time and really a lot of inner struggle and outer struggle to win them over. Some, obviously, were easier than others. One can't just say that they all don't want a woman to succeed, some are grudgingly happy to see when a woman can walk in and do well. One of those guys took me about three years to win over. He persisted in playing underhanded games, persisted in finding odd ways to challenge me...but it finally happened that he gave in. How and why? He started yammering at me endlessly at the top of his lungs about how things 'should be' and I walked up to him and pushed my face towards him and said (in a certain tone) "The things you are talking about are your problems. You take care of them. I will not let your problems be my problems" and I walked (or rather stalked you might say) away.This again, could have been a scenario that would happen with a male Executive Chef...it is not always gender-specific.(The guy turned out to be one of the most helpful cooks in the place after that.)

The hardest part for me, is that at first I wanted to be liked. I wanted the staff to like me and to want to work with me and do good things. That...way of thinking did not get the job done, though. There is much advantage taken of bosses who want to be 'liked' in any industry.

Someone...a higher up manager...said one day to me...(he was a guy) "Don't worry if they like you. Worry if they respect you. For out of respect can come love."

That worked for me.

Moving on to less time in the kitchen, more demands in administrative and other tasks. I enjoyed growing in these ways. And for me personally, I realized that my 'gift' was not to be either a technically or creatively 'great' chef. My gift was the ability to organize, operate, train, motivate in the back of house...and it turned out I had a gift of making guests feel...very welcome and cared for when they came to table. I studied the people who came to table and was very interested in making them feel well cared for, both by showing them care in attentions to what their menu choices were to be and by

designing special menus for many special functions. It seemed to me that there were people in the kitchen who could actually be greater 'chefs' than me, ultimately, so I moved up and promoted them forward...including moving out of the title of Executive Chef.

They still kept calling me that, though...even though I had moved onto other things...but the guy I'd promoted didn't care a whole lot, for he knew I would keep on moving up and out and eventually he'd stand solo.

It finally came to the point where my job was pure corporate life. Responsibilites of budgets, planning, the annual cut-backs, and of course the usual 75% of any high-level corporate job....politics.

I didn't like it. At all.

So that, was the end of that.

I quit and moved to Paris and blew all my profit share money on good Reblochon and the occasional Poulet de Bresse.

And on and on...and here we are.

I've rattled off my story because I know you do love a good story, arielle...and that you will not give up till you have it. :laugh:

I hope your questions have been answered.

Edited October 20, 2004 by Carrot Top (log)

mikeycook · October 20, 2004

Although I know many have already responded, I'll give my 2 cents.

First, I think the term Great Chef is wholly subjective. Second, I really don't think whether one considers someone a great chef or not relevant to the real point.

In my opinion, the real question is why there are not more female Chef-Owners working in top restaurants. This is what most people mean when they say a "Great Chef". A lot of people who have never eaten in a Mario Batali restaurant would call him a "great chef". They go by reputation and the fact that his restaurants are successful. The public (and even most of us foodies) knows little about a chef unless they a. Own or are head-chef at a top restaurant or b. Are a sous chef at one of those restaurants. So, in order for women to be recognized as "great chefs" by most people, they need to attain these positions.

And here is where the problem in restaurants is the same as it is in the corporate world. In order to get a top position, you need to be put in that position by someone who has a higher position (i.e. the head chef, the owner, or investors). As is evidenced by the Bocuse quote, that was not happening in the 70s. While it might be happening today, it is certainly still rare. Women in financial services are still underrepresented in top positions for this reason. Until head chefs and owners start promoting the women under their charge, this situation will not change.

As is true in most businesses, investors want to invest in people with a track record of success. If women are not given head chef positions, they will not be in positions of visibility for investors, won't get their own restaurants, and will not be able to establish a pattern of success. While there may be some investors that are not inclined to invest in women chefs, they will prove the exception rather than the rule once a track record of success in ownership is established by women.

arielle · October 20, 2004

I've rattled off my story because I know you do love a good story, arielle...and that you will not give up till you have it.
I hope your questions have been answered.
←

Um, wow!

Thank's for the story - I wasn't actually demanding such a detailed response, but THANK YOU, for two reasons: it was a great read; but also so honest in the difficulties that you had. As I've said before, few people are willing to put themselves out there like that. I really admire your courage, both in life, and also in your posting here. Some people need a lesson in that. To my mind, you are the sort of mentor, avant-garde(ist) that women need as rolemodels today.

I'm very grateful to have had the chance to discuss something as important as this issue.

Carrot Top · October 21, 2004

Yeah...well, if one is going to do ridiculous things in life, they at least should make a good story. And hopefully they should make some money, too. :raz:

Back to the original conversation...here are some more thoughts that maybe someone has input on.

--Is it the spark of talent that people see and respond to that makes a 'great chef'?

--How are the European and American support systems and critical coding systems different for women chefs, if indeed they are?

--How does it happen that chefs are subject to such lionization today?

--Does a 'great chef' need to have business skills...or do they need to have a committed partner that does?

Shelley G. · October 21, 2004

I wonder if there are any women reading....who have worked in professional kitchens (in any way, not neccesarily as 'chef')...who would like to share with us the things they liked and/or the things they disliked in the working environment, and what they thought about any eventual prospects that existed within that working world... that they could become a 'great chef'...and of course, why yes or why no....
←

I feel amxious about posting - although I own a small and thriving restaurant, which I love with all my heart, and although I still do most of the cooking therein, I am not a certified chef. I love preparing wonderful things for people to eat. I find the physicality tough. There are few women in my city who do what I do, and I regret that. I am dismissed by most male chefs as merely a woman who cooks (however, an acquaintance cheerfully pointed out that he sensed the tang of sour grapes, since we are in our 5th year and bustling, after the usual struggle. Still, it stings a bit...

pidge · October 21, 2004

pidge, thank you for telling us of your experiences. I do agree with you that a woman boss can be perhaps more demanding than a man sometimes.
Do you still enjoy the work? Which is the part of it that you enjoy the most (besides a paycheck, which is a good thing to have )?
Was there ever a time when you said "Forget this, I won't do this"...but then sort of went through an inner trial by fire and decided to stick to it?
←

well.....

actually, i personally think that i too am pretty demanding, so i guess it goes with the territory, but i also think i spend a lot of time and effort both educating my staff and (for want of a better term), building consensus in my kitchen....every one has input and most of the people train up, so although they may perceive me as being demanding, they also know it benefits them in the long run. i think that at a certain point about 10 years ago that became the outlook of a lot of the people i respect and appreciate in the business who had come up in the old brigade system...i just didnt feel i could be that much of an ass anymore, and the idea of leading a team rather than a bunch of grunts made more sense. i don't know if that is particularly female, but i do think that that sort of management is common to women, and that perhaps it makes women's kitchens less iconic.

i still love the work. when i wake up in the morning the first thing i think about is the restaurant, and more often than not, i can't wait to get here. i read about food and the business constantly, read restaurant reviews and articles and cookbooks (and of course egullet!) daily, go to as many restarants as i can in my (rather limeted) free time. most of my friends are in the business, or i mat them through the business, and they all love food and wine. i love the process the most, to be honest...i love creating something from nothing, or figuring out how to use something new. i enjoy being on the line and schedule myself for 5-6 line shifts per week...it's like dancing when it's good, and when it's bad, there's no better feeling than when it's over. i really like developing people, training them, making the team a little tighter. i don't love talking the endless talk,really, and i'm a litle (uncharacteristically) shy about talking with the customers...i kind of like the food to speak for itself. oh, and i really hate maintenence, but i've gotten quite good at it over the years!

yeah, there were times when i thought of giving up....for a while i had to work two jobs, a few times when things were tight i'd pick up some waitressing shifts, later it was side consulting (which i've never enjoyed....i really like to be in my kitchen). once, when there were no jobs to be had, i did f&b in a hotel, which was really frustrating in the sense that there often wasn't a lot to do....i'd go and peel apples in the back. i've sometimes tried to think of what else i might like to do, but nothing seems so fulfilling. mostly i've moved around or up when i couldn't take the frustration anymore, the opportunity to do which is, i know, a luxury. i also think i've had a sort of luxury in that, though i've made essentially the same money for a long time, it's been enough to live well on, so the paycheck issue hasn't been so important.

but the question of whether i'll ever be great, or wish to....whatever... :wink:

i don't really know, btw, if i believe the whole fire in the belly thing, either....

Edited October 21, 2004 by pidge (log)

Carrot Top · October 21, 2004

Yeah...well you never know. Could just be me that needs the fire in the belly just to get going, so I talk it up.... :biggrin:

It was interesting to feel the sense of your comfort level in the kitchen and still, after all this time working there, your intense interest in and love for it.

Another comment stuck in my mind...about the management styles (perhaps) of women wherein they may tend to lead and nurture a 'team' rather than direct a bunch of grunts...leading to women's kitchens being less 'iconic'.

Hmmm. Lots of things to think about, from your post...thanks.

Edited October 21, 2004 by Carrot Top (log)

Carrot Top · October 21, 2004

I am dismissed by most male chefs as merely a woman who cooks (however, an acquaintance cheerfully pointed out that he sensed the tang of sour grapes, since we are in our 5th year and bustling, after the usual struggle. Still, it stings a bit...
←

There's an old joke that ends with the line 'It's not the principle, it's the ten cents'...I wish I could remember it....

Hmmm. I wonder.

Don't you think that sour grapes taste worse to those that are tasting them than to those they are trying to spit them upon? :shock: Let them chew what they want... :raz:

Carrot Top · October 21, 2004

As is true in most businesses, investors want to invest in people with a track record of success. If women are not given head chef positions, they will not be in positions of visibility for investors, won't get their own restaurants, and will not be able to establish a pattern of success. While there may be some investors that are not inclined to invest in women chefs, they will prove the exception rather than the rule once a track record of success in ownership is established by women.
←

Absolutely. Couldn't agree with you more.

The only exception I would say that strikes me is where you write 'If women are not given head chef positions'.

Of course you may not have written it to be taken in the way as I am reading it...but I must say that people who have power do not 'give' anybody anything. The people have to earn it, ask for it, sometimes fight for it.

The reasons are complex as to why an equal number of women as men are not at top levels in many fields, including the issue of how 'promotability' is defined by the ones in charge of it.

Are women underdogs in a sense in this situation? Less so than in previous times, certainly, but still they seem to be. Underdogs are not given stuff...they have to be canny and determined and persistent and smart to get equal footing.

Overall, it looks like the underdog is moving forward, to me. :wink:

Wendy DeBord · October 21, 2004

When your peers (not only ones that vote for the Beard awards) consistantly deem you a "great chef" that's when the title sticks. I think anyone who's serious about the culinary arts can clearly distinguish between a "great chef" and a chef/personality thats great (the Emeril verses Adria example). Steve makes the case that there should be different levels of "great chef".........because it you hold Ducasse and Adria up as mearly "great chefs" you have to wipe away the title "great chef" from many really outstanding chefs. Some of which I think it would be very unfair to call mearly "great cooks" or "really good chefs".

As for females being harder on each other.............I think there may be some truth to that when it comes to attracting the opposite sex, women can be brutal to each other. But I don't see that behavior in well functioning work places. In kitchens we might pick on someone who isn't carrying their weight, we might be tough on someone who needs to be tougher..........but that doesn't break down to sexist behavior. The example of the hand placed on the flat top doesn't break down to a sexist behavior. It's just as likely to happen to a weak female as a weak male. That childish (shouldn't be allowed) behavior is about being tough, teaching (something). Which is seperate from actual sexist behavior or racism.

I've been treated poorly by a sexist chef whom happened to be a different nationality then myself. But that behavior came from someone with a real lack of education so I didn't take the actions personally (when I look back-even though at the time I did take it personally). When a women is harder on another women it's out of competition which is different then being sexist, in my opinion. Competition is good..........but for many women it's not comfortable. We play nice (mostly) as children playing barbie unlike boys who run each other over with their trucks. I think that's why we take it as an "attack" and try to label it as sexist.

One more comment: I think the years estimated that we have to 'put in' is greatly understated. I think it's very rare that in 3 to 5 years you've paid any dues. I think the 14 hour, 6 or 7 days a week example typically lasts for the majority of your career in this business. Around the age of 40 most chefs cut back to 10 hour days. But those are the hours of typical chefs.

Look at Steve, he probably will achieve a "great chef" standing in his life time (he has the respect from many already)..........but he has choosen not to work the typical hours/typical job that would get him that status much sooner. Thank-goodness for men like him who also see the insanity subjected to people who work in this profession. He makes this industry stronger by not breaking down traditional sexist lines. At one time this industry was very sexist, but with the onserge of culinary grads the whole industry has progressed at a rapid speed.

emilymarie · October 21, 2004

i don't really know, btw, if i believe the whole fire in the belly thing, either....
←

Pidge--may I ask, why?

Carrot Top · October 21, 2004

One more comment: I think the years estimated that we have to 'put in' is greatly understated. I think it's very rare that in 3 to 5 years you've paid any dues. I think the 14 hour, 6 or 7 days a week example typically lasts for the majority of your career in this business. Around the age of 40 most chefs cut back to 10 hour days. But those are the hours of typical chefs.
←

I did not see anywhere in this thread that the years estimated that we have to 'put in' is three to five years....

But it would be interesting to see where it was noted, if you could point it out...

Would also like to know a little bit more about why you believe that in three to five years one has not paid any dues...and also perhaps a little bit more about your background as a Pastry Chef.

Is this your original career choice?

What brought you to the kitchen in the first place?

What were any other career(s) you have had...and do you feel that you were successful in them, and if so, why did you choose to make a career change?

How many years have you worked in the kitchen in a professional position?

Do you lead other people?

What has your training been composed of in preparation for this position?

Do you feel that you are competent and fully capable in the tasks at which your particular position demands?

How about promotion and growing up and out? Is that something you personally like the idea of, or is that something that does not personally appeal to you?

Carrot Top · October 21, 2004

....Who doth ambition shun,

And loves to live i' the sun,

Seeking the food he eats,

And pleas'd with what he gets.

....I met a fool i' the forest,

A motley fool.

....And then he drew a dial from his poke,

And, looking on it with lack-luster eye,

Says very wisely, "It is ten o'clock;

Thus we may see," quoth he, "how the world

wags."

....And so, from hour to hour we ripe and ripe,

And then from hour to hour we rot and rot,

And thereby hangs a tale.

As You Like It

Edited October 21, 2004 by Carrot Top (log)

Shelley G. · October 21, 2004

Another comment stuck in my mind...about the management styles (perhaps) of women wherein they may tend to lead and nurture a 'team' rather than direct a bunch of grunts...leading to women's kitchens being less 'iconic'.
I like that a lot - at this point, all my staff are young women, and I am delighted with them. I am unquestionably demanding in respect to the quality of the food, and they are so keen to learn, and get it right. It is an interesting balance, to be sure. I think that although I do lots of nurturing - they're all young enough to be my daughters - I also show my teeth every now and again. Such as when one of them started to cry when I told her that her scones couldn't be served. I merely asked her whether or not she had seen the film "A League of Their Own", and if she particularly remembered an incredulous Tom Hanks inquiring of a sobbing player if she was crying. "There's no crying in baseball!" he shouted in outrage. She got the point. She had worked in a very fine restaurant - heavily fuelled by testosterone - and although willing to work hard, found that her unusually diminutive stature did her in. I am delighted to have her with me.

arielle · October 21, 2004

As for females being harder on each other.............I think there may be some truth to that when it comes to attracting the opposite sex, women can be brutal to each other. But I don't see that behavior in well functioning work places. In kitchens we might pick on someone who isn't carrying their weight, we might be tough on someone who needs to be tougher..........but that doesn't break down to sexist behavior. The example of the hand placed on the flat top doesn't break down to a sexist behavior. It's just as likely to happen to a weak female as a weak male. That childish (shouldn't be allowed) behavior is about being tough, teaching (something). Which is seperate from actual sexist behavior or racism.
I've been treated poorly by a sexist chef whom happened to be a different nationality then myself. But that behavior came from someone with a real lack of education so I didn't take the actions personally (when I look back-even though at the time I did take it personally). When a women is harder on another women it's out of competition which is different then being sexist, in my opinion. Competition is good..........but for many women it's not comfortable. We play nice (mostly) as children playing barbie unlike boys who run each other over with their trucks. I think that's why we take it as an "attack" and try to label it as sexist.
←

I didn't mean to suggest that women in competition were engaging in sexism, I'm just saying that I think that it's disappointing to see their attitudes. I think that we should all be helping one another, not back-stabbing and cat-scratching.... I understand that at times you do have to be tough on people (that which doesn't kill them etc) but there is clearly a difference between toughening someone up and trying to undermine or humiliate them.

I agree that education is important. It does not excuse behaviour, people need to take responsibility for their actions and treatment of others: if you join the KKK and string an African-American up from a tree, it's no defence to say that you were simply poorly educated and prejudiced because your parents were.......

It's also our responsibility to do our best to help people escape their own prejudices, for them to realise that they have been labouring under misconceptions all this time, and that the best thing that they could do would be to change this situation.

PS - the apprentice with the hand on the flat-top *was* a male, I'm not suggesting that sexism on the part of the chef was involved, rather that women are less likely than men to put up with that sort of treatment by their boss.

Carrot Top · October 21, 2004

My own opinion is that there is such an animal called a 'great chef'.

And to make one, it takes a peculiar and individual blend of enormous talent, and also a different and special way of looking at things. Then it takes the capability and time put in to be able to transform that talent and artistic urge into a reality that others can enjoy.

Although cuisine or cookery is a much more plastic art than other forms of artistic expression, in that it is so much more subject to temporal realities, it can still be identified and assessed and qualified in the same critical ways that other arts can be, and have been previously.

In each category of art that I can think of...I'll use visual arts and literature as examples...there are those working within the metiers who are considered either craftspersons or artists. And then there are the 'great artists' or the 'great writers'.

There is a magical spark within these people that reaches out and touches others in a special unidentifiable (though it can be categorized and endlessly critically discussed...please pick up a copy of Artforum for proof) way.

It could be that there are many 'great' undiscovered artists, writers, and chefs.

But the ones we know of, that we consider great, that I can think of, have worked to the edge of their powers in the pursuit of their vision.

They don't just talk about it. They don't just set aside a certain number of hours a day to do it. They live it.

Even the great artists and writers of the past and present can be looked at to see if they just sat around and got discovered. Usually you will see that they did not. They tried to gain validity for their expressions, both financial validity and critical validity. All the great artists and writers of the world did not sit in a corner and say, 'I am great, but so what...it is only important to me...I don't care what the world thinks.'

The reason we even have names and faces for these people is that they got out there and did it, and self-promoted and went at it.

Why should it be any different in the culinary arts?

Why should we assume that there are different perogatives in terms of the use of the word 'great' for us?

That the reporting media seems to be relentlessly tacky and that it seems to confuse the issues often is also something that always existed, throughout history. It seems worse now, because this is the media age and it is a virtual daily ongoing onslaught of opinion and fact being printed, viewed, and read.

Again...as always, it is the public hunger for entertainment that creates this media monster...and it is the public hunger for someone to idolize that creates...idols.

But the great chefs are out there. They exist, and what they do does what any other art can do if you take the time to listen...it inspires.

Pan · October 22, 2004

Karen, I have to demur here. Many great artists haven't been very good self-promoters at all. And many of the best self-promoters are people who I would call mediocre to poor artists, though the success of their self-promotion caused them to be regarded as great. Furthermore, some great artists were blessed with a rich inheritance and thus had no need to earn money from their work. Corot is one example.

Carrot Top · October 22, 2004

You are right, Michael. The world is full of people in different sorts of circumstances with different support systems (or not) and different ways of succeeding.

The drum that it seems I must keep drumming....for that is what is hitting me, personally, as important...is twofold.

First, that it is not 'bad' to either aim for success or greatness, as a woman, instead of putting one's family first. It may be different. It may be even very novel, in that in previous times women had no choice but to put their family first for if they didn't, they would not only be socially castigated but also economically disabled, since there were less opportunities for decent work at decent pay.

There is an assumption here (that I read in running through this thread...very rarely, but I continue to read it) first of all, that women WILL have a family to care for. That is an incorrect assumption.

Many women do not marry in today's world. They work.

More and more women are not having children....married or not. Therefore it is to be assumed that the 'family' they would need take their major time to care for would be a grown man.

And there may be women that live a life of the mind rather than a life of one who chooses to nurture others.

Why shouldn't they?

I keep reading this sense of 'naughty, naughty...this isn't what women are SUPPOSED to do'...and I am sorry, but it makes me sick to my stomach.

Again, not only for me...but for the young women who ARE entering the workplace now...who ARE expected to have careers or work that defines them outside the home. College-age women today do not enter into the world of work thinking "I am going to get married and my husband will take care of me". And college-age men do not expect to have to support a woman who might, through some 'fluke', want to stay at home and be a homemaker.

Therefore, if these women are entering into the workplace, they should not be entering into the workplace with a 'This is not REALLY the best thing I could do...to have a family is better' attitude.

There are no guarantees of 'family'. Why should these women have placed upon them a thought process that is semi-self-limiting?

They are not 'naughty' nor wrong in seeking success.

Second...again...the idea that women are supposed to 'play nice' like we do with dolls.

Please.

Do I need to go into this at all?

So here we are, in the workplace for that is where we are now.

The workplace is competitive.

Yet we are supposed to be 'nice' and sort of floating smiling graciously above it all?

Give me a break.

Again, to me it seems a dead-ringer for growing a losing team.

And we are responsible for ourselves. Nobody else is.

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

Finally, back to the artist thing. Again...my own strong reaction to a tone that I was picking up in certain posts.

I won't argue certain artists and what they did or certain chefs and what they did. But if the work of someone does not get out the door and seen, nobody will be able to appreciate it.

Sure, absolute schlock can be promoted (and guess what...sold, too... :wacko: and that is the public's choice) but if there is good work, or even great work, that is being done...it must get out into the world somehow for others to be able to sample its offerings.

Therefore, again, I say that although this side of 'art' in any metier may be the work of a merchant rather than an artist, somehow it is part of the quotient.

Since it is part of the quotient...it would seem to me to be important to have it somewhere there on the 'to-do' list in some form.

And again, women have not taken up this act of saying 'What I've got is really good, take a look' as much as men have...for whatever reason, and this places them at a disadvantage in the jungle that is called life.

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

In my own life, if I had been the sort of person that had waited for someone to help me...or had decided to smile gently and always be 'nice'....or if I had decided that it was not 'seemly' or that it was distasteful to stand up and say 'I can do this and I can do it well'....well. Surely I would be poor, financially. Likely I would never have had any chance at many sorts of success, including a professional one...and really...well. Plain facts, I might have been dead.

This is a wonderful world with lots of great things in it, but it is also a dangerous and hateful one.

If women are going to 'succeed', they need not be dragged down by thoughts of playing 'nice'. Guys....generally aren't. The thought pattern does not enter their mind. It is 'Let's play and see who wins!'

Yeah...more than my two cents. Because it matters.

Edited October 22, 2004 by Carrot Top (log)

Carrot Top · October 22, 2004

Back to the original conversation...here are some more thoughts that maybe someone has input on.
--Is it the spark of talent that people see and respond to that makes a 'great chef'?
--How are the European and American support systems and critical coding systems different for women chefs, if indeed they are?
--How does it happen that chefs are subject to such lionization today?
--Does a 'great chef' need to have business skills...or do they need to have a committed partner that does?
←

Forgive me for 'bumping this up' from the middle of the thread...for still I would love to hear some thoughts on this....

Daniel Rogov · October 22, 2004

Karen, Hi...

A few quick thoughts - one person's reactions to your above questions:

With regard to the "spark of talent": I am in full concurrence that the spark of talent and/or "the fire in the belly" is necessary to the creation, development and later continuation of the "great chef". However, keeping in mind though that the vast majority of diners never physically get to know or even see the chefs preparing their meals, it is not the spark that counts but the results that appear on the plate and how they appeal to the eye, the nose, the palate and an overall aesthetic. Does the spark "show" on those dishes – damned right it does.

As to the difference between European and American support systems – I cannot help but think that to a large extent, Europeans will be straightforward in their biases while Americans will show them in what are considered more "subtle" or politically correct manners. In the end, however, much the same social, sexual and cultural biases.

As to the lionization of chefs – not a new phenomenon but one that has taken on a new luster in the last three decades. In the case of Americans, much of that is accounted for by the fact that starting in the 1970's Americans began traveling abroad in ever increasing numbers and were exposed to both food and wine as important parts of the cultured and civilized life-style. In the case of Europeans who have a far better record in treating chefs well, the newer movement may well be due to the ever-spreading influences of public relations and exposure on television.

As to business skills – if the chef does not have business skills he/she had damned well better have a not only committed but honest partner that does. No business skills, no success; no success, no stardom; etc, etc…

Boris_A · October 22, 2004

.for still I would love to hear some thoughts on this....
←

As for cultural differences (Euope/North-America), my impression is that there (geographically or thematically) where the "French" cuisine is not so much accepted as the only great cuisine, I think the problem is less pronounced. Maybe due to even more conservatism, who knows. Additionally, as I pointed out, some of the great female cooks work in restaurants with (traditional) family structures (where it pays to be a bit 'nice' with each other, BTW, even when a part of the initial love is gone).

edit: wanted to add that the "support" system seems not so important for me, as we find great autodidact cooks/chefs (for example Veyrat and Trama in France or Johanna Maier in Austria).

As for the lionization (?), I prefer the cuisine><architecture analogy much more than the art analogy. A railway station that doesn't protect the people from wind or rain is simply flawed, regardless how "sculptural" or "innovative" or whatever it's design might be. I can't think of great dish which doesn't taste good or might be is harmful to your health, how beautiful or creative it may be arranged. Both disciplines have artistic elements, but they still need to be funtional to be truly great. Art doesn't.

I think we see similar developments in architecture as well as in cuisine, where's a big appetite for ever new, fast changing and often radically different creations. Partly, these are simply easier to market, because the fleshing out of minor, less obvious differences is much more difficult to sell in the media/news business. No wonder the entertainment industry is greedy for such easily to decipher icons.

Many of those spectacular creations live on the simple fact of being different and being in contrast to the tradition, the surrounding and are getting replicated regardless of purpose or context. To invent and replicate such radical creations, an inclination to pragmatism or a certain precision is an obstacle and you should also have a lot of "self-importance". Both qualities (pragmatism and self-relativity), I think, are something women are more proning to, whatever the reasons are.

Edited October 22, 2004 by Boris_A (log)

Busboy · October 22, 2004

Just thought I'd throw this in for the hell of it, from another thread.

The October 13th Issue of Restaurant Magazine has a lead article ranking the top 20 chefs of all time. Chef's are marked out of 5 for influence, innovation, success and longevity with a total mark out of 20....
The article also mentions as nearly but not quite - Alain Chapel, Michel Guerard, Thomas Keller, Heston Blumenthal, Pierre Gagnaire and a few others. ...
The top 20 are:-
1) Marie-Antoine Careme
2) Auguste Escoffier
3) Alain Ducasse
4) Fernand Point
5) Joel Robouchon
6) Alice Waters
7) Ferran Adria
8) Paul Bocuse
9) Fredy Girardet
10) Marc Veyrat
11) Marco Pierre White
12) Wolgang Puck
13) Michel Roux
14) Alexandre Dumaine
15) Alexis Soyer
16) Adolphe Duglere
17) Andre Pic
18) Charles Ranhofer
19) Jean Banchet
20) Gualtiero Marchesi
--------------------

I've been watching this debate unfold without throwing in, lately, cause it's moving forward well without my help. I would suggest, however, that everyone agree that "great" means astounding and influential cooking, not economic success (though the two can certainly overlap. And by influential, I don't mean selling a lot of cookbooks, (Rachel Ray, Emirel, Bourdain :laugh: ) but influencing the direction and style of other top chefs.

Wendy DeBord · October 22, 2004

There are very few high profile jobs in this industry that don't require a 100% commitment, and just based on the traditional gender roles in society, i think it was then, and still is now, very difficult for a woman to find the kind of support that would allow her to put in the 3-5 years at 6-7 days a week 14 hours a day that 4 star and european style kitchens require.
←

I was refering to this statement in my previous post.

I do not believe women need to play nice. I do think both sexes are taught to 'place nice' when we are young. But biologically I do think boys play differently then girls or visa versa. I do think women attach to this concept "play nice" more then men and we have a harder time letting go of it. When a women is tough, they are a bitch. When a man is tough, they are strong. Quite frankly I think women are the first to call foul. I don't see men playing by those school yard rules in the work place, I don't see anyone calling foul on them. They scruffle all day long with each other in the work place.........they never call foul, if they did they'd be a sissy and loose face with the other guys. I do think males and females think and act differently-right or wrong, there are differences. I think many women aren't sure how to work with men and find it more comfortable to work with females.........they know how females act and know the "rules" and how to manipulate that female enviroment.

Differences that don't add up to any solid reason I can think of to explain why more men are granted "great chef" status over females..........theres just differences-thats what I'm trying to point out. I agree with several other possible reasonings posted by others.

It's not bad to aim for any goal (so long as it doesn't do harm to others)! But I took your story (Karen) of your mother that she did do harm along the way of seeking her goals (harm to you by not parenting you). I see your current situation (being a soon to be single parent) as facing a similar delemia: wanting to be free to seek out your goals, yet being responsible as a parent and trying to find a balance between those goals. Where will you land?

I ask not really of you personally, but there are SO many women in the same situation.

As a women that doesn't have children I can say that I am definately in the minority! I am constantly asked "why don't you have children?", "Don't you like children?" This position is new in society and many people don't quite understand why someone might choose not to have children! Each women that doesn't have children faces the stares and questions differently and answers them differently both internally and externally. I think years ago no one questioned the childless women. Birth control wasn't what it is today and people knew the reasons why a women didn't have children.

From my personal experience I would swear that my hormones created thoughts and needs that my brain may or many not have agreed with. From the age of 16 to 40 I had the strongest biological need to have children. I really do believe that hormones are powerful on the female animal. I believe hormones send different messages to our brains as we grow older. At 43 I no longer have a driving biological need to have children-that chemical/hormone has faded/changed.

We can't pretend that we aren't biological animals. Whether or not we understand these things, they do exist.

Add into the factor that this career doesn't pay well (as your working your way up through the ranks and pastry chefs tend to make less then head chefs) and I think you have a HUGE elephant in the room that we aren't addressing. Many of us (chefs/cooks) rely on our spouses income to support our career choice. If we didn't have a spouse creating more income many of us would be forced to have 2 full time jobs. Many people that work in kitchens do have 2 full time jobs.

It takes a lot of 'fight' to want to remain in the kitchen cooking. I began working in the kitchen at my Mothers bakery. She had a constant flow of culinary students working for her (male and female). None of which 20 years later are still in the kitchen professionally. I think there are alot of talented people out there that could have been a great chef that for one reason or another left the kitchen as their primary job. I have a friend that is one of the first and few females that ever competed internationally in pastry. She could be a "great chef", she has the gift and brilliance......but for external reasons she's not working in the kitchen as her primary job. It's no ones damn business why someone makes a personal decision to stay or leave a career. But don't think that everyone that has the "gift of talent" pursues it. Life has it's distractions. The best don't always rise to the surface.

Sign In

Why So Few Women Are Great Chefs ...

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members