Part II. That’s Not Something I Can Swallow

There doesn’t seem to be typecasting of any sort on Hell’s Kitchen. The squabbling is expected where a big prize is up for grabs. There are the usual outspoken team members, whether they are women or men. The battle lines are drawn between the sexes, but there is no stereotyped woman putting on makeup while waiting for the beef to go from medium rare to well done, or stereotyped male throwing sexist remarks while doing a stir fry. There were Caucasians, Asians, and African-Americans. There was no insult on race or gender, only on how bad the food tasted or how messy the kitchen was, thanks to the barking and blaring Gordon Ramsay. It seemed that in Hell’s Kitchen, everyone was a chef. No one was poor or rich; no one was smart or dumb; everyone was cooking, and if they didn’t, Chef Ramsay would scream, “F*** the thank you/insults/thinking/talking and START COOKING!” No one was serving anyone; everyone was competing for the prize, everyone left their lifestyles at the door – but just when Hell’s Kitchen seemed to be heaven for equality, one contestant crossed the line. Matt, newly transferred to the women’s team, was asked if he would be willing to return to the men’s team. He replied, “I’d rather be called a girl than go back to the boys.”

Matt can cook – but can he think before talking? (courtesy of http://www.fox.com/hellskitchen).

If only I could raise an eyebrow, I would have! What was wrong with being called a girl? Why did Matt have to make an issue about being part of the girl’s team? Did being part of the team mean that he was going to be called a girl? The jump of logic made no sense to me, and although it was a single sentence in a little interview nestled within the entire show, it seemed to echo in my ears throughout the rest of the competition. I was cheering for the girls even more rabidly because they had been labeled by their fellow teammate.

Apart from that slip-up by the aspiring chef, however, the rest of the show concentrates on a person’s ability to cook under pressure and almost incessant cursing. The language is rife with curse words: people are tired and exasperated with each other, and often cave beneath the demands of Chef Ramsay. Success is measured by perfection, and sometimes, Ramsay can be a frightening standard to go by. He can throw food into the waste bin or the sink if it is less than perfect as it emerges from Hell’s Kitchen. However, this is no empty competition: contestants are actually serving people and are judged on how satisfied their customers are. The competition breeds pressure, and pressure does not always result in a well-made dish. In the end, we have contestants who leave their lifestyles at the door, but quarrel nevertheless, aim for a prize, curse and get cursed at, and still try to cook despite the heat. I wonder: do they come out better chefs, or bitter people? Would this kind of show condone harshness as a method of making people do better? Or would it actually strengthen what seems to be a society gone too soft in its treatment of people?