Last night, I was watching the finale of Top Chef. The person that I wanted to win did indeed win. Well, my favorites were between Stephanie and Richard... I did NOT want Lisa to win because she had such a bad attitude but then again I have not tasted the food so who am I to say really who should win? lol
Something striked me while watching the finale. Stephanie was really hopeful to win because she would be the first female to win Top Chef. While that is a fact, I couldn't help wondering if these types of language aren't self-fulfilling prophecies or rather illustrative of a rift that still exists.
In a case like Top Chef, may the best chef win... or whatever gender... When you put a gender on it like "first woman to win", doesn't it diminish the accomplishment some instead of making it bigger? The question is: did you win because you were a female or because your food was the best?
Same thing, really, with the democrats leadership: did Obama win because he was African American? If Clinton would have won, is it because of her gender? Shouldn't it be "may the person who would lead this country the best win?"
I fully understand that it's a thin line between celebrating an achievement based on something that was never accomplished by your subgroup vs. just celebrating. At the same time, you want to say that you were the first female to win but at the same time you don't want to diminish the fact that 1) you won, which means that 2) you were the best!
I think that true equality should have nothing to do with subgroups... but that's a hard line to walk, isn't it? I can only hope that there will be no line in the future!
No comments:
Post a Comment