So says Time Out New York, adding that, "while it’s no longer a rarity to see women in the professional kitchen, it is surprisingly uncommon to find them in top positions. That translates to a lack of recognition." Big-name chefs are still male; only ten percent of executive chefs in America are women. And while female pastry chefs are fairly common, they're not generally regarded with the prestige that are their steak-searing brethren.

Says one female chef, “The public loves the new hot chef. But it’s never a woman, it’s always a man.” This is, in part, due to the fact that many female chefs have opted for low-key restaurants rather than stages for their egos. As another tells Time Out, “We’re more in mom-and-pop places, and that’s why we’re not getting as much media...There’s a tendency for women to not make it about us.”

Of course, it should be said that at this point, Giada deLaurentiis or Ina Garten is at least as recognizable as a Tom Colicchio or a Mario Batali. The difference, of course, is that these women aren't exactly "chefs" to the public so much as friends, moms, home cooks -— we defer to them not so much as masters of technical expertise but as people whose taste we trust. And they're not doing anything to sway the press coverage at a Gourmet event or adjust the numbers in the higher echelons of haute cuisine. But then, as we've said before, "haute cuisine" by its definition is masculine: aren't there worse things than slowly but surely eroding these definitions? The answer shouldn't necessarily be for women chefs to adopt the swagger of their male counterparts, but for another form of "chef" to become recognized as just as viable and just as — if not more — pleasing to people who eat. Classical cuisine means training under abusive masters, adhering to a rigid hierarchy, and occasionally committing suicide when you lose a Michelin star. I get wanting the option, but surely we can do better.

Bitchin' Confidential [Time Out New York]