Hung on Top

Last night in its third season, Top Chef named Hung (don't know last name--they usually only refer to one another by their first names) the winner of the cooking reality tv show. Hung is a Vietnamese immigrant--his story came out in the penultimate show, when he finally got personal and discussed his motivations for being in the show--as a tribute to his parents: his father escaped from Viet Nam in the aftermath of the fall of Saigon, came to the U.S., and eventually brought the rest of the family over, while his mother is credited for teaching Hung how to cook, infusing him with the skills and passion for a life of the kitchen.

Although one would guess that I would be rooting for Hung, I actually was turned off by his personality during the show--he was highly competitive, independent minded, confident to the point of being cocky and arrogant, disdainful of his competitors, often scoffing at how easy a challenge was, and admitted that his strategy was to look out for himself only--that in a regular kitchen he was a team player but that during Top Chef he was in it to win and wasn't interested in helping other contestants.

Yet I wonder how much of my own distaste for him was based on the internalized stereotypes I've imbibed about the way Asian Americans should behave: deferential, communally oriented, humble, self-effacing, and quiet. Hung is none of these things, and I am glad that he IS so confident and sure of himself, as well as being skilled. Although, interestingly enough, one stereotype that was perpetuated on the show was that Hung had technical mastery but no soul or heart (a charge often leveled against Asian and Asian American artists/musicians). I think Hung does have heart and soul and I'm glad that he, along with Yul Kwon, are changing the face of media television, even if briefly, to demonstrate that Asian American men can be strong and confident winners.

Guillty Pleasures

We all have them--guilty pleasures. You know, the things you are embarrassed about liking. If you're a vegetarian, it'd be the occasional prime rib. If you're a feminist (like me) then you are embarrassed about receiving monthly issues of Glamour. Yes, I subscribe to Glamour. Now, here come all the caveats:

1) It's free. It was one of several options* I had in order to redeem miles that were about to expire through Northwest airlines (or Delta or American...I honestly can't remember now). [*It should be noted here that I did have options and so yes, this is why Glamour is a guilty pleasure--I chose it. I grew up reading discarded copies from my aunt, and of all the fluffy, women-focused magazines out there, it's the one I return to for my "fix" so to speak]

2) It's not that bad, in terms of negative body issues. I mean, yes, I just found an ad today about breast implants (YUCK!) and yes, there are plenty of skinny celebrities and a concentration on fashion and makeup that negatively contributes to skewed body images and consumerism. But, there are also some more intriguing things, like an attempt at feminism and global awareness by showing everyday women who are making a difference here and around the world--women who fight hunger in Columbia and female-genital circumcision and Mormon polygamy. And women who are educating others and being activists and who are trying to make the world a better place.

Now. All that being said, one of the things I find troubling about Glamour is the way in which it simultaneously tries to encourage racial diversity and sexuality while reinscribing both a racial and hetero normativity (yep, big words for a blog but what do you expect from an English professor?).

Case in point: the new Jake. "Jake" is a column written by a single guy who is supposed to give "the guy's point of view" for women--to chart his dating and relationship life, and when he finally does settle down, he passes the mantle onto the next "Jake." It's a column that has been running for the last 40 years, but for the first time, Glamour has allowed its readers to select the new "Jake," from 3 different candidates, which also means that for the first time, "Jake" will not be anonymous.

All 3 candidates were single white men. And the one who "won"--whom women voted for, was the most "guy" like or perhaps "dude" like of the 3. And I thought, what if the new Jake were black? Or self-identified as mixed race? Or identified as bi-sexual? Wouldn't that be amazing to push the boundaries of what we consider to be acceptable along a dating spectrum and a hierarchy of desirability? What if the new Jake were an Asian American man? Guess I'll just have to keep wishing and waiting.