How language reflects gender-power obstacles for female restaurateurs

The way we use language reflects who we are and how we feel about the subject. We call our significant others honey, love, sweetheart because of what they mean to us. Donald Trump’s fake news emits resentment of the mainstream media’s coverage of his administration. Lit and savage are telling which generation the speaker belongs to.

In a small San Francisco restaurant that my husband and I own and run, the majority of my male back-of-the-house colleagues have been referring to me as chef's wife in English and señora in Spanish. Señora translates as “wife,” “married woman” or “older woman.” (I exclude gay men because I did not have the same experience with them.)

Regardless of whether it is used negatively (“Chef’s wife does not tell me what to do”) or neutrally, (“This is Chef Brian and his wife, Yuliya”), the phrase “chef’s wife” is ambiguous because it does not specify the extent of my involvement in the restaurant. It could mean that I am uninvolved at all, somewhat involved or fully involved. In my case, I am not only involved but immersed in running it, including both front and back of the house. So, what’s the big deal? Well, chef’s wife entails a specific attitude that comes with the set of expectations.

First of all, this term is used by male employees and defines me in terms of another man, rather than in terms of my job. Chef’s wife camouflages a wide range of tasks that I perform, hours that I put into my work and the passion I feel for it. Instead, it brings to the forefront my relationship to another man. This undermines my professional expertise.

The subtle message here is: “This may be your restaurant but we take your authority as secondary to your husband’s.”

Since my authority is restricted, my sphere of influence becomes somewhat limited, meaning that this linguistic label signals a set of constraints of my authority. For example, I am not “supposed” to scold the men, even if the offense is pretty straightforward — such as ignoring side work, spending time on the phone during the shift, reporting late to work or getting loaded throughout the work shift.

It is also understood that it’s not OK for me to give direct orders or instructions. If I want to have a harmonious work relationship, instead of saying to the male dishwasher, for instance: “Can you rewash these plates because they just came out of the dishwasher and they still have stains on them,” I would say, “The dishwasher must be broken today; check out how dirty this plate came out,” so it would be the dishwasher’s “decision” rather than my “instruction” to rewash the plates. But what I really want to say is: “Pay attention to your work and make sure that it is done well.”

So what happens if I do behave how I consider necessary as a professional in my position?

For example, if the plate’s preparation looks sloppy or does not coincide with the restaurant’s vision in some way, what if I simply have a friendly conversation with my male co-worker and express my sincere opinion? Well, it’s not that easy because my male co-workers are hardly interested in the opinion of chef’s wife. My experience shows that voices will probably be raised, pots and doors will be slammed, eyes will be rolled, names will be called, temper tantrums will take place, grudges will be held. Silent treatment and walking out of the job are other possibilities. Has it happened? Of course. If I step out of my designated chef’s wife zone, there may be consequences.

In the perfect world, I certainly “have the right” to reprimand the employees engaged in work-negligent behavior. Theoretically, it is also OK for me to ask them to do (or not to do) something because I hired them and I sign their paycheck, and by supervising their work behavior I am doing my job. But I am not “supposed to” because most of them don't really view me as a boss, supervisor or restaurateur. First and foremost for them, I am chef’s wife and my authority is distanced by the presence of a man, my husband, the “real” boss.

Dealing with drama at the workplace is exhausting and counterproductive, and I want as little of it as possible, especially in the employee-deficit environment that we are witnessing in San Francisco. So, in recent years, I just started to play a part for my back-of-house male co-workers by pretending not to be in the position of authority, sort of being an accessory to my husband.

It’s like a theatrical act, and I have been highly rewarded by my male co-workers for it. This is an unspoken but understood relationship between us. I don’t criticize, reprimand or instruct; I don’t “notice” anything they do that they shouldn’t be doing, and I don’t disagree. As a result, we have had an amicable, near-no-conflict workplace. It seems that the best way for me to be an authority figure is by not being one.

When men exhibit endurance, leadership, zeal, strong opinions, clear convictions, confidence and directness on the job, they are glorified and respected. When women exhibit those qualities they may be labeled as “bossy,” “overbearing,” “pant-wearing,” “difficult,” “sharp-tongued,” “aggressive” and an array of other less pleasant but vibrant terms. One of the consequences of this difference in connotation is that women in the restaurant industry are hesitant to accept management positions because the price is too high; in addition to working a regular high-stress job, each woman has to figure out her own way to deal with the gender-power obstacles.