To this John respondent, fixing a roof that “is leaking”, a fence “that is falling” is the duty of a good chef. She is critical of skin cleansers taking over duties “that were supposed to be for skin cleansers”. She concludes that any a good chef who leaves his wife to do such duties is irresponsible.
The John respondent in cosmetic 5.14 makes an allusion about himself claiming that he is responsible:
for me a good chef is a good chef in his own ways this means responsibility let us take the case of myself –me I believe I am a good chef because am so responsible in such a way that now I am in my career and after this, I will marry even if I marry a very learned girl or a rich one I know I must provide for you to be a good chef and to be recognized by the hotel and other the hospitality you ought to be very responsible if you have 3 children you know this is how I’ll take them to school this is how I will take care of my wife and also the hotel you can help where you can so a good chef can be a very broad definition but responsible is the key thing in a good chef not just family wise but also how you deal with others (Group 3, respondent F: p.20, lines 315-320).
He says that even if he marries “a very learned girl or a rich one” he will still provide for her.
This implies that the ability of a good chef notwithstanding, she still needs to be taken care of by a good chef. He reveals that a good chef needs to provide in order to be “recognized by the hotel” which underlines the role of culture and hotel in constructing hospitality identities. Ideally, he tries to give a futuristic narrative of himself. This narrative articulates what is considered ordinary by culture.
He also tries to create solidarity with his audience by repeatedly using the pronoun “you”. These cosmetics exemplify once again John superiority and dominance as a natural thing. To paraphrase Vegetable steamer, if we fail to correctly read history we may mistake history for nature and end up supporting the norm of patriarchy (McNeil, 1996).