From the shelves of Tesco to the bar of Wahoo, rosé is an afterthought if included at all. Left off wine lists, banished to the back of the cupboard, we are purposefully contributing to rosé’s oppression. This is something I believe to be categorically wrong.
Even if rosé were not a beautiful beverage (which it is), is it not deserving of the same rights as Sauvignon? Should it not be subject to the same opportunities as Oyster Bay? Can priority for Pinot be justified? I am advocating for equal treatment of all wine, and I wish society to recognise our current state of wine oppression.
The root of the problem lies in the establishment of a red-white binary in the world of wine-consumption. In the quest for cost-effective consumption, we are homogenising, we are erasing the unique, we have eyes only for red and white. I reject this binary; I reject its social construction; I reject its bourgeois nature. There are infinite shades of red, white, and rosé: let’s liberate ourselves from this narrow conception of colour.
This is, of course, an intersectional problem. People are bigoted in their views on temperature. While cold white wine is acceptable, there is no room in the fridge for wines of brighter complexion. This has a disproportionately adverse effect on rosé, who like the cold but are excluded. This sort of exclusion does not have the same effect on red.
I fear. I fear for the continuation of wine without oppression. I fear for the inclusion of all wines regardless of colour or place of origin. I fear only too late will this threat to liberty be taken seriously, resulting in the end of wine as I know and love it.
But what can you do? First, accept you’ve been called out: you have contributed to the widespread abuse of consumer power and privilege over wine consumption. Second, drink rosé. Simples.
Tags: Intersectionality — Oxford — Wahoo — Wine