Posted on 04/10/2005 6:15:01 PM PDT by CHARLITE
I am absolutely captivated by the reality TV series 'The Apprentice'. Not just because of its drama (of which there is much) but because it shows how good old fashioned capitalism – hard work, common sense and entrepreneurship – win out over politically correct ideology. Almost uniquely, the show presents capitalist leaders as the hero, rather than the typical stereotypes such as the evil Mr Burns from the Simpsons. The reality of such men is that while many of them may be cold, or unpleasant, they are the necessary servants of the marketplace. Their bold and forceful careers give the public not only innovative and affordable products and services, but untold jobs.
The American and British series feature two of capitalism's most uncompromising patriarchs: Donald Trump and Alan Sugar. Mr Trump, with his extraordinary hair and bombastic manner has frequently been portrayed by the media in less than flattering ways. But from what I have seen of the American show Mr Trump comes across as intelligent and fair. The same can be said of the boss in the British show: Sir Alan Sugar – the Jewish industrialist who founded and still runs the electronics company Amstrad.
If you haven't seen the show before, the basic premise is that the boss is looking for an apprentice, and 14 young hopefuls are competing for this role. In each week's episode they are split into two groups and given a new business task, such as designing a new product, running a department in a luxury store, or convincing celebrities to part with valuable possessions for a charity auction. By the end of each episode the reckoning arrives: one team will have won, one will have lost. The winners are rewarded with treats such as a luxury dinner with Mr Trump or a weekend in Monaco. The losers are subject to a boardroom meeting where they are required to analyse the reason for failing and plead their individual cases. Finally, at the end of each episode Trump and Sugar fix one of the contenders with their vulturine gaze, jab a finger in their direction and declare "You're fired!"
Sometimes these firings cause you to jump for joy, sometimes they are sad, but they are never cruel. Its nothing personal, it is strictly business. In fact, it is this masculine, detached and logical approach to the firings that stops it from being cruel. In a world full of industrial tribunals, lawsuits and compensation it is almost shocking to hear those two words. It is also refreshingly value-affirming: actions do matter, they do count, and there are winners and losers. Men generally thrive under this kind of competitive regime.
In the British series the conventional 'wisdom' of the management gurus – that women are more effective workers – has been shattered. In all the areas that are now supposed to favour women, the men have shown themselves, as a group, to be far better. This includes communication skills, multi-tasking and acting as a team-player. The women, in contrast, have often become over-emotional (even breaking down in tears), mired in management jargon rather than getting on with the job at hand, and unable to cohere together as a team. Indeed, it was only when the female and male teams were mixed in together in the later episodes that any of the women seemed able to perform. Nor can this be due to biased editing on behalf of the broadcasters: the British version of The Apprentice is shown on the usually misandric BBC.
I haven't seen much of the American series but I managed to watch some extracts from it online. It was interesting to compare the styles of Trump and Sugar. Trump seems to like aggressive energy in the boardroom and (at least in the segments I've seen) has a greater respect for the academic imprimatur of a degree, Sugar seems to prefer a slightly less emotional style, he also pays little respect to those with MBAs, preferring to look for a natural, down-to-earth common sense in his would-be apprentice.
Yet even with these different styles of personality, both Trump and Sugar respect the bottom-line more than the modern creed of diversity, minority quotas, and feminist affirmative action.
In an age of political correctness, quotas, and business-by-committee it is refreshing to observe these iconoclastic titans of commerce in action. The Apprentice is reality TV in the truest sense: it shows how business flourishes by respecting results – the real world – rather than ideology and PC theory.
Darren Blacksmith is the webmaster of www.cooltools4men.com
"This phrase is inevitably trotted out every time some "strong woman" needs to excuse her failure, which is usually due to pissing off everyone around her, male and female."
Wasn't Omarosa a "strong woman"?
I agree.
Who?
I watched a couple of episodes to laugh at the contestants. I believe it was last season. It featured an Asian woman who flashed her panties at men on the street for $20 a peek to help raise funds, and a black man who told her privately that he was siding with her against the other guy on the team. They ended up in the Board Room and when the black man saw the tide turning against the Asian woman, he backstabbed her and told Trump that she was dragging down the team. It was pretty funny seeing how slimey they would be for a chance to win.
First lesson in journalism school: don't lose all your credibility in the first eleven words. :-)
Does this have anything to do with the topic of the apprentice?
How about the one young woman that had some sort of breakdown or withdrawal reaction?
True, but I turned off the first series because I got tired of it being stacked in such a way that the women could use sex to win. They would be given tasks like selling lemonade on the street or running a bar. The men would have to use salesmanship to attract customers, while the women would put on low-cut minidresses or hot pants and sell a glass of lemonade for $5, with a kiss or a fake phone number tossed in. Whenever Trump would demand to know why the women made more money, I'd yell at the screen, "Because hot-looking young female prostitutes will always make more money than some guys running a lemonade stand!" About five weeks into it, Trump's female assistant finally reprimanded the women for acting and dressing like Times Square hookers, and then the results evened out and a man went on to win.
Believe what you will. Being professional, competant, and personable will get you much further in business than being "strong".
The old "men feel threatened by strong women" crap has been trotted out more often than Jesse Jackson uses the Race Card. And for exactly the same purpose: to close down the debate by slapping on a victim label. Men aren't threatened by strong women; men are resentful toward obnoxious jerks (of either sex).
In one season the women kept winning week after week after week. They must have won 6 times in a row. It really demoralized the men.
And didn't they look like father & son as they toddled off together, arm in arm? I swear, Branson looked like he had found a son. My impression of Branson week after week: weenie!
"First lesson in journalism school: don't lose all your credibility in the first eleven words." :-)
I think the author just wanted to start off with a catchy, upbeat, enthusiastic opening........just to attract the reader. A writer with enthusiasm for his subject doesn't blow his credibility for that feature alone. :)
It's not the enthusiasm that is the problem: its the admission that they have been 'absolutely captivated' by 'The Apprentice' that sinks it for me! ;-)
My "reality" foot!
Jus' as wrestling is "real".
I tried to watch it, can't stomach it. Back to Archie Bunker.
Well, I guess we know that Chris really is that edgy, and he didn't win.
I don't think any of us who follow that show were surprised to hear that he was arrested in FL for losing his cool. :-)
Some men, and some women, are threatened by a strong person of either gender. The "can't we all just get along" people hate leaders.
Thanks for spoiling the ending. Now I can't watch it anymore.
I think the blonde Mary Kaye saleswoman is going to win this season. They have to have a woman win this season. Whether it's right or wrong. She's very good.
I still liked that John guy who got canned a few weeks ago. He got overconfident though. I do like the woman you speak of. Competent, yet flies under the radar for the most part.
You're both right
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.