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
I have supervised many teams of people. Men really do play "team" better than women. When put together, as a group, women are vicious backstabbers.
When in a review session, women will inevitably bring up the salaries of their coworkers, and often degrade their coworkers in order to make themselves look better. Men tend to defend their productivity.
Both traits are useful to a good manager, and I realize I am generalizing, but there is a definate, definable difference between the sexes in the work force.
Only milquetoast men, cyborg! A strong man puts a strong woman to work, marries her, and has eight children, who eventually grow-up, and kick their parents out (in an enormous monetary retirement)!
The kids run it - the parents buy a large sailboat, and enjoy the fruits of their labours and loins!
At least, that's what I hoped would happen. Reality was a bit different..............FRegards
An annoying chick from the first (I think) season of The Apprentice.
You believe whatever you want to as well.
Sure they can, just not as effectively.
Therein lies the difference: the American will pick himself up, dust himself off, learn from the mistakes, take whatever wins he did have and run with those. I'm betting nearly every "loser" on The Apprentice has landed a very lucrative position.
Offing the almost-but-not-quite-best is not condusive to "survival of the fittest".
Just about every American reality show has its roots in british or european television. Survivor, big brother, millionaire, weakest link, american idol, all have british versions that were on air long before ours.
I am impressed at his control in his last few episodes. Every thing trump says he doesnt like he has attempted to change. Hate the fact that he's lost six times in a row. He did blow a gasket, sort of, in the first episode, when they renovated the hotel in Jersey.
Omarosa was TOO strong. She became overbearing, unbending, and her teammates refused to work with her.
Tana is the best of the show this year. She has kept her people on task at all times and has kept the team together. She has done an excellent job. I think it will come down to her and Bryn, the southern lawyer guy, who has won a couple times on his own but has also been an excellent team player.
Okay, here is what I believe. It is based on working with, being supervised by, and supervising a variety of people of both sexes.
If you are having trouble in the business place because the people you work with consider you a flaming Hillary on wheels, while you chalk it up to resentment or "fear" of your "strength", it's time to check your assumptions.
Maybe you are right, and your workplace compatriots are jealous juveniles who lack your competence and can't see past your gender. Maybe, OTOH, they have you pegged.
Sure, there are a few wild boars of the chauvinist variety in the corporate forests, but they are outnumbered by the vicious she-wolves by quite a few. and "fear of my feminine strength" has become code for "why can't these worthless cro-magnons acknowledge my clear superiority?" When strengths are used to help the team, benefit the company, and fill the needs of the position, they are rarely resented. But when they are used to self-promote, back-stab and achieve personal goals at the expense of coworkers and subordinates, they are rightly feared. The sex of the jerk has nothing to do with it.
A woman doesn't have to be a 'Hillary' type in order to have some men feel threatened by a woman who knows what she's doing. You seem want to believe that it's all a woman's fault first and anytime a woman points out sexism in the workplace, they're somehow on the level of civil rights activists. I never spoke about myself but I've heard professional career woman say this and they're not bitches either. I'll say that women are their own worst enemy. It's bad enough there are men who are sexist and don't want to work with women, but women are usually worse and especially conservative women I find who are so quick to point out how politically incorrect they are, like to trash other women so they don't look like feminazis.
agreed
Not this Texan.
That's why you're one of my favorites :-)
I agree with your assessment. But we can't forget that it was Bryn who came up with that HORRIBLE idea for the soap commercial!!!! She's gonna win.
that'll be why he loses. Trump will bring that up, he'll be at a loss for an excuse, and Tana will win.
I have long since concluded that some women cannot abide the existence of strong men.
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.