The Apprentice: why the winners a female

[Matt99]

"From the boardroom
By SAIRA KHAN, Daily Mail 14:26pm 4th May 2006

Here last year's runner-up Saira Khan explains why The Apprentice finalists should use every trick in the book - including their sex...

Here's a word of advice to men on the dating scene. Forget corny chat-up lines. If you want to impress women, be prepared to talk productivity, profitability and performance.

The Old Boys network has withered on the vine, and these days the jobs are increasingly for the girls. So I'm not surprised to find the two finalists in TV's The Apprentice are female. We don't need Sir Alan Sugar to tell us that women rule the roost at home and in the workplace.

Saira Khan

Saira Khan: Women rule the boardroom

The facts are black and white - girls do better at school than boys; more women than men are getting degrees; and women are filling job vacancies far faster than men.

Small wonder, then, that according to The Economist - the bible of free market capitalism - women are becoming the most important factor in the global marketplace, not just as workers, but as consumers, entrepreneurs, managers and investors.

How have we become the Mistresses of the Universe? The simple truth is women are multi-taskers and work harder than men. This makes us far more productive and efficient.

Not only that, but women are in touch with their emotions, making us far better at people skills and therefore building the teams that are the bedrock of business success.

My mother

You don't need to be a captain of industry to see this. Take my mother as an example.

For more than ten years, she'd wake every day at 5am at our home in Long Eaton, Derbyshire, make sandwiches for four children and a husband, walk five miles to work in a factory, finish at 5.30pm, come home and cook dinner, clean, wash, iron, and go to bed at 10pm.

At weekends, she did the food shopping and caught up on the chores. Mum made all the key decisions about what we ate, wore and did.

Dad's routine, by contrast, was less hectic. He'd get up, drive to work, get back at 5.30pm, have his dinner served up, then head upstairs where he'd find his shirts ironed and the bed made. I don't think I ever saw him do the washing up.

I love my father to bits, and he certainly wasn't a chauvinist - his behaviour was typical of his generation. But even as a girl, I remember thinking: "Men have it so easy." And as I've grown up and entered the workplace, I've seen nothing to change that opinion.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a braburning feminist. I believe people should be rewarded on their merit and performance - gender should not even come into the equation.

But in reality, women know that while we may, indeed, work far harder than men, if we want to break through the glass ceiling we have to use a secret weapon: our seductive charms.

Michelle, one of the finalists in The Apprentice, is a great example of that. She charmed her way into the final by seducing three men in a shamelessly girly way, wrapping her core of steel in a kittenish exterior. Good on her, I say. Sometimes a girl just has to do what a girl has to do.

When I applied for The Apprentice, I took off my engagement ring and didn't mention I was planning a wedding. I wanted to be judged on my ability, not my personal life.

I didn't want Sir Alan to think: "Well, what's the point of giving her the job...she's 34, she's getting married and she'll want babies. She'll be a bad investment." No amount of sexual equality legislation will shift those preconceptions. And it's not just male bigotry. Female managers are just as bad - eyeing up potential recruits to see if their personal life will diminish their professional commitment.

Women work harder

The result? Women work harder to prove themselves. That's as true for the contestants in The Apprentice as it is in real life. And it works.

In our desperation to compete and to overcome barriers, we become the high achievers. Discrimination breeds determination. That's not to condone old-fashioned attitudes. I've never understood why assertive women are labelled aggressive, hard-nosed dragons, while tough men are called strong leaders and given a pat on the back.

And why is it that when a woman is promoted, the knee-jerk response of male colleagues is to wonder if she's sleeping with the boss?

Perhaps it's because those attitudes still prevail that increasing numbers of women are turning their backs on big business and setting up on their own as entrepreneurs.

They're not always household names (businessmen are far more interested in self-promotion) but goodness, they've worked hard for their success: women such as Christian Rucker of the White Company and Chey Garland, a former secretary who owns one of Britain's biggest call centre companies with a turnover of £28million a year.

I've thrived under a female boss. Women do things differently: they can be sacking an employee one minute and the next be putting their arm around your shoulder because your cat has died. Both situations require an intuitive understanding men simply aren't equipped with.

Many men might be feeling threatened by all this: women in the boardroom, women winning The Apprentice...how long before Sir Alan fires himself and a woman takes his place?

Don't panic, chaps. Take a look at our figures (not those ones, you Neanderthal). Statistics have shown the more women who succeed at work, the better it will be for the economy. And surely that's good news - whatever sex you are. "



there was a comments section at the bottom of this. the two comments on  there already seemed pretty fair to me. i posted:

"frankly i am insulted and appauled that you feel as a man i don't possess an "intuitive understanding" of anything, and that you believe i am some sort of conspiring network of penises, that has somehow erected a glass ceiling against all of womankind.

More women do better in schools because the education system has undergone several changes to benefit underachieving girls in recent years, at the detrement to boys education. Its not like women are suddenly evolving and becoming smarter.

oh and thankyou for reffering to me as a "Neanderthal" this whitty comment made me laugh (I can understand humour slightly as a man), and helped me realise that your argument isn't about me being a poor useless monkey, and is actually highly rational and informed.

oh no wait..."

somehow i dont think it will be put on the site , if enough people post (with more rational opinions) im sure some will get through


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=385127&in_page_id=1879

[Sir Percy]

What a hay-stack full of straw men.

[SIAM]

I saw the first series when I was in the UK.  Saira Khan - loud, obnoxious, not an ounce of wit or intelligence about her.   She finished runner-up, why? Because The Apprentice is an entertainment program.  She would have been fired within the first few weeks if the producer hadn't realised that the best candidates don't make the best TV.

She was in tears on more than one occasion when things didn't go her way - she got into verbal fights constantly with other members - hardly what I'd call 'boardroom material'.

Next time you hear her speak, note the limited vocabulary also. She speaks in rote cliche, as if she has no original thoughts in her head.  

And now she is giving us men the 'news' that somehow women like herself have scaled the heights of the business world through their guile and intelligence.  Don't make me laugh.  She needs to stop pretending The Apprentice is some kind of accurate gauge that measures what is happening up and down the UK.  An entertainment show like that has more in common with an acting school than a successful business.

[SIAM]

Statistics have shown the more women who succeed at work, the better it will be for the economy. And surely that's good news - whatever sex you are

LOL.  'Statistics have shown' is shorthand for "This bit's made up because I want it to be true, but...".

Don't get me wrong. I am not a braburning feminist. I believe people should be rewarded on their merit and performance - gender should not even come into the equation.

OK, you're not a braburning feminist. Let's see what kind of feminist you are then..... :twisted:

Michelle, one of the finalists in The Apprentice, is a great example of that. She charmed her way into the final by seducing three men in a shamelessly girly way, wrapping her core of steel in a kittenish exterior. Good on her, I say. Sometimes a girl just has to do what a girl has to do.

.....an a la carte feminist!

You were talking about merit and performance being rewarded....now you're talking about the non-meritocracy of good looks and having a vagina.  

And why is it that when a woman is promoted, the knee-jerk response of male colleagues is to wonder if she's sleeping with the boss?

Ummm, hypocrite much?

When I applied for The Apprentice, I took off my engagement ring and didn't mention I was planning a wedding. I wanted to be judged on my ability, not my personal life.

LOL - now we're back to appeals for a meritocracy.  

Perhaps it's because those attitudes still prevail that increasing numbers of women are turning their backs on big business and setting up on their own as entrepreneurs.

Rubbish.  I have often said here, as an appeal to feminists, why not set-up your own businesses if you're discriminated against as an employee? Here's the truth:-

Men are more likely than women to be self-employed - 73 per cent of the 3 million self-employed people in spring 2001 were male.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=11

I would be astonished if those figures have changed radically in 5 years.

Anyway, there clearly is an 'entertainment' agenda to the article.  I can see her editor saying : "Look, I want a real GRRRL POWER article - don't hold back - we have two female finalists on The Apprentice - make sure you rip into men - no holds barred".

[realman]

Oh YEAH! Stroke my ego AGAIN baby!!!! YESSS! :twisted:

They say the most imprtant sex organ is the brain... for women I'm starting to think this is true, but not for the reaons I once thought.

Or maybe it IS the same reason... "god your so hot and sexy and pretty and I love you and I wanna serve you and make you happy for the rest of your life" really doesn't sound all that far off from "you women are the best thing since sliced bread," does it?

[hansside]

he he this myth about multitasking being promoted again - there is not a shred of evidence that women are better multitaskers than men.

[workingmom]

Anyway, there clearly is an 'entertainment' agenda to the article.  I can see her editor saying : "Look, I want a real GRRRL POWER article - don't hold back - we have two female finalists on The Apprentice - make sure you rip into men - no holds barred".

That is exactly what is going on.  The editor wants to provoke controversy by publishing a smirky anti-male article promoting female sexual power.  It is total crap.  Why play into their hands?  Ignore it.  The woman is an idiot... nuff said.

[Malakas]

That is exactly what is going on. The editor wants to provoke controversy by publishing a smirky anti-male article promoting female sexual power. It is total crap. Why play into their hands? Ignore it. The woman is an idiot... nuff said.

Ignore it workingmom? We would if we could. Do you know how many times a day we have to listen to this crap? Do you understand how much feminized governments subscribe to it and promote it?

Sorry, I forgot to say 'Welcome'.

[Gerard Velthuis]

and women are filling job vacancies far faster than men.

Because women (much) more often settle for a part-time job!

women are becoming the most important factor in the global marketplace, not just as workers, but as consumers, entrepreneurs, managers and investors.

Most important??
Why most important? Do they have so many great things that men don't have? No! There are also "bad" sides / disadvantages to a woman, of course this never is stressed. Nowdays women are being promoted as being better AT EVERYTHING than men
So not true

the simple truth is women are multi-taskers and work harder than men.

The multi-tasking I will not go into here. But women working harder than men??? Where the hell does she get this from??
Men work more hours a week, men also do all the dirty and un-appreciated work of the world. Men more often more 40+ weeks
What nonsense she dares to say a thing like this.

But in reality, women know that while we may, indeed, work far harder than men

Again such rubbish. She doesn't even say just harder. No, FAR harder

And why is it that when a woman is promoted, the knee-jerk response of male colleagues is to wonder if she's sleeping with the boss?

She just said that women should use their charms (see article). Plus she also says how proud she is this female finalists charmed away 3 male competitors. Wow, weird that people think a woman must have slept with the boss...

 
Anyway, this article just disgusts me.

IMHO said:

"Look, I want a real GRRRL POWER article - don't hold back - we have two female finalists on The Apprentice - make sure you rip into men - no holds barred".

Workingman said:

The editor wants to provoke controversy by publishing a smirky anti-male article promoting female sexual power.

I agree so much with workingman and IMHO.
Just a typical: women-rule-the-world, men-suck-at-everything article
How much longer do we have to read such "crap"???

[Gerard Velthuis]

Look nowadays, I just don't think they will ever allow two makes to win.
No matter how good they are. One should ALWAYS be female. Period!
It is just very PC, and they don't want to look that they might be discriminating towards women.
The last situation the two winners were a man and a woman right??

Anyway, so there are two option:

either:

1) female, 2) male

or

1) female, 2) female


If they took a male and a female again, it might look too much like a pattern. So now they choose female - female
(male - male is simply not done)

[hansside]

... both finalists are female, so why the female against male angle. If anything females should realize that the compete as much against eachother as against males. It is really individuals against individuals.

It is just that they are pandering to the everinflating egos. Normally it is anatema to claim superiority of one sex - unless it is females over males.

All quite predictable.

Anyway if they are so naturally superior, why then this constant need to put men down ?

It quite clearly presents the naive relativism of the weak. Really strong people are strong be getting ahead on a absolute scale improving themselves all the time. Weak ones only get relatively ahead by pushing other down. Bully tactics of the weak.

[Somebody else]

I've watched the US version of The Apprentice. This latest round they announced that the contestants - think game show - were selected from over one million applicants.

As I watched the show progress, I kept thinking, from a million applicants this is the best businesspeople they could find? I seriously doubt it.

As IMHO said, it is entertainment, plain and simple. Good business doesn't make interesting TV. They are looking for the most wacked-out personalities so the show has conflict and drama.

[SIAM]

Anyway if they are so naturally superior, why then this constant need to put men down ?

....and Saira Khan certainly isn't a heavyweight intellect.  She considers shouting to be talking (quite literally), and constructs entire sentences using only cliches and conjunctions.  Everything about her is phony. I wouldn't be surprised if she was coin-operated and one of Sir Alan's new inventions.

[Daymar]

I made it this far:

"The facts are black and white - girls do better at school than boys; more women than men are getting degrees; and women are filling job vacancies far faster than men. "

So... I guess she doesn't know that men used to get better grades and more degrees and more of the jobs...?

How can a human be this stupid. Seriously... I guess the ability to talk doesn't mean you're intelligent.