The Business of Feminism - Sexism within Episode 1 of The Apprentice 2014

Within the first 10 minutes of the opening episode of 2014’s new series of The Apprentice, I, as well as many others all over the country, was offended by the sharp sound of sexism penetrating my ear drums. As usual, the business-centred programme was filled with over-confident and, may I add, delusional contestants who believed they could “sell ice to eskimos”. The entertaining part of this show, and the reason why most of us tune in every week, is the precise moment when these self-obsessed competitors are knocked off of their high horses by Lord Sugar’s insults and the realisation that, in reality, they could not sell beer to an alcoholic. Actions speak louder than words, and yet despite this, the contestants keep talking! Of course, the more incompetent that the main offenders end up being in each task encourages viewers to celebrate as these ‘business’ men and women are made to eat their extremely vile words in the board room at the end of each episode. I thoroughly embraced this section of the episode on Tuesday, as particularly sexist contestants were mocked by Lord Sugar, the other contestants and undoubtedly the majority of viewers.

            The first instance of sexism, and pure conceit, was proudly executed by Daniel Lassman, the owner of a pub quiz company. The way that he chose to introduce himself to the 6.6 million viewers was by stating that he “can make women do whatever [he] wants in the business world”. To give him his due, he quickly followed this by claiming that he could also make “some men” do whatever he wanted to, however, this was clearly simply an afterthought presumably made to impress viewers. It did the absolute opposite. The very strong implication of this statement is that women are easier to fool, or at least more susceptible to the deceit of sales than men. Probably the most shocking aspect of this statement is that a high percentage of viewers would have found no issue with this claim, apart from the obvious self-indulgent element of it. How is it still acceptable in this day and age to make claims that women are weaker than men? It has been proven throughout history that women and men are equally as powerful when it comes to mental strength; we have a ruling Queen, and have had many great female monarchs in the past, we have magnificent female writers such as the up and coming author of Gone Girl, Gillian Flynn, not to mention endless successful and power-hungry female business women such as Kelly Hoppen, a ‘dragon’ on The Dragons’ Den, and The Apprentice’s very own Karren Brady. The fact that this list is even needed is insulting in itself as our history is full of amazing influential women, a list that is in fact endless. If Daniel is actually able to make people do whatever he wants within the business world, and I highly doubt he is, he surely is able to do this to all people, not just to one specific gender. Women are not more likely to fall for a salesman’s games, and are certainly not more naïve than men. Despite this fact, I daily encounter situations that insinuate that this is not believed by everyone. From walking down the street and being wolf whistled at like a dog, from being spoken over by male colleagues as if I had never spoken at all, from countless comments made by male drivers, none of whom have ever even been with me when I have been behind the steering wheel, stating that I cannot drive as well as them purely because I am female; this list also seems to be endless.

            For me, the scariest part of Daniel’s statement by far is the fact that it does hold some truth. Still in our society men are unjustly paid more than women, the percentage of male managers is far higher than female managers, and when a woman attends a job interview, interviewers take into consideration whether she is likely to get pregnant in the near future. These statistics show that we are giving men more power and more control than women purely because of their gender. This is, of course, not true for all businesses within the business world, but the issue is that the problem still exists. It may well be true that Daniel can control women in business, but this is not something to boast about, it is something to be disgusted with. I recently learnt that a new word has been coined; “mensplained”. This is the action of a male within a business explaining something to a female that she has already understood. This is not only a patronising action, but one that assumes authority, and worst of all, one that assumes weakness. The fact that a new term has been created certainly heightens the importance of this issue and should draw our attention to just how often this happens. Of course there is nothing wrong with a helping hand, but as a woman, I am very aware of the fact that gender is a factor when it comes to authority.

            Another issue I have with this statement is that Daniel is hinting at the fact that he is charming enough to ‘win over the ladies’. This indirectly suggests that all business women are suckers for men, and will do anything that is asked of them if an intelligent, business-minded, and average-looking (in Daniel‘s case anyway!) man is the one asking. I proudly speak for the majority of business women, and women in general, when I say that these aspects of a colleague or manager have absolutely no relevance to whether we do our jobs well or not, or complete a task that has been given to us. We, just like men, do our jobs for more important reasons than being in the ‘good books’ of a slimy chauvinist that may or may not be attractive to look at. For whatever reason that Daniel believes he can get women to do “whatever [he] wants”, it is certainly not because he is so desirable that all females bow to the floor and beg to be his slaves.

            I have always been a strong believer of gender equality, and I know full well that men are not the only culprits of entrapping females in false stereotypes. The second moment of blasphemy was when the poor-excuse of a woman Sarah Dales, an executive assistant for a top financial firm, commanded her female team members to wear short skirts and put on lots of make-up because “most people buy from females because females are more attractive to look at.” One of her team members boldly stated, “I didn’t bring any short skirts”, to which Sarah replied, “Hike it up”. I immediately shuddered with disappointment at two significantly unjust implications within this conversation. The first, of course, was Sarah’s statement that females are more attractive than males. This claim has absolutely no proof behind it as, of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder whether male or female. There are a strong percentage of people out there, including myself, who find men more attractive than women, but also a large amount of people who find women more attractive. Aside from this, making a sweeping statement about the entire gender, when some women are much more attractive than others (and the same with men of course), just shows the instability of the claim. Another issue with this false declaration, as discussed earlier, is the allegation that a sales representative’s attractiveness solely determines whether they are a good salesperson. Surely if this is true, as both Sarah and Daniel have implied, they are undermining not only themselves but the entire show that they so desperately wish to win, as there is no business knowledge or ability needed in looking good. It seems that they both think they are on Britain’s Next Top Model.

            The next issue I have with this exchange is the strong implication that women can only look good if they are wearing lots of make-up, high heels and short skirts. Sarah continued to prove how caught up she is in a man’s world by saying “let’s half of us go dressed up, the rest of us semi-average.” It is insulting that she has publicly claimed that women look “semi-average” if they are not “dressed up”. Women have been repressed by the myth of what is seen as beautiful in accordance to men (see The Beauty Myth, Naomi Woolf) for so long and Sarah has completely bought into it. Women should be free to look how they want to look and not have to dress themselves up as somebody else. Not only this, but they should certainly not have to pretend to be somebody else in order to be successful within the business world. Lauren Riley, a solicitor specialising in family law, rightly objected to Sarah’s demand that the all-female team expose their legs and plaster themselves in lipstick in order to sell by exclaiming, “We’re serious business women!”

            The complications that lie within these sexist allegations now arise in the questioning of why Sarah felt this way. It is true that she does not give women a good name, and it is true that her ‘strategy’ was insulting and oppressing to women. However, she lives in a world where ‘beautiful’ women who are ‘portrayed’ as getting what they want, and I must emphasise they are only ‘portrayed’ as this, wear skimpy clothes and hide their ‘flaws’ with cover-up make-up. We are constantly told by the media that women need to dress up as dolls to look good and to fit into the role that they are supposed to undertake, as if being naturally who they are is not enough. We are fed lies that the women who take time and effort over their hair, nails and make up will be more likely to get what they want whether this is socially, academically, in their love life or, of course, in the business world. On top of this, we are taught that women who show signs of promiscuity are desirable, allowing them to take control over how they get what they want. In reality, whether this works or not, women should not be forced to become sexual objects, as Sarah is asking of her team, in order to be successful. The request is dehumanising and insulting, and something that would never have been asked of the male team. Sarah’s view of how a woman can gain success simply reflects the world that she lives in. The world that I live in, and the world that you live in. What needs to change, fundamentally, is the viewpoint of the rest of the world, not just of this BBC reality TV contestant.