[the truth]

Then the 2 men must conspire to accuse her of misandry and sexism in order to save their bacon
they must manage to cry too and play the victim during the task they must try to ensure it gets caught on camera when they ask a question and don't get an immediate answer..they must then stare down the camera lens like bambi with a black eye , knowing how easily manipulatable the dumbed down audience can be

they must constantly moan to the camera at every opportunity how totally useless the team leader is, without showing one tiny bit of any support, any team work nor any contribution to the team

just say enough nasty things so the mud sticks and the studio audience buy it and that eejiot dara Obrien can go for the obvious gags in his oh so predictable post apprentice schtick

in the boardroom , distract from the fact you did nothing on the task, nor that in terms of entrepreneurship you've really done almost nothing in business?.......then suddenly start acting disgusted and ensure eyes water to show sugar how passionate you are...(tears of selfish greed not passion for business that's for sure).......then of course throw in the sexism card

wail away shes a man hater sir alan , she ignored me all task because she thinks all us men are Neanderthals who think with our willies

this is pretty much what happened last night and the majority of politically correct brainwashed brits fell for each and every crocodile tear.....of course the 2 fakers wont even be in business in 5 years time, they'll be doing the usual celebrity thing.....but heyho at least 1 entrepreneur can be destroyed in the process

this is yet another example of why our economy is down the toilet....clueless

[Shaun]

I'm a bit concerned by the show's approach to gender politics in general.

Largely because of Alan Sugar. Refuse to call him a lord. His comment "you know what women are like" was very revealing - it wasn't cute, it wasn't funny, it was derogatory and condescending. I think he's a thick, ignorant man who got lucky in a time when PC workplaces weren't enforced.

That said, I don't understand what Zeeshaan did, and this week's episode of "You're Fired" angered me. The woman that wasn't Myles Jupp or Nikki Chapman (I believe she worked with hotels) had a huge chip on her shoulder over Zeeshaan's attitude to women. I didn't see enough in the show to justify that: he made a foolish boardroom decision but I think he was influenced by the process (she'd been in the bottom 3 before, and hadn't done anything impressive) rather than dismissive of her gender.

But what really angered me is when Dara brought up the other contestants and specifically: Myles. She made a comment about how smooth he was, and how she hoped her husband wasn't watching, and Nikki continued this and said he was very easy on the eye.

Can you imagine the furore if a panel of men on You're Fired just started talking about how "easy on the eye" one of the female candidates were? It's double standards, entirely. But because men don't have a history of being persecuted or unequal, it's perceived as acceptable.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I'm a bit concerned by the show's approach to gender politics in general.

Largely because of Alan Sugar. Refuse to call him a lord. His comment "you know what women are like" was very revealing - it wasn't cute, it wasn't funny, it was derogatory and condescending. I think he's a thick, ignorant man who got lucky in a time when PC workplaces weren't enforced.

That said, I don't understand what Zeeshaan did, and this week's episode of "You're Fired" angered me. The woman that wasn't Myles Jupp or Nikki Chapman (I believe she worked with hotels) had a huge chip on her shoulder over Zeeshaan's attitude to women. I didn't see enough in the show to justify that: he made a foolish boardroom decision but I think he was influenced by the process (she'd been in the bottom 3 before, and hadn't done anything impressive) rather than dismissive of her gender.

But what really angered me is when Dara brought up the other contestants and specifically: Myles. She made a comment about how smooth he was, and how she hoped her husband wasn't watching, and Nikki continued this and said he was very easy on the eye.

Can you imagine the furore if a panel of men on You're Fired just started talking about how "easy on the eye" one of the female candidates were? It's double standards, entirely. But because men don't have a history of being persecuted or unequal, it's perceived as acceptable.

agreed....double standards galore and the studio audience lapped it up...............also who SHOUTED in the boardroom? Natalie.....disgusting......her allegations were a disgrace, why was she allowed to scream like that? meanwhile leah blamed neil for the kandoura yet she was stood next to him and said nothing? neil honestly at least admitted taking some responsibility for that.....Id even go so far as to say some of the assumptions made about zee being sexist felt like he was being stereotyped as a woman hating muslim.

[Joelle.]

I totally agree Shaun about the shows gender politics.

Going back to Stella's series, the week she was put in charge of the boys team, she had them eating out of her hands, completely dominated them. If there was any sign of a man in Stella's position commanding a team of women, everyone would be screaming 'sexism'. Well, the entire principle of Loose Women NOT being a minefield for Ofcom sort of proves this, as did the patronising cow on You're Fired.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Juan_Sheet

I totally agree Shaun about the shows gender politics.

Going back to Stella's series, the week she was put in charge of the boys team, she had them eating out of her hands, completely dominated them. If there was any sign of a man in Stella's position commanding a team of women, everyone would be screaming 'sexism'. Well, the entire principle of Loose Women NOT being a minefield for Ofcom sort of proves this, as did the patronising cow on You're Fired.

100% agreed......dara was a coward too imho......
careful though as you may get verbally abused for airing this opinion as I was earlier.....supposedly Im just saying this and pointing out the total double standards just to be different? yeah righto....these double standards have gotten way way way out of control throughout british society

[Bluerang1]

If this is referring to Zee he definitely had a problem with women. Bringing Natalie over Neil, and hence making it the only 2 women in the team, proves it.

[Shaun]

yeah, and the fact they were both white means he has a problem with white people too

[MrWong]

There were a couple of incidents that hinted to Zee's sexism.

The 'come on boys... Oh and you' remark.
When he let the door slam in girls face.
Completely sidelining Natalie and ignoring her request to look for potential businesses in the phone book.
Then on You're Fired he tried to blame Leah for buying the wrong robe... because she was sub team leader. -___-

However the biggest red flag regarding his sexism was bringing Leah/Nat into the boardroom instead of Neil/Kurt. Who were both responsible for task losing decisions - Flag dimensions and wrong robe.

[GiRTh]

If a woman took two men into the board room over two women - who had made mistakes - she would leave herself open to the sexism charge. I doubt anyone would actually make that accusation that's but how it is.

I don't agree with Zee being accused of sexism. I personally think the show was cut to show him in such a light, but he let it happen without the first clue what he was walking into. His justification for picking Natalie was just as tactical as Leah's constant objections throughout the task but disruption is now the 'go to' tactic in the Apprentice. I've been saying it all season - Its a sorry state of affairs when whinging and making trouble gets you further than trying to unite the team. I suppose someone somewhere thinks whinging and arguing makes good TV but I personally don't agree.

If we want to discuss how society is going down the toilet; that's far too big a debate for this forum with these forum members.

[Vanessa]

I read that wrong. I thought it was " a woman takes two men to the bedroom".

[Marc]

The only thing that concerned me from that episode was the fact that Zeeshaan wanted to speak to Neil and not Leah, it's pretty petty to not want to speak to Leah because she seems confident. Perhaps he did have some issue with strong women? Who knows.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

If a woman took two men into the board room over two women - who had made mistakes - she would leave herself open to the sexism charge. I doubt anyone would actually make that accusation that's but how it is.

I don't agree with Zee being accused of sexism. I personally think the show was cut to show him in such a light, but he let it happen without the first clue what he was walking into. His justification for picking Natalie was just as tactical as Leah's constant objections throughout the task but disruption is now the 'go to' tactic in the Apprentice. I've been saying it all season - Its a sorry state of affairs when whinging and making trouble gets you further than trying to unite the team. I suppose someone somewhere thinks whinging and arguing makes good TV but I personally don't agree.

If we want to discuss how society is going down the toilet; that's far too big a debate for this forum with these forum members.

Think we are not up to debating the greater questions do you Girth

[fruit_cake]

I thought Zee probably brought Natalie and Leah back to the boardroom as he mistakenly thought Natalie was an easy target and Leah was an obvious choice as she had given him the most problems and obviously there was a personality clash right from the beginning.

I felt the way he spoke and silenced Natalie in the car was disgusting, I'm really glad she spoke up for herself later on in the boardroom although she probably went a little far with the accusations.

LS probably saved Natalie because for once she showed a bit of passion and fire all of this 'she cried her way out of it' is just such rot!....Zee goofed his way out of it [the show] is more how I'd sum it up.

[Cherie]

There were aspects to Zee's attitude which did seem to point to him being sexist, however I suspect some of that is down to the edit rather than anything else. I think he brought Natalie back because she had been in the bottom 3 before and Sugar referred to this I think before Zee made his decision, I could be wrong though. He brought Leah back as she was the leader of the sub team, candidates have made mistakes before but haven't ended up in the boardroom, I think a big deal was made of it in the interests of "entertainment" haven't watched Your Fired yet this series so can't comment. The writing was on the wall for Zee though when he told Leah to throw away the map of Dubai...

[GiRTh]

I think some forum members can be a bit irrational. They seem to think they are living in the 1950's and instead of embracing the changes in society they simply object to absolutely every single thing and see some kind of marginalisation in every single situation saying society has gone down the toilet. Mentioning no names or course.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I think some forum members can be a bit irrational. They seem to think they are living in the 1950's and instead of embracing the changes in society they simply object to absolutely every single thing and see some kind of marginalisation in every single situation saying society has gone down the toilet. Mentioning no names or course.

Excellent point, that is the case on many issues. There is no substance to the claim that if a woman brought 2 men back to the boardroom it would be sexist, however if that woman had shown as much disregard for her male colleagues then that's different.
One comment zee made that stood out for me was his opinion of who should win, lisle as she looked good running around in her nightclothes.
Are these the comments that professional business people should be making?

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by Cherie

The writing was on the wall for Zee though when he told Leah to throw away the map of Dubai...

I agree, that was such a silly thing to do. Even if you know the city really well in a big city like Dubai you probably still need a map if you're looking for things. Frankly Zee didn't give me the impression he knew the city well anyway.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Bluerang1

If this is referring to Zee he definitely had a problem with women. Bringing Natalie over Neil, and hence making it the only 2 women in the team, proves it.

they lost nearly every task, leah contributed nothing, she demanded she be sub team leader without a vote and led them to utter failure, her team brought back just 1 product, she was stood next to neil when they bought the wrong kandoura, then she used the rest of the show to play to the cameras pour hatred on her team leader..

zee won more tasks, he performed better on this task as he brought in more products, he haggled prices lower as he asked to speak to the bosses, zee has infinitely more business and entrepreneurial experience, leah has virtually none , same for Natalie who is a failed jazz singer ? he at least has a £500,000 property business.

despite the failure of leah as sub team leader, he still only lost by a small margin due to leahs team not finding enough products.....the other sub team found the oudh themselves, why didn't leah? she failed to ring around enough people and ask enough questions, she spent way too much time being negative and talking to camera

at the first phone chat between her and zee she told him to shut up as she didn't have time to talk....disgusting attitude, shes no team player at all
she then went straight to camera and said id be a better team leader, she proved she couldn't have been as she was a useless sub team leader

Natalie simply has done nothing for 5 weeks....shes contributed almost nothing, she then started screaming in the boardroom and making false allegations.....very unprofessional and nasty and utterly untrue.....her and leah don't have a snowballs chance in a firestorm of becoming sugars business partner

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Excellent point, that is the case on many issues. There is no substance to the claim that if a woman brought 2 men back to the boardroom it would be sexist, however if that woman had shown as much disregard for her male colleagues then that's different.
One comment zee made that stood out for me was his opinion of who should win, lisle as she looked good running around in her nightclothes.
Are these the comments that professional business people should be making?

I agree its time they brought leah back in from the 1950s and tried to get her to understand that EVERYONE deserves to be treated with respect including men and that people get judged ultimately on their attitude and performance....both hers were dreadful

[the truth]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

I agree, that was such a silly thing to do. Even if you know the city really well in a big city like Dubai you probably still need a map if you're looking for things. Frankly Zee didn't give me the impression he knew the city well anyway.

he didn't mean it literally, anyone would get lost in Dubai at some stage....if leah was stupid enough to actually throw her map away then more fool her for being so weak minded

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by the truth

I agree its time they brought leah back in from the 1950s and tried to get her to understand that EVERYONE deserves to be treated with respect including men and that people get judged ultimately on their attitude and performance....both hers were dreadful

It was Natalie who first made the sexism argument, Leah then joined in. Nat has lost all five tasks so far and resorted to dodgy tactics in the BR she deserves as much of your venom as Leah.

[MTVN]

Ah yes the 50s, that notorious time when women never showed any respect to men

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Ah yes the 50s, that notorious time when women never showed any respect to men

[the truth]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Ah yes the 50s, that notorious time when women never showed any respect to men

so all men were evil in the 1950s and all women were good? lol


yeah but if you dig behind daily mail headlines youll realise that theres good and bad everywhere and theres just as many bad woman as men...lies about who is the father of the children were always told......the abuse that women impose on men usually goes unreported but when the information is gathered, the share of domestic violence is pretty much 50/50 Im sure that was just the same in the 1950s as it is today....

Im amazed that you actually fell for this token feminism in this episode where the desperate under-performing canddiates grasped at the last straw of making a false allegation of sexism.....that's incredibly naïve.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

It was Natalie who first made the sexism argument, Leah then joined in. Nat has lost all five tasks so far and resorted to dodgy tactics in the BR she deserves as much of your venom as Leah.

they can share the venom they were a disgrace