The Apprentice has already come up with a brilliant definition of irony, where team leader Dan exploded with the phrase “have some f***ing patience!”. Also amusing was Stuart’s online audition video, in which he noted that his drive comes from being alive, because “there’re so many people that aren’t alive, or who have died, unfortunately”. It’s safe to say the nation’s business acumen will be vastly improved by following the example of this year’s crop of contestants.

Having said that, one or two participants have been genuinely impressive. In the second week, one of the women, Stella, was asked to lead the men’s team. Her leadership was far superior to that of the majority of previous Apprentice contestants, and she led the team to success. This was particularly notable considering the discrimination and prejudice that women still face in the workplace, especially in business environments. She showed not only that women are as good as men in business, but that they can lead a team of men with strength and clarity.

Unfortunately, while the men did function well under her leadership, and generally respected her, one incident involving some of the team members represented just how hard women still have to fight to achieve the same respect and privileges as men. The team had designed an item to be used on the beach. For very little apparent reason, the three-man subgroup decided that it would be better to have a female model on the packet than to have a male model. Thus, they decided that Stella should be the model. They asked her over the phone, and she quite rightly stated that her role was to lead the team, as opposed to being a model, and was reasonably clear that it was not something she particularly wanted to do. Yes, she said she would do it if she really had to, but it was clear this was more of an attempted concession to team work and possibly peer pressure than a genuine choice. The group of three team members responded to her comments that she did not want to model by going shopping for a bikini for her to wear.

Again the issue was addressed, and again Stella was reticent. But the men would not relinquish their pressure, one of them stating that she should “take one for the team”, and eventually she accepted. The only positive was that they had bought an outfit which covered a comparatively large portion of her torso, but frankly this did nothing to compensate for the pressure and misogyny driving the scenario.

And so a talented woman, whose leadership skills were commended by Alan Sugar himself, was pressured into taking her clothes off to sell the product of the team that she was managing.

This sort of thing happens all the time throughout advertising and the wider media, but it is perhaps even more shocking in this instance because it was both readily acknowledged by her team mates, and implicitly condoned by Alan Sugar and his aides, that her gender was the sole reason she was being asked to remove her clothes. The Apprentice begins its series with equal numbers of men and women, and it has crowned a number of women among its winners, yet as this example shows, even females with the most powerful and intelligent minds are still expected to use their bodies in the pursuit of success. 

- Lizzy

Beyond Eminen and Rihanna

Last month I wrote a blog post about “Love the Way You Lie” by Rihanna and Eminem. While its relative positives and negatives are a matter for debate, the one thing that everyone agrees on is that the song, and accompanying video, are anything but subtle. In many ways this is a positive thing – keeping domestic violence hidden underneath stigma and social norms isolates victim-survivors and allows the British government to get away with providing pitiful levels of support for such a critical and widespread human rights issue. But on the other hand, it is possible to raise awareness of domestic violence without enlisting confusing sexual representations of the victim-survivor’s situation. I’ve come across a couple of examples of this, in “Witchcraft” by Pendulum, and “Sweet Sixteen” by Feeder.

The lyrics of “Witchcraft” appear, to me, to represent the singer’s longing for his female friend(?)’s escape from an abusive relationship, and his desire to help her to do this. It gives a subtle insight into the mechanisms of control involved in domestic violence, “caught in a cellphone’s rays”, “pleading on the sofa”, but similarly it does not shy away from a clearer picture of abuse, “bleeding on reaction”. In the last verse the singer finds his friend in darkness in the bedroom - he “can’t hear her breathing”.

In my opinion, this song deals with the horrific realities of domestic violence in a respectful way, without sensationalism. The singer clearly has a lot of respect for the woman he is singing about.  Indeed it seems as though, *shock horror*, he actually cares about her as a friend – the lyrics never mention a romantic element to his concern. He longs for her freedom because he is concerned about her, not because he wants her for himself. This in itself is a refreshing alternative to the usual way that songs deal with male/female relationships – it manages not to fall into one of the typical restrictive categories (lust, love, and break ups).

Feeder’s “Sweet Sixteen” tells the story of a girl (possibly aged 16), who is caught in an abusive relationship. She is “afraid” of her partner, who “impos[es]” himself upon her and “work[s] her like a dog”. As with the Pendulum song, the (male) singer clearly cares about the woman in the lyrics, and is keen for her escape. Nevertheless, he is not ignorant of the difficulties faced by women who wish to get out of such situations. Both songs highlight the desire for the woman’s freedom, yet do not place any blame or expectation upon the person herself.  

The lyrics of these songs clearly support, and to an extent focus upon, the reality of a life beyond the abuse. In light of Rihanna and Eminem’s much publicised work, in which Rihanna’s character “like[s] the way it hurts” , it is encouraging to hear songs which address the issue of domestic violence with respect and a hope for change.  

Dealing with disability

Society has a problem with disability, whether the disability be physical, mental, or both. For the time being I’m going to resist discussing the issues faced by people with mental health problems, as I’m genuinely concerned that if I begun to address it, I wouldn’t be able to stop talking (typing) until next week. I’m planning on going to Alton Towers on Wednesday and wouldn’t want to miss it.

The underlying prejudices regarding physical disability are highlighted in the media, especially via comedians’ jokes. Don’t get me wrong, I am in the camp which thinks that the vast majority of serious topics *can* be funny if dealt with correctly, the key usually being to avoid laughing at someone else’s difficulties or at the individual themselves. The BBC's "Ouch!" website is good at this – one of my favourite comments being “when you illegally park in a disabled parking spot, is it because you think that disabled people don’t exist or that you don’t exist?” Unfortunately a lot of comedians don’t seem able to make the distinction between comedy and disablism. Jimmy Carr, for example, informed his audience that when he saw a sign for a disabled toilet that read “Disabled, out of order”, he thought “I know what ‘disabled’ means thanks.” To me, this “joke” has very little comedy value, as it is doing nothing but claim that himself and everybody else who is able bodied is correctly functioning, while disabled people are some sort of sub-species. If I’m being pedantic, the complexities of the human body and mind are such that the only valid categorisation of the concept would be that the “out of order” person was indeed dead. And then they wouldn’t need a toilet.