No one said that! My point is that because there are still women in the game who could win so it's too soon to call.
Originally Posted by justvisiting
I do think that based on the results so far that there is one person who is clearly better than all the others. Check out the excellent Apprentice Statistics put together by Anemic Dog. One person has been the MVP the most. One person has a 100% win record. One person has been able to win despite being on teams full of "whiny", "emotional" people. One person hasn't even been near the boardroom firings yet. One person has been selected to join the underdog team, twice. If that one person wins then I don't think that there is sexism here. If they keep up the good work and that one person doesn't win then I'd wonder.
I agree with basically everyone else. The only reasons all of the girls are being fired is because they kept shooting themselves in the foot.
Kristi: Didn't stand up for herself.
Jesse: Same as Kristi.
Tammy: She was being "disloyal" (even though I don't think she was).
Ereka: Didn't bring Katrina to the boardroom, if she did Nick would have been fired.
Omarosa: Bust into the boardroom, I don't think she would've been fired if she didn't do this.
Heidi: She actually DIDN'T shoot herself in the foot, she just had to go.
I think the question is very, very valid. Especially given the point above that since the women trounced the men and had to be divided up, ONLY women have been fired.
I think that there is a possibly very good non-sexist explanation. The "bad" women were protected within the good team so that after the mixing up of the teams, these women were sent to the boardroom against the strongest men.
Having said that, with only two women left, it is my opinion that Donald prefers some men that are weaker (Nick, Kwame) than some of the women (Kristi, Ereka, Heidi, Jessie) for no good reason. Nick and Kwame are both weaker than many of the women fired. Maybe he just likes the more male ways that Nick, Kwame, Troy and Bill handle themselves in the boardroom (and in the business strategy and implementation to a lesser extent) than the more female ways that the women do. In my experience, the vast majority of "sexism" is not overtly intentional but rather preference based on life experience for the ways of your own gender.
Hold up a sec, Kwame, I'll give you but... Nick... weak?!? Sure he doesn't have very many working skills but he does deal with people well. Look at the two times he has led. First time with the girls, both Amy and Katrina praised his leadership. Second time, he made an executive decision, and both Bill and Amy supported and believed in him, and the team did well again. Weak worker, but one hell of a leader!
Thank you for entertaining my post kyjrjar. This was not meant to be a complaint-fest, or some cry-me-a-river type rant. Simply food for thought.
Originally Posted by kyrjar
There WERE some really bad women. But I didn't side "gender-wise" with any of the ones that were fired so far. In fact, I think everyone that was eliminated was eliminated for very valid, and especially good reasons. They really had some egregious faults! (Which as an all women's team were illustrated best in the first episode of the lemonade stand, where Ereka couldn't lead and the women couldn't follow without a lot of complaints and sour faces.) When the plan was finally put into action they were better at the sales because they tried with all that God gave them, but I'd rather hire people like that for a task than work with them on a daily basis. So the right people are definitely being picked.
Ahhhhhhhh Quinn, you must be in the medical field too...the only time I have ever used that term was in regards to a side effect of a drug!
but to answer the leading question in this thread....No..I agree with Trainwreck as it is too early to call as Amy and Katrina are still in the game. However, if Amy is ousted over Nick at anytime, then my opinion will change.
Every person fired so far has been deserving of it.
Last edited by mountaingirl70; 03-16-2004 at 11:10 AM.
I have not had much qualms about the people that the Donald has fired, except that Nick and Kwame, imo, are weaker than some of the women. I do think they handle themselves very well in the boardroom after their losses. Saying the things that the Donald would like.
If Kristi, Ereka, Heidi, Katrina and Jesse aren't very good -- and least not relative to Nick and Kwame -- then I don't get how the women were able to so easily beat the men's team. I love Amy, but she can't be that good. I think those women must be better than they are currently being portrayed, and are not receiving sufficient credit for what they can do. Which, imo, is more than Nick and Kwame. Maybe more than Bill and Troy.
I say this almost as much as a question to myself since the firings weren't bothering me until I saw in this thread that only women have been fired since mixing the teams up.
I think that, when there's a man against a woman, Trump is going to prefer a man and that a woman must be far superior to the man for Trump to fire the man.
RE: sexism before the merge--Why would the all-man firings be sexist?? There were only men in the boardroom before Trump. The competitions were fair and Trump didn't decided who won (except for the advertising one, I guess).
kyrjar, I agree with your opinion. The women were superior to the men before the merge. How can those same women be so bad after they have men on the teams that they have to be eliminated routinely. Some of those men are such suck ups it it mauseating. I'm betting Trump wouldn't want to be stuck with any one of them when it's all over.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.