Are we aggressive?

The BBC has not always managed to work its way past stereotypes so I believe that we were all elated when the first winner of The Apprentice was a young, black man who proved that the words diversity and merit were not mutually exclusive.


I should open by way of disclaimer by saying that I have mixed feelings about the show- how is it that a reality talent show focussing on making people better entrepreneurs has as its prize being someone else’s employee? This, in my opinion, is contradictory, counter intuitive and reductive. Surely, a better plan would be to give those individuals the backing, financial assistance and advice to put in the hard graft into their own business ideas? This is why I believe that for all the braggadocio and smarmy sales pitch of the wannabe young Sugars, none of them must be particularly bright. Unless, maybe, this is just a way to improve their marketability (I call this doing a “Kate Walsh”): the ultimate aim is not winning the job, but to use it as a stepping stone toward different opportunities.

I digress, in any event. I took particular umbrage with the show’s comments over the past couple of weeks. The women’s group were a lesson in inefficiency, but as usual, this did not reflect on their own personalities, no- it was an indictment of all women in boardrooms across Britain. These gaggling and cackling hyenas were treated as if they represented the best of womankind, something that did not even dawn on Suralan to say applied to the men at all. The males on the show fail on their own merits and for themselves. If they are dickheads they are dickheads. They do not embarrass “mankind” as a group with their hilarious, inept antics. The fact that the women are singled out in this manner, by no less than a woman, is indicting. Don’t we have enough guilt and burdens already?

I was also taken aback when Joanna Riley was called aggressive by her colleagues and by the Sugarites. Tactless, yes. Opinionated and stubborn, yes. An asshole. Possibly. Aggressive? I certainly did not see her inspiring or threatening violence in any kind, or intimidating others in such a way to inspire a fear of being confronted or attacked. After all, this is a show which values a cut-throat, go-getting attitude; is it surprising then the Type A personalities who might think of being a contestant would have more balls than a juggler?

I have an almost switchblade reaction to the word aggressive when it is used to describe a black woman. It is all too trite, too easy, too clichéd. The word aggressive is loaded it brings together all the worst parts of anger, edginess and danger, much in the fashion of a bitch marking its territory and waiting to give birth. This is the favourite word utilised in disciplinary meetings, reviews and appraisals, bandied about so much as the word of choice when there is nothing else to say or to be commented upon, hurled against that person who would dare be even slightly contrarian in a conservative meeting environment that we eventually retire into a shadow of ourselves and retreat to become less us, less overt. This is not the first time that the image of the angry black woman has played out on the Apprentice- we were all hooked on the USA version featuring the Crown Princess of Mean- Omarosa. Omarosa was painted as an aggressive go-getter, the only other side to her two dimensional character was her love of “drama”, another poignant stereotype.

I do not deny that there are obvious cultural differences at play. In the Caribbean and in Africa, we often use elaborate gestures to communicate our respective positions on an issue. In a market stall or during a simple conversation exchange, voices can become raised, people can become shrill and the debate would still not be characterised as an argument. In a middle class milieu, it may be that these very same cultural traits can be interpreted very differently. Passion can sometimes be a solid indicator of competence but if this passion, however, is interpreted as confrontational, then this perception is often what matters.

Young Joanna Riley seems to have made a way in the world for herself. She is the mother of twins who found herself in a dead-end job and was inspired to start up a cleaning company in her hometown so that she would be able to provide a better life for her children. She rose above the cliché. What use is there, then, in painting her with another? She appears to be bright and personable and maybe she is slightly rough around the edges, probably because she has had to fight hard and rough to achieve most things that she has wanted out of life. She reminds me a lot of a younger me- spirited, brutally and shockingly honest, and emboldened. She said a few things I would have said- no, one should not apologise for airing one’s views or giving input, and yes, I too expected the other girls to nail the presentation- what’s aggressive about those views even though they were said with a flourish? There was no screaming, kicking, gnashing of teeth. I am disappointed that now she appears to have retreated into a wet, boring carapace for fear of being misinterpreted. How many others in boardrooms across New York, London, Atlanta and Los Angeles, have lost their fire, lost their spirit and have become muted former versions of themselves to succeed in a corporate environment? Too many, perhaps. I say a silent prayer for their (maybe our?) resurrection.