As debate rages over the twists and turns (mostly the twists) of the Survivor finale, we look at why this season ended the way it did and the implications for future seasons. How 'deliberate' was Ben's win, and how tainted is the season - and the franchise - by it? With this new final four format for the foreseeable future, how can and should players adapt to it? And, with Chrissy apparently inspiring mothers everywhere, what will it take for one to finally win Survivor? All this and more on this season's final show, available below, here, or on iTunes here.
F4 Analysis on Reddit
~29:30 End of F4 fairness discussion
~74:00 End of F4 strategy discussion
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that women who contriol the strategy in their games have shown they can win if they face the jury, like Sarah, Kim, and Natalie Anderson. They won because of good strategic and social games. Men who control the strategy and have bad social games like Boston Rob 2.0 and Russell 1.0 and 2.0 lost. I think that this is the difference in why players win or lose and don't think that women are viewed differently for controlling or aggressive strategy.
DeleteCirie, who fits into the mom category, would have won a jury vote if she made it to the end in seasons 16 or 34. She may have even won if she made the finals in season 12. Another mom, Tina, would have won if she made the finals in 27. I think a lot of people just look at the moms who actually make the end as opposed to all the moms who could possibly have won in front of the jury.
For those who did face the jury, Chrissy and Missy lost because of many bad social interactions throughout the game. Dawn lost because she cried many times in front of others and annoyed them. Carolyn (and Aubry) lost because they did not have as many good relationships on their juries as their opponents.
Conversely, I agree with all of your thoughts on the Final 4 twist.
Great podcast, thanks for covering Survivor!
I don't think you are looking at the overall picture regarding women.
DeleteLook at the examples you chose. Sarah aside (a returning player season where game respected game despite hurt egos and bitter feelings), both Kim & Natalie won only against other women. Natalie controlled the strategy on her season and Keith had no idea what was going on. But if Keith had made final 3 with Natalie, he would have won due to jury sexism.
Then you chose 2 men (Rob & Russell) who not only controlled startegy but were dictators/bullies to others, causing the jury to vote against them, not for the other option. Those are extreme controversial seasons.
Aubry had better social relationships during the game with most of the jurors. Aubry was punished by sexisim and bitterness. Scott & Jason could not accept being outplayed (especially by a "nerdy girl") so they voted for the person with no agency in the game. They influenced Julia to do the same. Debbie & Sydney were both closer to Aubry, but voted out of sheer spite. They simply did not want to reward the person who was responsible for taking them out of the game. Sarah played the same type of quiet game in Game Changers and stabbed all of her allies in the back. But in the end, the jury could look past their egos and bitterness to vote for the best player. Michelle winning vs. Aubry is equivalent to Troysan winning Game Changers because he had no agency. The juries made the difference, not the players in those cases. In addition, group think is HUGE when juries are not sequestered. Debbie & Sydney may have voted for Aubry if not for the influence by those who had formed an "anyone but Aubry" voting block. On the flip side, Nick was socially closer to Michelle, but voted for Aubry because he is a superfan, former RHAP blogger, etc. He knew Michelle had no control in the game and thus voted for the best player.
So you're saying even Tarzan or Leif could have beaten Kim? Besides, Jay showed no bitterness toward Kim betraying him in his jury speaks video. Troy was only mad because of what he viewed as a rules violation.
DeleteRob's and Russell's losses were due to the bullying behavior you mentioned. That's what I mean by bad social games.
Rob and Russell also lost to........women. Russell even had a man also in his first final 3 and "beat" him.
I'm interested: How do you know the reason why Keith would have won against Natalie? Did the jurors say it was because he was a man? Or could it be because Wes, Josh, Reed, and Alec were all more closely alligned with him than her? Sexism is a huge accusation to just assume without evidence.
By the way, if it was sexism in Aubry versus Michele, they could have voted for Tai instead of a woman.
In addition, Julia was not convinced by Scot and Jason to vote for Michele. She was closest to Michele of anyone there. Scot's relationship with Aubry was ruined by Scot getting mad about the crossing out of Julia's name. Scot poisoned Jason toward Aubry. Debbie was already mad at Aubry for the blindside. Cydney was closer with Michele friendwise at the end of the game, and was mad at Aubry for turning on her. You say they voted out of spite? Yes, that's what ruining your social game with a paticukar juror due to a blindside looks like. Its the risk you run in playing Survivor. Its why Rob and Russell lost, too.