[JerseyWins]

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

There's also a lot of inherent sexism within the game and the structure of the game that has gotten us to the point where the F3 is traditionally two men who split votes and a woman who people just pat on the head and condescendingly congratulate for making it to Day 39. Women like Gonzalez and Mari and Molly were singled out immediately for being massive threats and "Parvati 2.0" which absolutely comes from Probst reducing to Parvati's gameplay to "she flirted with the men and then voted them out." Plenty of people have earned just as much of a target on their backs, but for some reason there's a repeated fear of what a woman can do on Day 39 that starts on like Day 6. We also saw this with Elaine almost getting booted first this season because "if she makes it to the end she'll sweep the Jury" which is laughably dense logic to have during the premiere. We've also seen repeated instances of "male/female are a POWER DUO and we are...... going to weaken the guy by taking out the girl :3" This was the Chelsea vote this season, the Liz vote in Kaoh Rong, the Elyse vote in South Pacific, and sooooo many more in between. The players have conditioned themselves to believe that smart women are only harmful and never beneficial, whereas even a shifty dude is often kept around because "he's an asset in Challenges," the logic that saved Dean early on despite the fact that he was embarrassingly bad at anything physical and mental. Despite alpha males continuing to win year after year after year, we continue to hear about the dread all girls alliance and Parvati 2.0s and never about the Ben 2.0s or the Boston Robs or literally any other successful male archetype.

AND this doesn't even bring us into the bastardized format of the show now. We moved from a F2 to F3 because Jeff was upset about players like Terry getting axed right before the FTC and getting "robbed." The F4 fire-making twist was introduced because Jeff was upset about players David and Spencer and Malcolm and Ozzy getting axed right before the FTC for being too threatening and getting "robbed." There used to be a level of finesse needed to minimize your threat level and get people to not take you out before the FTC, a level of finesse that many of Probst's favorites lacked. Because of this, Jeff has decided to reward their gameplay by completely breaking the format to favor the in-your-face, alpha male type of gameplay. Idols and Advantages are rehidden immediately after they're played, creating a revolving door type of effect where the same players can and have become immune over and over again. Twists like Redemption Island and the Edge of Extinction were literally created to give people like Russell Hantz and Boston Rob and Joe Anglim a second chance if they were ever booted. And even with all of these changes to the endgame, Idols can still be played at F5. We're at a point now where you can play Survivor with the subtlety of a foghorn, play an Idol at F5, win your way through F4 either by means of Immunity or fire, and then win Survivor because of how much you've "overcome" or because of how flashy your game was. There are fewer consequences for playing recklessly. Camp dynamics create a dynamic where it's more difficult for women to leave camp, leaving men to more often find Idols an Advantages and thus a free ticket to the F4, and then these men can just put on a show and win $1,000,000. We saw Michele "play like a girl" and win through her social game, and as a result Probst completely changed the format of the show where you can now "play like a guy" and win year after year after year like Adam and Ben and Wendell and Nick.

And again, it does matter when the statistics have become frighteningly one-sided. It does matter when the show is literally preaching women empowerment while still operating in a way that fundamentally rewards male players. Just because you're content with the outcomes since the players you root for do well in this format doesn't mean you should stick your fingers in your ears and tune out what's right in front of you.

The last part is true as could be. Janet was explicitly taken out at 5 because she was the best fire-maker and the Jury loved her. The whole theme of the finale was "if Janet makes it to the end we're ****ed, so we need to nullify her Idol" which is still a laughably stupid concept. Even when we do get a woman who can win under this F4 fire-making format, she's not even allowed to get there because of an IDOL NULLIFIER that was literally won through the flip of a coin under the pretense of "teaching Dean a lesson about Jury management." This entire franchise has become a comedy of errors.

I have to just agree to disagree with a lot because I fully disagree with so much of this but cba to reply to everything. Maybe I'll make a bigger post at another time but I'll just say a few things:

"Twists like Redemption Island and the Edge of Extinction were literally created to give people like Russell Hantz and Boston Rob and Joe Anglim a second chance if they were ever booted."
- Is this not sexist thinking when in reality the women can easily win any of the challenges they put out there?

"We also saw this with Elaine almost getting booted first this season because "if she makes it to the end she'll sweep the Jury" which is laughably dense logic to have during the premiere."
- This had absolutely nothing to do with her gender and absolutely everything to do with her likable personality & her story coming in.

"The players have conditioned themselves to believe that smart women are only harmful and never beneficial, whereas even a shifty dude is often kept around because "he's an asset in Challenges," the logic that saved Dean early on despite the fact that he was embarrassingly bad at anything physical and mental."
- This is just not true & you're looking at it with tunnel vision of what you want to see as "inherent sexism within the game" when in reality a lot of the females that were viewed as smart & voted off in current and past seasons just simply weren't subtle enough in trying to not look smart with the cast. The same subtlety that Tommy showed when he took a back seat a lot and tried to not look threatening - he let Lauren look like the mastermind because she was more out there and literally willing to show how smart & powerful she was in the game compared to Tommy who downplayed a lot to a lot of people. Sandra is an excellent example of a subtle "smart" player that makes herself look like a goat when she is very aware of the game and how to get through and get the votes in the end. As she was then awarded for it twice. She is a woman.

"Women like Gonzalez and Mari and Molly were singled out immediately for being massive threats and "Parvati 2.0" which absolutely comes from Probst reducing to Parvati's gameplay to "she flirted with the men and then voted them out." Plenty of people have earned just as much of a target on their backs, but for some reason there's a repeated fear of what a woman can do on Day 39 that starts on like Day 6."
- This doesn't just happen to women. Men are just more likely to be seen as a benefit in challenges based on their performances OR their muscular build and therefore are kept around a lot of times in the early couple days. And then the physically fit men that can win challenges are constantly viewed as immediate threats at the merge and compared to "Ozzy 2.0" & "Joe Anglim 2.0" and typically get voted off one of the first few times they don't win immunity. But you probably have no problem when it comes to that strategizing against a physical man. Anyway, comparisons are made, people are voted out for the comparisons that are seen as crucial to take out in order to win. Nothing groundbreaking. Nothing about gender.