Winner Edit vs. Loser Edit: Discuss Amongst Yourselves

[kikaha]

Adding to T&B's excellent post, Probst says the best overall player to ever play Survivor is a woman.  Parvati.  (I agree.)  He says Cirie is one of the best players ever.  According to Kim, he told her she was one of the best ever: in an interview I saw online he said she "played brilliantly."  He points up Denise, Sophie and Natalie as outstanding players/winners.  He says women are better leaders on Survivor. 

 

That does not line up with someone who believes only the big boys are real survivors. 

 

 

Men are strategic, women are conniving.

Cirie, Kim and Natalie are all celebrated as outstanding strategists.  So are Parvati, Andrea, Denise and Sophie.  Probably so are Amanda and Taj.  i.e. tons of counters to this. 

 

 

Men can be friends with someone and stab them in the back and there are some hurt feelings but mainly people are ok with it. A woman makes friends with people and stabs them in the back and she is a bitch

 

Boston Rob generated more hatred and vitriol at All-Stars than any other person I recall at FTC.  All because he stabbed his friends in the back.  Coach lost his last season because he stabbed two of his friends in the back -- when he was unable to fess up, they switched their votes away from him.  .

 

Natalie played Jon like a Stradivarius, blindsided him, and is (rightly) applauded, both among fans and in the game.  Kim backstabbed one man after another and is widely considered one of the all-time greats. 

 

My point is that the broad generalizations Prof. C made about Survivor are at best partially true.  There are examples -- lots of them -- that are diametrically opposed to her view. 

Edited January 13, 2015 by kikaha

[Mike Teevee]

Just last year, Linda Holmes (you may know her as Miss Alli from TWoP) wrote a piece about Jeff's sexiest behavior. I thought it was interesting. I have to confess, I typically fail to see sexism unless it's pointed out to me. Or maybe if it's blatantly obvious. But much of what was written in the article, with the exception of the cheesecake bikini shots, goes right over my head.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/10/10/231398615/the-tribe-has-broken-how-sexism-is-silently-killing-survivor

The other factor here is I'm very good at tuning Jeff out. The obvious conflict of interest between his roles as host and producer make me angry enough that I typically half-watch the show while I multi-task, and almost always ignore Jeff's commentary.

[ToastnBacon]

Just last year, Linda Holmes (you may know her as Miss Alli from TWoP) wrote a piece about Jeff's sexiest behavior. I thought it was interesting. I have to confess, I typically fail to see sexism unless it's pointed out to me. Or maybe if it's blatantly obvious. But much of what was written in the article, with the exception of the cheesecake bikini shots, goes right over my head.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/10/10/231398615/the-tribe-has-broken-how-sexism-is-silently-killing-survivor

The other factor here is I'm very good at tuning Jeff out. The obvious conflict of interest between his roles as host and producer make me angry enough that I typically half-watch the show while I multi-task, and almost always ignore Jeff's commentary.

I think that Linda Holmes article is pretty weak. Number seven in her list of "gender unpleasantness" is that female members of a tribe are frequently referred to as girls.

What in the hell is wrong with that? I can only wonder what she would prefer "the girls" to be called.

Sorry, but in order for Linda to write that opinion piece, she had to create an angle. The story angle she chose was sexism and her evidence is pretty damn weak if you ask me.

What is wrong about women wearing bathing suits on a tropical beach?

I can only wonder what she would suggest as an alternative, burkas?

[henripootel]

Sorry, but in order for Linda to write that opinion piece, she had to create an angle. The story angle she chose was sexism and her evidence is pretty damn weak if you ask me.

I disagree, and I admit to being a bit tone-deaf to sexist language.  Which is probably why I can't bring specific examples to mind even though many times I've hit rewind on my DVR remote, thinking 'did he just say that?'  I know - this is interpretation, not examples, but at the moment, that's all I got.  I will say I think Holmes is right on the money here. 

What is wrong about women wearing bathing suits on a tropical beach?

Nothing at all, if that's what you choose to bring to the island.  But here's the thing: they didn't.  They're instructed what to bring and then production tells them what to wear.  Which is fine were we talking a few hours on a warm sunny day but pretty awful on cold wet nights, to say nothing of providing zero protection from sun, abrasion, or biting insects.  When all the men are required to live and compete in nut-huggers while the ladies get cargo pants and proper shirts, we'll talk again.

Edited January 14, 2015 by henripootel

[pennben]

 

Again, what we think doesn't matter here.  It is what Natalie thought, and what drove/motivated her to boot or keep Jon.  She saw him as a threat, who could beat her.  So she took steps to boot him, which she did like a maestro.  Great move, great execution, paved the way for her win.

 

Interestingly enough, it was that belief that led her to her best and most visible moves in the game, which I think won the game for her.  I think we agree kikaha.  So, perhaps Jon wasn't a threat (although I don't agree with that), but because Natalie saw him as such, she played lights out in the end and assured herself of the votes that might otherwise have been toss-ups.

[ToastnBacon]

Nothing at all, if that's what you choose to bring to the island.  But here's the thing: they didn't.  They're instructed what to bring and then production tells them what to wear.  Which is fine were we talking a few hours on a warm sunny day but pretty awful on cold wet nights, to say nothing of providing zero protection from sun, abrasion, or biting insects.  When all the men are required to live and compete in nut-huggers while the ladies get cargo pants and proper shirts, we'll talk again.

What show have you been watching?

The female contestants have more than bathing suits to wear. On those cold wet nights, I see them wearing sweatshirts, light jackets, and long pants.

Why are you trying to paint the picture that they are forced to parade around in bikinis 24/7?

I think your comment is an example of exaggerated/manufactured evidence to support a claim of sexism on the show. That is exactly the kind of thing that Linda Holmes did in her article.

In past seasons they were sometimes dumped into the gameplay area with their street clothes, and then forced to improvise or alter their clothes for competion and camp life, they haven't done much of that the past few seasons.

The trend in recent seasons is the contestants have had a bag with camp clothes and challenge clothes.

It is mostly in the water challenges that you see the ladies wearing nothing but bathing suits, as do the men.

Plus, it is the ladies with trim athletic bodies wearing the skimpy suits. That is the way real life is for the most part. When I go to the beach, it is primarily the people who are in shape that show the most skin.

The fact that a show producer picked or approved the swimwear is not a glaring example of sexism.

[ProfCrash]

As a woman, I do not want to be called a girl. My husband is not a boy, he is a man. My 2 1/2 year old son is a boy. My friends tween daughter is a girl. When you call men, men and women, girls you are treating the woman as if she is lesser then the man. 99% of the time it is unintentional but it is there.

 

The point of my post is that there are cultural norms that people accept and use without intending them to be sexist but that does not change the fact that they are sexist. Just like there are cultural norms that are racist that people do not see as racist because, well, they are cultural norms. This plays out on Survivor. The fact that most of what we are dealing with are accepted cultural norms means that not everyone is going to agree because, well, it is an accepted cultural norm.

 

People tend to be upset at the "Mom's" on Survivor because they dared to play the game and back stab folks. Mom's are not suppose to do that. Mom's are suppose to support and sacrifice. If a man who is a Dad forges a friendship with someone and stabs them in the back, we don't hear people pissing about how he was a Dad and not suppose to do that. People were annoyed with Tony's many lies, and they all knew he was lying, but they did not humiliate him or not vote for him.

 

I am fine with agreeing to disagree with folks. I see very real Sexist and Racist undertones in Survivor and I see Sexist undertones in what Jeff has to say a fair amount of the time. Sexism (Racism and all the other isms) are not as blatant as people think that it has to be to exist.

[kikaha]

I read Holmes' article and will give my take on her lede and first paragraph. 

 

Headline:  "The Tribe Has Broken: How Sexism Is Silently Killing 'Survivor'".  Survivor is not getting killed.  It has gone on for 29 seasons.  it's one of the all-time top success stories in television history.  It's not an example of a dying show: it's an example of a show others should carefully study, to try and learn what makes a runaway success on television. 

 

Holmes' first sentence compounds the error of her headline.  She says that sexism has been rampant on Survivor since its start.  So her logic is that sexism has been there from the beginning -- in a major way -- has silently been killing the show -- yet somehow it became the most popular show on TV, and is still running strong 15 years later. 

 

Perhaps Survivor is getting killed in her mind, but the facts, popularity and fans' reactions show she is not right. 

 

"It has specialized from the outset in a set of stereotypes: tough sexy male athletes, nurturing moms, sweet young things, wise and wily (male) silver foxes, and so forth."  And yet the very first winner was a fat middle-aged gay man who walked around naked.  He was joined in the final by a young female whitewater rafting guide.  Many other players that season broke the mold Holmes tries to force on them as well, including a somewhat gruff female truck driver/outdoorswoman (who made history with her famous snake/rat speech), and three people in their 60s or above.   

 

In short, 'from the outset' what Holmes said simply was not true.  The cast was far broader than the stereotypes she claimed. 

 

Ever since then Survivor has been a melting pot of American diversity.  Gay men, lesbian women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, hillbillies, intellectuals, cops, criminals, attorneys, 'nerds', and even porn stars have been cast and done extremely well: a number have won and/or made FTC. So have housewives, a few celebrities and athletes.  I bet Survivor is a whole lot more diverse than most large companies... sports teams...  governments... charities... political parties... and most other common groups you care to name. 

 

"The women wear such wee bathing suits (while spending over a month foraging on an island) that one spent an entire season with a digitized blur floating just below the base of her spine and just above the waistband of her suit."  Not all the women wear 'wee bathing suits:' look at last season's winner, Natalie, and her sister e.g.  And they all have clothes besides swim suits, including shirts and shorts, which they frequently wear as they choose. 

 

"Far more men than women have been treated as "leaders,"  The contestants themselves choose their leaders.  To whatever extent they choose men more than women, that is on the players, not Jeff or the show. 

 

"host Jeff Probst has never been even one-tenth as interested in women contestants as he is in the men."  A value judgement.  I would like to see her evidence backing it up.  IMO she is dead wrong -- but that's my value judgement, and certainly not fact. 

 

"He's (Jeff) essentially come right out and said so, that the women just tend not to be as interesting on the whole as the men."  This misrepresents what Jeff said.  He said there haven't been as many colorful women on the show as men.  He speculated that perhaps in conflict, men act crazier and lose their minds more, which makes more interesting TV for a show like Survivor.  He also said women are more rational and make better leaders. 

 

I also point out that more women than men have either won Survivor or made FTC.  I'm curious how that could be for a show that is so sexist.  

[peachmangosteen]

The point of my post is that there are cultural norms that people accept and use without intending them to be sexist but that does not change the fact that they are sexist. Just like there are cultural norms that are racist that people do not see as racist because, well, they are cultural norms. This plays out on Survivor. The fact that most of what we are dealing with are accepted cultural norms means that not everyone is going to agree because, well, it is an accepted cultural norm.

 

This! Just because it's socially acceptable to call women girls doesn't me it isn't sexist. That's the problem, our society itself is so sexist/racist that many people don't even see sexism/racism as a problem when it blatantly is.

 

I am fine with agreeing to disagree with folks. I see very real Sexist and Racist undertones in Survivor and I see Sexist undertones in what Jeff has to say a fair amount of the time. Sexism (Racism and all the other isms) are not as blatant as people think that it has to be to exist.

I mentioned this as well. The hardest thing about sexism and racism is that it's so casual. It's all the little things that build up to make a society so full of rape culture or institutional racism.

I also point out that more women than men have either won Survivor or made FTC.  I'm curious how that could be for a show that is so sexist.  

 

This reminds me of when women say that don't need feminism because they'd never experienced sexism. Well, good for you! I'm glad you haven't, that's great. But open your eyes and look into a thing called 'empathy.' The mere fact that women have won this show isn't proof that there is absolutely no sexism whatsoever in it. Just look at the response that some of those women have gotten compared to the response that some of the men have gotten.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to say that Survivor is the zenith of sexism, but that doesn't mean there's not any sexist undertones/language/behavior.

 

Does this board have a Gender on Survivor thread like TWoP did? Because we are so far off topic with this stuff, but I do find discussion of it with regards to Survivor interesting and eye-opening, so I'd like to continue. I guess I could be less lazy and look myself, so I'll do that!

Edited January 14, 2015 by peachmangosteen

[henripootel]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that Survivor is the zenith of sexism, but that doesn't mean there's not any sexist undertones/language/behavior.

I would agree - I wouldn't even try to argue that this is remotely the most sexist show on tv, nor even that every single thing Jeffy says is sexist (hence, if he said anything ever that wasn't, it means he isn't sexist at all).  I honestly don't know what Probst thinks in his heart about sexism but the character he plays on tv, Jeff the Host - I think he panders to the sexism they find in their Survivor test groups.

 

We do need a thread for this. 

[ToastnBacon]

As a woman, I do not want to be called a girl. My husband is not a boy, he is a man. My 2 1/2 year old son is a boy. My friends tween daughter is a girl. When you call men, men and women, girls you are treating the woman as if she is lesser then the man. 99% of the time it is unintentional but it is there.

I am confident that Merriam Webster would agree with your usage of the words boy and girl.

However, the english language is far more dynamic than what is listed in the dictionary.

On Survivor when these words are used in the context of an "all-girl alliance" or "what are the boys up to?" it represents a type of informal usage of language.

It might very well be a sign of disrespect to call a man a boy in some settings, but if the communicators are familiar, and have an established relationship it isn't disrespectful at all.

I have have no doubt that some will point to how the words boy and girl are used on Survivor as evidence of sexism.

However, it leads me to question the accuser's intellectual honesty when such charges are made over the utterance of phrases like "all-girl alliance" or "the girls went to fetch water."

I'm not really directing that barb at you, Professor Crash, but at Linda Holmes. Unless, you happen to maintain that the term all-girl alliance is degrading to women.

The point of my post is that there are cultural norms that people accept and use without intending them to be sexist but that does not change the fact that they are sexist. Just like there are cultural norms that are racist that people do not see as racist because, well, they are cultural norms. This plays out on Survivor. The fact that most of what we are dealing with are accepted cultural norms means that not everyone is going to agree because, well, it is an accepted cultural norm.

People tend to be upset at the "Mom's" on Survivor because they dared to play the game and back stab folks. Mom's are not suppose to do that. Mom's are suppose to support and sacrifice.

Excellent point!

I maintain that a show like Survivor actually allows us to challenge those cultural norms and step outside of them.

That's a positive aspect of the show in my opinion.

If a segment of society balks at the image of a matriarch playing hardball, it isn't cause to indict the show as being sexist.

You can level that charge at those in the chorus shouting, "Moms aren't supposed to do that" but not at Survivor or at Probst.

The show actually celebrates strong women, and it absolutely shatters stereotypes of all kinds.

If a man who is a Dad forges a friendship with someone and stabs them in the back, we don't hear people pissing about how he was a Dad and not suppose to do that. People were annoyed with Tony's many lies, and they all knew he was lying, but they did not humiliate him or not vote for him.

Just out of curiosity, when was a mother humiliated on Survivor for lying?

I'm assuming that you mean that at some point in the past, either Probst or the jury has chastised a female contestant for tainting the sanctity of motherhood for playing a rough game that involved lying.

As I fan of the show, I'd love to go back and watch that particular season and episode.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree with folks. I see very real Sexist and Racist undertones in Survivor and I see Sexist undertones in what Jeff has to say a fair amount of the time. Sexism (Racism and all the other isms) are not as blatant as people think that it has to be to exist.

This has been a great discussion, and actually do agree with some of what you are saying about sexism in society.

Where I differ with you is that the show and Jeff are reinforcing stereotypes and promulgating sexism.

I see the show as a positive force in popular culture, and I think Jeff is a decent person.

What got me going on this tangent two pages ago was that he was being called a misogynist. I don't think it is fair to call him that.

[henripootel]

Just out of curiosity, when was a mother humiliated on Survivor for lying?

Pretty sure they're talking about season 26, when Dawn shafted Brenda even after Brenda had been a staunch ally.  Apparently Dawn was so disturbed by her edit that she sought counseling IRL.  Might make an interesting contrast with season 22, where BRob did something similar to his ally Grant (who, rumor has it, is pissed with Rob to this day) but was instead given hero's edit after doing so and won easily.

People tend to be upset at the "Mom's" on Survivor because they dared to play the game and back stab folks. Mom's are not suppose to do that. Mom's are suppose to support and sacrifice.

Not not not trying to inflame anything here, but I'll pass on a trick a friend showed me once - try reading the above paragraph again but substituting 'blacks' or 'asians' (or whatever rings your bell) for 'moms'.  If you can substitute one '-ism' for another and transform a benign paragraph into a questionable one, consider the possibility that the original statement might have some -ism in there that just doesn't reach you personally.  Playing 'against type' for moms isn't a celebration of everything mom, it's a reaction to (and an acknowledgment of) 'types' for moms, even if your ostensible goal is to 'show how wrong they are'.  I'm not sure how I feel about that but I'm more sure how I feel about the show highlighting this for ratings, and it's not positive.

Edited January 14, 2015 by henripootel

[kikaha]

 

Pretty sure they're talking about season 26, when Dawn shafted Brenda even after Brenda had been a staunch ally.  Apparently Dawn was so disturbed by her edit that she sought counseling IRL.  Might make an interesting contrast with season 22, where BRob did something similar to his ally Grant (who, rumor has it, is pissed with Rob to this day) but was instead given hero's edit after doing so and won easily.

 

I thought Dawn played real well.  But nearly all her fellow castaways on the jury did not.  They raked her over the coals at FTC.  THEY were the ones who called her out on her betrayals.  If the edit had covered that up, it would have materially misled us, the viewers, on a key part of how the jury made its decision.  Of course, they unanimously voted against her. 

 

Boston Rob's situation during the RI season was quite different.  First, most of the other players DID see Rob as a hero -- or at least as deserving of the victory.  That's why they overwhelmingly voted for him.  Grant was bitter, and Survivor did not hide that. 

 

I think a better example is Boston Rob at All-Stars.  He betrayed not just one person, but a number of allies and friends -- and they hated him for it.  That was the most brutal FTC I recall seeing.  Rob lost a season he totally ran, because so many members of the jury were pissed at him.  Much more similar to Dawn, though Rob controlled All-Stars way more than Dawn did FvF. 

 

Coach during his last season is another example.  He betrayed two people he was real close to.  Ozzie and Brandon.  He lost their vote, which cost him the game, and was widely seen as a hypocrite.  

 

So the idea that mom's pay for betrayals while men get free passes is demonstrably not true. 

[henripootel]

I thought Dawn played real well.

I don't think Dawn did anything outside the scope of normal play but when folks take turns pillorying you at FTC, not sure we can say 'played real well'. 

So the idea that mom's pay for betrayals while men get free passes is demonstrably not true.So the idea that mom's pay for betrayals while men get free passes is demonstrably not true.

 

Not meaning to speak for all here but it was never my point to suggest that the concept of 'betrayal' is reserved for moms and moms alone.  Men can betray and are sometimes seen as doing so when what they actually did is simply reasonable gameplay.  Doesn't mean that Dawn's real life mom-hood wasn't part of why her 'transgression' was thought especially heinous.  

[ToastnBacon]

 Doesn't mean that Dawn's real life mom-hood wasn't part of why her 'transgression' was thought especially heinous.

Who thought it was especially heinous?

If you mean the jury members, fair enough, but I just watched a clip of that FTC and didn't see a jury member accuse her of tainting the institution of motherhood with her gameplay.

I did find a post reunion interview with Dawn where she postulated that people don't expect moms to be backstabbers.

Frankly, I would call any player a dolt who assumes that just because a person has procreated that they are less likely to betray an alliance on Survivor.

Still, I fail to see how any of this illustrates sexism on the part of the editors or Probst.

Just because millions of mouth-breathers in the heartland were pissed off at Dawn for playing hardball doesn't mean the edit was biased.

I think it points to a large segment of the audience that has a ridiculous and simplistic view of what constitutes good and bad behavior on Survivor.

[kikaha]

henri, if your example is supposed to show how mom's get singled out for backstabbing and lying -- but the same thing happens to men who do that -- the example does not show what is intended.  All it shows is that, under certain circumstances, back-stabbing can create bitter jurors, no matter what gender is involved. 

 

Also, plenty of winners get raked over the coals at FTC.  That by itself doesn't mean you played a bad game.  I thought Dawn played an excellent strategic game.  She almost played an excellent social game as well: her mistake was to to get too close to the people she then betrayed. 

[henripootel]

Also, plenty of winners get raked over the coals at FTC.  That by itself doesn't mean you played a bad game.

If they then don't vote for you, that's pretty much the definition of a bad game.  Dawn got creamed, in pretty much every way possible, certainly in the only way that counts.

back-stabbing can create bitter jurors, no matter what gender is involved.

I'm one of those who doesn't believe in 'bitter juries' - if you get to FTC without getting people to vote for you, you failed at Survivor.  Not overcoming your fellow player's resentment is not mitigating circumstances, it's why you failed. 

 

Put another way, a 'bitter jury' isn't an explanation, it is something to be explained.  

Edited January 14, 2015 by henripootel

[peachmangosteen]

Does anyone know who mods this board? I want to ask if we should continue discussing this here, where's is not on topic in the least, or if a new thread should be created.

Edited January 15, 2015 by peachmangosteen

[choclatechip45]

Didn't Grant vote for Rob to win? I always thought Grant's bitterness came out after he saw the show.

[henripootel]

Didn't Grant vote for Rob to win? I always thought Grant's bitterness came out after he saw the show.

Such is my recollection too.  This was the infamous season of 'Rob's Zombies', when either Rob's mesmerizing social game (or the producer's careful deck-stacking) left him with team so compliant that seemed to all be competing for second place.  Grant got the boot but didn't hold it against Rob at all, until he watched the show and saw Rob mugging it up in his THs about what submissive fools they all were.  

[kikaha]

Rob was not assigned to his tribe.  It was a random pick.  He just as easily could have gone with Russell's tribe.  How could the producers have stacked that deck?

[Oholibamah]

Quickly skimming through that thread I found one mistake: Russell's average in RI is wrong.  That casts doubt on the rest of the numbers as well.  But even if they are accurate, what is it that they show?

 

Sure, we can operate knowing that the numbers aren't 100% accurate, but a female winner receiving less than half the number of confessionals as a mid-jury member and just over a third of the runner up wouldn't be rectified by adjusting the numbers by a handful in either direction.

 

They show what was asked for - a basis to analyze screentime by gender. Obviously screentime encompasses more than confessionals, but it's a starting point. It demonstrates that, season over season, men are most often positioned as the "narrators" while women play supporting roles, even when they win.

 

So, yeah, I see that played out in Survivor but I don't think that it is anything new nor do I think it is anything intentional. I think many folks are more aware of the importance of the words that are being used and how they are attached to the genders and what it means to attach those labels. I also think that there are a lot of folks who look at that discussion and think that people are reaching and just chill.

 

Not new, and not intentional, for sure. Again, I don't think Probst is a terrible woman-hating monster, but I agree: it's important and fair to discuss.

 

Webster's defines misogyny as "hatred of women."  So far I don't believe any evidence has been presented that Jeff hates women.

Casual hatred is an interesting concept.  To me the two words contradict each other, like an oxymoron that not only appears contradictory but actually is.

 

Casual hatred is indeed an interesting concept, but not because it doesn't exist. It can refer to a dislike, mistrust, or disrespect of an individual or a group that has become so internalized so as to barely register a blip on their radar. It's most commonly seen in ethnic politics where two groups live in close proximity and "hate" one another without ever questioning why.

 

Just a few posts ago there were people tossing around the word misogynist; when questioned on it, they dialed it back and the word sexist was used.

Russel wasn't celebrated for backstabbing and being confrontational, yet Sandra was widely celebrated for it.

Lots of people liked the kind of game Parvati played; I think she is awesome. She is a strong and capable woman in the Survivor universe, and probably in real life too. As a matter of fact, the most vitriol that I have heard directed at her comes from females, not males.
...
If anything, sexist views are being challenged on the show..

 

I have yet to "dial back" my use of the word misogyny and don't plan to. The word transcends garden variety "hatred" and can be used to refer to mistrust, disrespect, or mistreatment.

 

Russell WAS celebrated for backstabbing and being confrontational. By who? Probst, production, and the editors.

 

Are sexist views being challenged on the show? Thanks to kickass women like Parvati, absolutely. But for this I thank the kick-ass women that have forced TPTB to pay attention, not the show itself.

 

I think you're right, toast - there is a lack of solid, easily-quoted evidence where Probst says 'I think girls are weak and unworthy' but here's the thing: I'm not expecting to see any.  Nobody as media-savvy as Probst is ever gonna flat out say such things in an unambiguous quotable form. 

 

I'll also admit that when I read folks talking about Probst being sexist (back in the TWoP days), my first thought was that folks might be being a tad sensitive.  Lots of the challenges are physical, women tend to the lower end of the strength spectrum (especially if you cast for this) so maybe this was getting overblown.  Truth is though that once I started watching closely ... they had a point.  If you're waiting for a signed confession from Jeffy, you'll never get one, but if you watch and listen carefully, you can definitely get the impression that Jeff thinks big boys are real survivors and everyone else rides coattails (of real players), or live by their looks and charm (which they use on real players), or uses tactics unworthy of real players (against real players), and the these folks are usually ladies.  A judgement call without much fire in evidence, absolutely, but plenty of smoke.

 

This is pretty bang-on. Sadly I don't have the time to comb back through every season and write a research paper on the issue. Even if I did, I'm sure my "evidence" would be referred to as smoke and mirrors, or a miscalculation would be used to undermine the main argument. Regardless, I am understanding that MMV on this issue and that opinion will come down to personal perceptions. I can readily admit that I am more sensitive about this stuff than most and don't expect everybody to agree.

 

If Jeff has a preference for alpha male players, that doesn't make him a sexist. It just means he likes male players more than female players, and it certainly doesn't make him a misogynist like he was being called a few posts ago.

Being called a sexist, misogynist, or a racist is a very big slur in my book. It is not a charge that I would casually toss around.

You did give me an idea for a great blog name, The Casual Misogynist, not sure what the blog would be about, but it is a damned funny name for a blog.

 

Agreed: I should not call Probst sexist or misogynist. I don't know him. But I do believe he displays sexist/misogynistic behaviour, which is a charge that I feel fine casually tossing around.

 

I would have a very hard time reading any sentence phrased "he likes male _______ more than female ______" and not find it sexist, unless it's referring to genitalia. Otherwise, fill in the blanks with whatever you'd like: actors, firefighters, chefs, water polo players. Would we be as forgiving if the sentence read "he likes white players more than black players?" It denies a group the ability to exhibit the traits that make the other group decidedly preferable. Probst may prefer the way men tend to play the game, or find them to be more engaging characters, but his attitude toward female "characters" or women playing an "alpha" game is not relative to their male counterparts.

 

I TEND to like female players more than male players. But I am more than happy to include male players among my favorites should they also exhibit the traits that drew me to the female players in the first place. Then again, I am fully prepared to admit that I have sexist attitudes. But I try to be introspective about why and fix it. Also, I'm not expected to be a presumably objective host/producer of a television show. But minor detail!

 

If the content of the blog at all attempts to mimic the trash on "ReturnOfKings", then I will pass. But it would be a great name through which to examine how casual misogyny works in the greater culture and urge men to self-assess how their attitudes are influenced by patriarchy.

[Trek]

henri, if your example is supposed to show how mom's get singled out for backstabbing and lying -- but the same thing happens to men who do that -- the example does not show what is intended.  All it shows is that, under certain circumstances, back-stabbing can create bitter jurors, no matter what gender is involved. 

 

IMO, the chances of getting lambasted increases exponentially if you try to backtrack from your game (mom or otherwise), and top it off by throwing words like “integrity” around.  Whether older (Lil), younger (Amanda) or male (Coach).

 

Missy, for example, played both the mom card and the integrity card in her opening jury speech.  That makes knocking her back fair game. Missy, in fact, played a decent game, she was actually the glue that kept the main alliance together. It was her that kept Jon in for as long as he needed to be when the guy was teetering to flip 3 times.  Kelly and Dale were all her and she had a bigger hand in both the Josh and Jeremy blindsides than Nat (who didn’t even know about the latter one). Did she mention any of that? No. She played the game with “integrity” ooookay then.

[henripootel]

Rob was not assigned to his tribe.  It was a random pick.  He just as easily could have gone with Russell's tribe.  How could the producers have stacked that deck?

As another poster put it in a different thread, you're looking at the edit rather than behind it.  They could have fixed this in any number of ways, including repeating a 'random pick' until they got the result they wanted (which would be the result of a 'random pick', assuming they'd even bother with this formality).  Or they could just set up the teams however they wanted and just say it was a 'random pick', as there's no constraint at all on them to tell the truth.  Not saying that's what happened on this occasion but in general, there's absolutely no reason to take Probst at his word and every reason not to.  

All it shows is that, under certain circumstances, back-stabbing can create bitter jurors, no matter what gender is involved.

 

Again, to my thinking there is no such thing as a bitter juror.  Everyone is pissed they're not still in the running and if you haven't laid the ground work for convincing pissed people to vote for you anyway, it's your fault, not theirs.  Their resentment is one last hurdle for you to overcome, and it seems to my eye (though I'll confess, I could have paid more systematic attention) that jurors seem a good bit less forgiving to those they 'expected more from', including mothers (or, more precisely, people who emphasized their motherhood as a way of getting people to believe their lies).  

 

I think Trek is closer to the mark here - flaunting your 'integrity' (within or outside the game) and then (very sensibly) betraying those who believed you is a fine way to make jurors so mad they'll vote for anyone else before they'll vote for you.  It's perfectly reasonable for them to do just that, but it just seems to me that 'mothers' steer perilously close to this line simply on the basis of being known as mother-figures.  Other appeals to 'integrity' don't seem to generate this level of bile, at least, not always.  

Edited January 31, 2015 by henripootel

[kikaha]

 

They could have fixed this in any number of ways, including repeating a 'random pick' until they got the result they wanted (which would be the result of a 'random pick', assuming they'd even bother with this formality).

 

When you deal in the realm of "could," basically anything is possible.  They could have held the vote at FTC ten times as well, until they got the result they supposedly wanted.  They could have run the FIC over and over, until the contestant they allegedly favor came out on top. 

 

But without some evidence to back up the point, I don't think that helps us (or me, anyway) better understand what actually took place.  When I see some indications that what you suggested actually happened, I may believe it.  Until then, it seems to a wild speculation with zero facts behind it. 

 

The other weakness in the argument is that the producers so well know the contestants, before they have ever played, they can arrange them in a team that will be docile.  In this case, a team BRob can easily manipulate.  I think it's almost impossible to know ahead of time how the players will actually turn out.  Who would have guessed Cirie would be such a masterful player?  Yauman?  Richard Hatch?  Sandra?  Tony?  IIRC, Jeff Probst expected several of those players to get booted early. 

 

I agree completely with the first half of your last paragraph.  FTC is the exact wrong time to b.s. the jury.  Far better to own your play.  But I don't believe moms get singled out there.  Coach, e.g., didn't learn that lesson, and lost the game for it.  Russell looked like a total hypocrite in his first FTC.  On the flip side, BRob owned his actions at All-Stars FTC, and it didn't matter. 

 

Just curious, which moms do you think have been singled out?  And if it's so, how does this reflect on the show, and not the contestants themselves?  

[Oholibamah]

As another poster put it in a different thread, you're looking at the edit rather than behind it. They could have fixed this in any number of ways, including repeating a 'random pick' until they got the result they wanted (which would be the result of a 'random pick', assuming they'd even bother with this formality). Or they could just set up the teams however they wanted and just say it was a 'random pick', as there's no constraint at all on them to tell the truth. Not saying that's what...

Yet, interestingly, I've seen it argued that Ometepe was intended for Russell while the more "salt of the earth" type Zapatera was intended for Boston Rob. I just can't imagine they would knowingly put their new "star villain" on a tribe with do-gooders like Mike, Steve, Julie and Sarita if they actually wanted him to succeed.

Whereas, Andrea/Ashley/Natalie are not (on the surface) Boston Rob type allies. Andrea was targeted early because of Matt and Ashley is the type of player Rob typically avoids (able to peel his allies away from him). Natalie was his proxy-Amber, and Grant is the typical Rob ally, but I think Russell would have been more successful on Ometepe and Rob would've been just fine on Zapatera.

All that said, I don't think it's beyond reason that they instruct players on which egg to pick, which buff to draw, etc. Tribes are preassigned all the time... It isn't unfair or unreasonable to make it seem random for the purposes of TV.

[henripootel]

When you deal in the realm of "could," basically anything is possible.  They could have held the vote at FTC ten times as well, until they got the result they supposedly wanted.  They could have run the FIC over and over, until the contestant they allegedly favor came out on top.

Now you're getting it.  My guess is that ICs happen much as we see them (with plenty of necessary editing) as do votes, although they fiddle with those via 'suggestions' or outright 'character instructions'.  

But without some evidence to back up the point, I don't think that helps us (or me, anyway) better understand what actually took place.

Depends on what you want for 'evidence'.  If you're expecting an expose or a confessional by Probst, you'll never, ever get it.  This is reality tv, and these guy's whole business is keeping you guessing as to what 'reality' is here.  Other stuff though, seems to me to be only understandable as producer manipulation, and this is what I sift for.  I will say this is far easier for other reality show which seem to take minimal effort to hide their machinations.  But either Survivor is the only reality show which is pure as the driven snow or they're better at hiding their 'sculpting' of reality.  I'm guessing it's the latter.

The other weakness in the argument is that the producers so well know the contestants, before they have ever played, they can arrange them in a team that will be docile.

They don't 'know' them, the cast them.  Is there even an argument to be had here that the cast is carefully instructed on the 'character' they're supposed to be?  The 'bad girl', the 'crazy guy', or the 'master manipulator' or whatever?  I thought this was common knowledge, that some folks auditioned as one character only to be told they already had one, so they switched and got on.  They may or may not flat out tell them who to vote for (my guess is no) but they sure as sure receive detailed instructions on who their 'character' is and plays.  

 

Given this, not much of a stretch to believe that the producers managed to convey the notion 'we want So-and-So to win', and are in a position to reward good behavior.  A good edit can make you a D-lister or, even better, come with a guaranteed return invite.  This is why (I and others believe) they cast lots of wannabe mactors - they're frequently bad players but they take direction and they're desperate for the incentives the producers can offer.  This is how you guarantee drama week to week and keep a show on for 10 years; by not leaving this to chance. 

Who would have guessed Cirie would be such a masterful player?  Yauman?  Richard Hatch?  Sandra?  Tony?  IIRC, Jeff Probst expected several of those players to get booted early.

 

I don't know about most of those others (I missed lots of seasons living out of the country) but I seem to recall that it was revealed by a player that the producers pushed hard for people to vote for Hatch, and this was season 1.  Jeffy's 'expectations' are part of the edit, so it's not surprising that his comments dovetail with the narrative, especially the part that says 'boy, this show sure is not fixed, not at all'.  

Yet, interestingly, I've seen it argued that Ometepe was intended for Russell while the more "salt of the earth" type Zapatera was intended for Boston Rob.

Interesting - never considered that.  If they did intend on Russell's team impelling him along, they sure screwed the pooch on that one.  Probst's outrage when they voted him off is still my most treasured moment on this show.

Edited January 31, 2015 by henripootel

[Oholibamah]

http://robhasawebsite.com/the-cascade-of-gender-bias-in-san-juan-del-sur/

 

This beautiful article articulates everything I`ve said in this thread much better than I ever could. Definitely worth a read.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Oholibamah

[Whimsy]

This thread is starting to move away from it's intent and into conspiracy territory. There is a thread for that here:

http://forums.previously.tv/topic/8730-heres-your-tinfoil-hat-whats-your-conspiracy-theory/page-2#entry473315

Consider yourselves warned. Further off-topic posts will be deleted.

Thanks and happy posting!

[kikaha]

http://robhasawebsite.com/the-cascade-of-gender-bias-in-san-juan-del-sur/

 

This beautiful article articulates everything I`ve said in this thread much better than I ever could. Definitely worth a read.

 

I read the article -- and thoroughly disagree with just about everything the author says.  Here's one example:

 

The author wrote, "In San Juan Del Sur, with an all female final three, the trope was taken to extremes, as the edit was almost totally focused on How The Men Lost." The edit I saw showed just about the exact opposite: how the best player this season -- Natalie -- ran circles around everyone else.  She made the men look pretty much like clowns.  A fantastic performance, that the edit featured: IIRC many commented on this as the season progressed, correctly predicting Nat would win.

 

Similarly, Kim was shown as one of the best players ever.  So was Denise, and the fact that she played in a season with a whole crew of potential all-stars made her victory that much more impressive.  Sandra IMO WAS handed HvV -- not just by a man, but also a woman.  Parvati.  And Parvati is another woman who has been given great edits, reflecting her great play.  Probst says she's the best to ever play Survivor.  Many, many people agree with him. 

 

Bob's win was shown as a gift from Sugar.  Fabio's as a gift from heaven: he came across as kind of a lovable dork.  Tony was shown as an outstanding player -- I totally believe that btw -- but who won only thanks to one of the dumbest moves in Survivor history.  Todd was shown as winning in large part because one of the top Survivor players ever (a woman) delivered an F- performance at FTC.  

 

In short, the examples that counter this point are so numerous, IMO it is rendered moot.  That was my reaction to almost the entire article as well. 

[henripootel]

Tony was shown as an outstanding player -- I totally believe that btw -- but who won only thanks to one of the dumbest moves in Survivor history.

Taking this to 'tinfoil hat'.

[Special K]

Thought you guys and gals would enjoy this article from the NY Times magazine. The late lamented TWOP is mentioned right up front!

 

The Loser Edit that Awaits Us All

 

[Way Wes Jr]

The last two seasons have diminished my belief in the editor's use of obvious edits, at least as far as a "winner's," edit goes.  (Did Natalie have a Million Dollar Quote/ moment at all?)

 

However:

Ms.Blue Jay:

 

Turtles seem to possess an enviable and god-like resistance to aging, and so they came to symbolize longevity. Their link to heaven and earth made them a natural for use in divination. Turtles are also symbols of immortality and are considered temporary dwelling places for souls making their way through a series of lives on the path to Nirvana. The turtle is considered to be the second incarnation of the powerful god Vishnu in the Hindu religion. After a great flood, which occurs every four billion years and dissolves the earth, Vishnu transforms himself into a great turtle. On his back, he carries a vessel in which the gods and demons mix the elements necessary to re-create the globe. After a thousand years, when the earth has been reborn, the turtle remains in place, and on his back stands a large elephant, which support the planet.

 

Turtles represent longevity, of course.  A female turtle laying 120 eggs, of which only one survives, narrated by Jenn, seems to point to a very obvious clue.

A "Million Dollar Quote," isn't always about money, and isn't even necessarily a quote, [standing alone, majestically, on a mountaintop; or giving a confessional from an ocean rock throne (that looked as comfortable as the Iron Throne, and wasn't used for any other confessionals that season.)  I think Jenn has been getting a Narrator's edit so far this season, but now ...

[Donny Ketchum]

The last two seasons have diminished my belief in the editor's use of obvious edits, at least as far as a "winner's," edit goes.  (Did Natalie have a Million Dollar Quote/ moment at all?)

 

However:

A "Million Dollar Quote," isn't always about money, and isn't even necessarily a quote, [standing alone, majestically, on a mountaintop; or giving a confessional from an ocean rock throne (that looked as comfortable as the Iron Throne, and wasn't used for any other confessionals that season.)  I think Jenn has been getting a Narrator's edit so far this season, but now ...

Natalie's winner's edit didn't start either until she swore revenge on Jon for Jeremy's ouster, after she found her idol, or, at the very latest, her moment of introspection and reflection at Exile Island, when she thought about Nadiya.

 

I'd love it if Jenn were getting the winner's edit for this season.  If nothing else, it'd stifle the ones saying Mike's getting one, which . . . I still don't see.  He's getting a more sympathetic one than his allies, to be sure, but he still comes off as just unlikable enough that it doesn't feel like that sort of edit to me.  Added to that, the company he's keeping is even more unlikable, and you don't wanna root for someone like that.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Donny Ketchum

[susannot]

Donny and Wes: I want to be clear that I was quoting that piece, but right now I can't remember the web site I got it from.

[LadyChatts]

Natalie's winner's edit didn't start either until she swore revenge on Jon for Jeremy's ouster, after she found her idol, or, at the very latest, her moment of introspection and reflection at Exile Island, when she thought about Nadiya.

 

I'd love it if Jenn were getting the winner's edit for this season.  If nothing else, it'd stifle the ones saying Mike's getting one, which . . . I still don't see.  He's getting a more sympathetic one than his allies, to be sure, but he still comes off as just unlikable enough that it doesn't feel like that sort of edit to me.  Added to that, the company he's keeping is even more unlikable, and you don't wanna root for someone like that.

 

Maybe I am being paranoid about Mike.  I forgot Natalie was even a part of the season until halfway through the merge and she started talking about getting revenge for Jeremy.  It was literally a moment like I have now with Tyler and Kelly; all of a sudden there's an extra person, and you wonder where they came from.

 

I could see Mike's edit as being more sympathetic, although it's going into redemption mode slowly.  If he does in fact win they obviously have to do something to turn his favor around, even if it's a long shot.  I'd probably say between him, Jenn, Joe, or even Sierra who's in the running as screaming potential winners to me.

 

I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that there's likely no way Rodney is winning this.  The very fact that most of his confessionals were bragging about smelling the million and having his arm raised like Rocky Balboa is pretty clear the guy is getting blindsided out of there.  I can't see any one person that would cast him one vote.

Edited March 27, 2015 by LadyChatts

[KimberStormer]

Right now editwise I see Mike and Jenn.  And Jenn is like almost too obvious with all the winner's quotes.  I'm really worried about Mike.  He had an amazing episode, especially editwise.  The thing that scares me about Mike is we get his emotional reactions to things--Lindsey's mocking God & His beard, throwing a challenge.  As the episode thread will show, people hate you when you throw a challenge, even if you're absolutely, positively, no-possible-debate completely right to do so like Peih-Gee and Jaime.  UNLESS you are all busted up about it, it hurts your pride so dang much, but golly it just seems like the right gosh-darn thing to do, this crazy game being what it is.

 

I don't even dislike Mike.  But I just really, really, really don't want him to win. 

[peachmangosteen]

I don't even dislike Mike.  But I just really, really, really don't want him to win. 

 

I dislike Mike, but not as much as some others, yet I still really don't want him to win either. 

 

After last season I'm not as sure of the edits anymore, but I do think Mike's getting a great edit and I fear he'll win. Jenn is probably getting the most obvious winner's edit and that's why I think she probably isn't the winner. I think Hali and maybe Joe are getting possible winner's edits. At this point, based solely on the edit, I could actually see Shirin winning, but that seems impossible from a game play perspective.

Edited March 27, 2015 by peachmangosteen

[kikaha]

There's been so many complaints about how terrible the edit this season has been, I was interested to read the following comment Shirin made, in one of her post-boot interviews:

 

"In my case, everything that I’m seeing, everything that they’re portraying about other people and me and our stories, that’s the essence of what happened."

[ProfCrash]

That doesn't surprise me. Shirin was at the center of a lot of the ugly drama and that is what we are seeing. What we are not seeing is what Tyler, Sierra, Carolyn and Will are doing. The only time we see Dan is when he is being an idiot.

 

I would say the strategic game play that we have seen is limited to Mike and Rodney. We have started to see a bit from Tyler, and I think the smaller bits we have seen from Tyler adds up, but he has been invisible.

 

This season has been so focused on the drama that we have little idea of what is happening on the beach. Unless the only people strategizing are Rodney, Mike and Tyler. It could be that we have really seen the essence of Will, Carolyn, Dan and Sierra's game play and it really is that shallow and they really are that delusional.  OK, I can buy Dan being that delusional...

[Donny Ketchum]

Now that Worlds Apart is apparently over, where does everyone stand on Mike's winner's edit?  Was it as obvious as most past male winners?  Or subtle?  From the hints I've gotten (I deleted my DVR recording of this season after Kelly's boot, because I feared the No Collars Plus Shirin would just be Pagonged, and I was right), I take it that it was the former.  Or if not, some redemption edit since he started out just as douche-y as Dan and Rodney.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Donny Ketchum

[loki567]

The editors made a huge mistake not making Carolyn looking like a more formidable opponent for Mike. They really should have shown this season more from Carolyn's pov, have explain a lot of her game moves (which was actually plenty). That would have done a good job of hiding Mike's win and in turn, making all his immunity victories more suspenseful. They made Carolyn so UTR and the rest of her alliance look so bad that once Shirin was voted out, I knew Mike was winning. I didn't doubt it for the second.  

 

I think this season had a very similar problem to Caramoan, Probst's last favorite season, that when Probst really likes the winner the entire season will completely revolve around them.  But that doesn't actually make the winner look better because all they're doing is beating a bunch of chumps and non-distinguishable personalities. Tony's victory looked so strong to me because that season did such a good job of giving us fully-realized edits of the other players. Compare that to say, Redemption Island where the rest of the cast could be described as Phillip, Stupid guy no. 1, stupid girl no.1, stupid girl no. 2, etc.  

[KimberStormer]

I will here admit that I was completely wrong about the edit in re: the No Collars; but about Mike's winner edit, at least, I was right.  And I don't think that was clever or anything of me.  I think it was outrageously obvious.  If betting on Survivor were (still?) a thing, I'm sure I would not have gotten very much money for my bet on Mike, which I would have placed the instant Jenn went to the jury, because surely everyone else knew it as well as I did.  (I was confident, though.  I would have made something, because I was confident enough to bet whatever I had.)  I didn't even need Jeff's "iconic winner" comment to know, just the edit.

 

I can only suppose that they meant to build up an epic struggle of good versus evil, but though I think Mike is a good guy, I can't say I like him very much as a character on TV, whereas they certainly did succeed in making the evil as evil as could be.

[Way Wes Jr]

I possibly am too loose with my definition of "million dollar quote" (do you need to say the words "a million dollars"?) but in any case, I don't think it needs to be in episode one.  Also, it's more of a fun thing to find retroactively when you know the winner, IMO. 

 

I most definitely don't only count the first episode, nor does it have to reference a million dollars specifically.  In episode one of S31: Cambodia/Second Chances, Tasha's quote was specific, but Kass' was more of a, "I'm going to win."  (All of the other contestants fell short of declaring a win in the opening, most went with a variant of "changing my story," which implies winning, but...

 

And the survivor in question doesn't have to say it - in my opinion, the Philippines had a (couple of) MDQ when, at the fourth of Matsing's tribal councils both Malcom and Russell said, "If she (Denise) makes it to the final tribal council, she will win the million dollars."

 

And it doesn't have to be said either - one of John C.'s first confessionals in Caramoan was on the most uncomfortable looking rocks in the water they could find.  (And I don't think anyone else, including John, ever had a TH at that location again.)  The thing about those rocks?  They looked like the sea rock/ coral version of the Iron Throne, it was (visually) a complete coronation scene.

[Wings]

Now that Worlds Apart is apparently over, where does everyone stand on Mike's winner's edit?  Was it as obvious as most past male winners?  Or subtle?  From the hints I've gotten (I deleted my DVR recording of this season after Kelly's boot, because I feared the No Collars Plus Shirin would just be Pagonged, and I was right), I take it that it was the former.  Or if not, some redemption edit since he started out just as douche-y as Dan and Rodney.

 

I saw the winners edit and it may be due to Jeff telling us he thought we would love the winner or words to that effect.  There was no one else Jeff would have highly endorsed.  So I looked for it. 

---------------------

As far as diary talks go, we know a producer is there asking questions and guiding the conversation.  I don't think there are clues to the winner when these are filmed, this early.   It is easy to tell if they are being inserted at a later time for the most part.  

Edited September 26, 2015 by wings707

[Way Wes Jr]

But they know who wins before the show airs.  They can edit each episode to fit its self-contained storyline, and leave 'gaps' to be filled in with the winner / loser / "my god this dude is sexist" stories.

 

(And as far as my John C. sea throne interview theory; I'd say they had everybody interview there once - just to have the footage loaded.)

[peachmangosteen]

I thought there was a more general editing thread but I couldn't find it so I thought this was the next best place to put confessional counts. Source.

 

Jeff - 13

Abi - 13

Spencer - 12

Kelley - 11

Andrew - 7

Jeremy - 7
Stephen - 7

Tasha - 6

Terry - 6

Kelly - 4

Joe - 4

Woo - 3

Ciera - 3

Kass - 3

Keith - 2

Kimmi - 2
Monica - 2

 

The first thing that struck me was how few confessionals Joe has had. It just goes to show you that confessionals, while a good indicator of who's being pushed, aren't really the end all be all. Joe is definitely getting a great edit and being presented as a big part of the game.

 

I remain convinced Jeff is getting a Josh from SJDS type edit. I suspect he'll get voted out right at merge/be the first member of the jury.

Edited October 9, 2015 by peachmangosteen

[jsm1125]

It's interesting how Woo, despite having gone to tribal council in all three episodes, has only averaged one confessional per episode.

[Jersey Guy 87]

It's interesting how Woo, despite having gone to tribal council in all three episodes, has only averaged one confessional per episode.

 

Woo has been completely left out of most of the strategy discussions and his "go to" look is befuddlement at tribal council.  He generally doesn't appear to be all that strategic a player and I suspect his confessionals are as bland as the rest of him.

[Guest]

PG said in exit interviews Woo wanted Jeff gone because his TC comments annoy him and he can't trust him.  So he must be playing at least somewhat and we're just not shown it.