S29.E14: This Is My Time / Live Reunion

[Miss Scarlet]

But we're not here in a subject called "Life Lessons for Women", this is about Survivor gamesmanship and what works in the game.

I think it's okay to take issue with CBS trumpeting her as an example, sure. Because of the small possibility of people trying to apply her lessons/techniques elsewhere. But the subject I believe we stemmed from originally was when particular women have played a great game. And she did. It bothering many on an emotional/moral level is a separate thing--valid in it's own place when the question being asked is about the morals of Survivor rather than what makes people win.

Yeah, I think the comment "sex is a valid weapon to use when men are making themselves fools over you" made me think of it in more general terms. It is interesting to think about it solely for short-term gain in Survivor. I would say thought that I don't think that in Parvati's case flirting, as we tend to define it based on sexuality, really worked. I don't think a vote ever changed based on her "flirting" with men in the game (except for maybe Russell). It didn't work with Ozzy in her first season despite her repeated attempts to flip him over to her side, the only guy that voted for her to win in Micronesia was Jason, who it seemed that she was mean to or at least didn't pay much attention to and the men that voted for her in H vs V seemed to do because they respected her strategy and immunity wins. So I don't think her flirting actually did that much for her game. She was able to form strong social bonds with the women and those helped her, but that was less about flirting and more about flattery and other aspects of Parvati's interpersonal style that I think get conflated with flirting.

Edited December 21, 2014 by wudpixie

[Lingo]

Yeah I don't think Parvati gets enough respect for her gameplay outside of her "flirting."  She even complained in FvF that if she didn't make big moves (like going along with the plan to boot Ozzy) then people wouldn't have respected her play enough to vote for her in the end. 

 

But I think we're off-topic here, so let's take it to the past seasons thread.

[Miss Scarlet]

Irrelevant.  Each person uses his or her own attributes, qualities, strengths and weaknesses. 

 

 

It sure didn't stop Parvati from developing those skills.  She's a quadruple/quintuple threat, who can beat you with strategy, brains, social, brawn, charm, sex appeal and double crosses.  The most complete package in Survivor history IMO.  

 

 

I strongly disagree that responding to a woman sexually 'objectifies' her. It's an essential part of evolution, built in to our genetic code.  The moment men stop responding to women that way (and vice versa) the human race is in serious trouble.    

 

 

EVERY strategy depends on the other people.  You have to persuade others to go along with you: they decide if your pitch or alliance or promises are good enough to go along with you.  So in the way you are describing the power is always with others.  And in fact, that power is notoriously short-term: it constantly shifts, as broken alliances and the endless blindsides prove. 

 

i.e. the thing you complain about is true of every aspect of Survivor. 

 

Besides, this whole passage sees one tree and mistakes it for the forest.  Parvati builds alliances, plots critical blindsides, wins immunities, and strategizes with the best of them.  Sex appeal is just one tool in her arsenal. 

 

 

While Natalie played real well, I think she played against far inferior opponents.  Who besides Nat might qualify for an All-Stars season?  Maybe Jaclyn?  Until Natalie stepped up her game, this was one of the most boring seasons I can recall.  I know many others made this point, all during the season. 

 

Parv on the other hand played against an entire beach of the best players ever (HvV), and another fantastic line-up in FvF. 

The fact that Parvati has other skills and attributes is great, but that's just one example. There are countless stories and testimonials from women who regret that they relied on flirting their way through things because they wish they had put that time and attention elsewhere. 

 

Responding to a woman sexually isn't objectification per se, but when the woman bases her whole persona off of flirting/her seuxality and that's the way both she and members of the opposite sex see her and evaluate her self-worth, then that is objectification. Which can happen with women who make this their self-defining trait or mode of interpersonal interaction and is problematic when her other skills and attributes are ignored and discounted. Parvati is actually a good example of this because she gets labelled and branded by CBS as the flirt, when her game encompassed more than that. This is not okay just because it's "built" into our genetic code and that doesn't even make sense because there are lots of situations where it's inappropriate for women to be responded to sexually and thus, they aren't. So it's not as though we have no control and cannot stop ourselves from acting on primitive reflexes.

 

Yes, every strategy depends on others, but there's more power and more of a chance of success on the player's part if they try to convince the other person based on strategy rather than being judged based on their looks or on flirting. 

[Chit Chat]

To me, that's not true.  You can still mean what you said and apologize for it at the same time.  If I were in Reed's shoes -- well, first of all I wouldn't have made that speech to begin with.  But at the Reunion, what I would have said (if I really felt I HAD to stand by what I said) was, "I still believe and mean what I said, but I'm sorry for saying it, because it served no purpose other than to hurt your feelings."  See, you can say that, and stand by what you said while at the same time taking responsibility for the consequences of it.

Respectfully, you're putting words in Reed's mouth, but that's not how he felt.  He would be a hypocrite if he apologized for something he wasn't sorry for.  No need for him to do that in order to appease other people.  I thought that a lot of what he said at the final tribal was unnecessary, but he had a right to say it. 

 

I can understand his frustration over how Missy seemed to protect Baylor at every turn. That annoyed me.  I don't think Baylor would've made it that far if it hadn't been for her Mom.  I don't doubt Reed's issues with them.  Again, he probably didn't have to lay it on so thick at the final TC, but I've come to expect that kind of speech from at least one jury member.  I'd take it with a grain of salt if I was sitting there at F3. 

 

FWIW, I'm 50+ years old and don't need a lesson on what an apology is, but thanks anyway.  :)

[renatae]

Kromm -- Jaclyn had to make her decision before FTC.  So from the standpoint of her choice, it didn't really matter what Natalie actually did there.

 

Zombie -- a female all-stars could kick butt.  We'd get a mix of brains, beauty, jocks and manipulation,  In some cases, all in one player.  Some possible players who to mind are Kim, Denise, Sophie, Sandra, Parvati, Amanda, Natalie, Andrea, Jaclyn, Lisa, Kass, Cirie, Vecepia, Sabrina and RC (at the very least for eye candy).

 

 

One can always hope!

 

 

The mix?? Not as you described, "mix of brains, beauty, jocks and manipulation," with Jeff & Co. in control.  We'd get the aforementioned boob-a-thon - like we get with few exceptions now. Have you noticed that even when the women aren't young nor particularly attractive, they are usually well-endowed anyway? Dream on. :wink:

Edited December 21, 2014 by renatae

[angelita100]

I don't understand why Missy and Baylor were not supposed to support each other at every turn.  Didn't every other family team do the same when they could?

 

Have to say I'm loving these Natalie interviews.  Her quote:"didn’t get one [expletive] vote the entire time until the end. Jeff should have talked about that more [at the reunion]. He should have talked about game stuff. Not this stupid rubbish at the finale."

 

Totally agree.

Edited December 22, 2014 by angelita100

[Kromm]

Have to say I'm loving these Natalie interviews.  Her quote:"didn’t get one [expletive] vote the entire time until the end. Jeff should have talked about that more [at the reunion]. He should have talked about game stuff. Not this stupid rubbish at the finale."

Jeff doesn't waste his energy talking about why winning female players played well.

[ProfCrash]

I don't understand why Missy and Baylor were not supposed to support each other at every turn.  Didn't every other family team do the same when they could?

 

Have to say I'm loving these Natalie interviews.  Her quote:"didn’t get one [expletive] vote the entire time until the end. Jeff should have talked about that more [at the reunion]. He should have talked about game stuff. Not this stupid rubbish at the finale."

 

Totally agree.

All of the family members supported each other but Baylor was the only one whose family member was continually stepping in to fight her battles. We saw Missy defend Baylor on a regular basis. We saw Baylor go to her Mom to get extra rice. Keith might have been wrong to comment that he would have whooped Wes if Wes behaved like Baylor was, he was essentially slamming Baylor's work ethic and Missy's parenting, but Keith never stepped in and told people to be nice to Wes. for the most part, the family members were supportive and worked together. Missy was the only one who was very protective of her family member and Baylor was the only one who seemed to be willing to use her family member as a shield.

 

Parvati did a lot more then just flirt. She wins challenges, she works at camp, and she makes pretty good alliances. The show tends to focus on the flirting probably because it is easier to show the flirting then working around camp. 

 

Here is the problem with Survivor. The Producers want a show that is interesting to people. That means people who are larger then life (Russell, Coach, Philip, Brandon, Kass), people who are Survivor experts (Ozzy climbing trees) and people flirting. You can show all of that and people understand it. You cannot show great strategic play because that means lots of conversations, lots of talking heads explaining the strategy and other things that are not exciting to the average viewer. Watch Ozzy climb a tree and get coconuts or spear fish or watch Kim strategize and destroy the other tribe? What do you think draws the viewers?

 

Jeff has said that Survivor is a visual show, which is why you have so many people who look good in a bathing suit and why there will never be a Survivor in a cold weather climate. The Producers love the people who are going to make good TV and strategy rarely makes good TV. Which sucks for those of us who value strategy and enjoying watching good strategic play.

[Kromm]

You can show all of that and people understand it. You cannot show great strategic play because that means lots of conversations, lots of talking heads explaining the strategy and other things that are not exciting to the average viewer. Watch Ozzy climb a tree and get coconuts or spear fish or watch Kim strategize and destroy the other tribe? What do you think draws the viewers?

Jeff has said that Survivor is a visual show, which is why you have so many people who look good in a bathing suit and why there will never be a Survivor in a cold weather climate. The Producers love the people who are going to make good TV and strategy rarely makes good TV. Which sucks for those of us who value strategy and enjoying watching good strategic play.

Especially since with Kim the strategizing wasn't some gloating, hand-rubbing together muhahaha thing, but cool, logical and seemingly respectful of her opponents. If she'd been "Evil Kim", then when she won Jeff Probst would probably have LOVED talking about her.

[Special K]

Heh, what yoga do you study that forbids eating meat and lying?  

 

 

OT to answer this question.  :)

 

I was referring to Patanjali's system which is the foundation of Hatha yoga, and his Yoga Sutras which describe the eight-limbed path.  The first two limbs of the path are not even postural or meditation or breathwork; they lay out the ethics of yoga, the yamas and niyamas (some call them the "commandments" of yoga).  Truthfulness is one of them.  The very first is ahimsa or non-harming which many interpret to include vegetarianism (or veganism). 

 

As in Christianity and other belief/ethical systems, not all followers live up to the ethical strictures, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

 

(There are other systems of yoga as well, but most of what we practice in the West is based on Patanjali, as brought to us by Krishnamacharya.)

Edited December 22, 2014 by Special K

[Whimsy]

Hey, all.  I gave you a little leeway, but this thread is veering off topic.  Parvati and yoga are not on topic for this thread.

 

Thanks and happy posting!

[terracool]

At the F4 vote, when it was either Keith or Natalie going, I had my remote pointed at the TV and finger on the "Last Channel" button. The very second I saw Natalie get voted out, I was going to be out of there and not watch the rest or the reunion.  Great job by Natalie.

 

I didn't see this asked or answered upthread.  Why did Natalie need to do the idol-for-Jaclyn trick to get Baylor out instead of just getting Jac and Keith to vote for Baylor directly?  The only remote reason I can think of would be that Keith would spill the beans at TC, but even if he did there wouldn't have been anything the other Missy and Baylor could have done about it.   And Natalie had already, in a prior vote, sucessfully coached Keith on how to behave at FTC during a blindside (forget who was voted out, but Natalie instructed Keith to act all depressed like he was going home, and he did).

 

So I wasn't sure why the extra chicanery.  Even if the plan leaked pre-TC, she had the last- opportunity II to play on herself.

 

Any idea why she did that?  Has she said anything in interviews?

 

 

Also, why did Baylor want here to play the II for Misty?  If there was any chance at all that Misty was at risk, Natalie would have had to have been a part of it.  Was it a test of Natiale? If so, it was pretty bad because there was simply no risk to Misty.

Edited December 22, 2014 by terracool

[ProfCrash]

I think Natalie knew that she had pushed Keith's ability to keep a plan under wraps to the limit with the Jon vote. She had to include Keith in that conversation so she did but Keith was not the best at keeping secrets. So telling Keith was a bad idea.

 

We know that she did what she did at tribal to make it very clear to the Jury that she was calling the shots. She was able to get Jaclyn to say that she voted the way Natalie told her to vote. Then she played her idol on Jaclyn because Jaclyn did what she was told to do. It was a brilliant display of how Natalie was playing and controlling the game at that moment. It spoke volumes to the Jury. She managed to blindside a strong ally in Baylor and do it by telling Jaclyn how to vote. It was brilliant.

 

I think Baylor wanted to idol played for Missy out of sympathy and as a display that their alliance was really strong. I don't think it was a test of any sort, I think Baylor and Missy expected to go to the finals with Natalie.

[Lamb18]

I wonder if the reason some people see Reed's comments as particularly terrible is that Missy, unlike those other good examples, had her daughter there to break into, "He's being mean to my Mommy!" sobs. We saw, throughout, that Baylor was an easy crier and she does the child's trick of self-starting the tears by making a trembling cry-face first.

It's just one more reason why I hate the blood vs water concept. "Survivor," is my favorite show because it allows us to watch the social dynamics of a group of strangers, dropped into an isolated place, trying to get along under harsh conditions. Operative word being, "strangers."

I guess I was appalled by Reed's comments because the whole situation seemed cold and calculated.  He didn't seem like someone who was really angry and waiting for the chance to give it to a person who wronged him.  I didn't sense that kind of passion.  What I got was a lot of calculated rhetoric designed to make one person (Missy) look and feel bad, but more importantly, designed to make him look clever and be memorable. 

Edited December 22, 2014 by Lamb18

[Hanahope]

I just don't understand why Natalie said that Baylor and Missy were stronger together at FTC.  I can't seen anyone on the jury who would have voted for either of them.  That's why I didn't understand why Natalie voted out Baylor instead of Jaclyn.  The only reason I thought she kept Jacklyn was for another potential FIC winner against Keith, though Natalie would have won if Jacklyn did no.

[Donny Ketchum]

Jeff would cry if he had to host an all female Survivor. There'd be no alpha male for him to ogle and praise. It's surprising he was able to make it through this season. John Rocker was voted out early. Jeremy doesn't fit the "young white and hunky" criteria that he likes. And Jon is at best a Beta Male.

I'd qualify James as an alpha male, too, and he certainly wasn't hunky or white.  Also, Ozzy, who was Hispanic, and Frosti and Woo, who were Asian.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Donny Ketchum

[Misty79]

I just don't understand why Natalie said that Baylor and Missy were stronger together at FTC.  I can't seen anyone on the jury who would have voted for either of them.  That's why I didn't understand why Natalie voted out Baylor instead of Jaclyn.  The only reason I thought she kept Jacklyn was for another potential FIC winner against Keith, though Natalie would have won if Jacklyn did no.

 

I wondered about this too. Made no sense to me. 

Edited December 23, 2014 by Misty79

[ProfCrash]

I missed the interview were Natalie said that.

 

I can see the logic in voting out Baylor. Natalie knows that Missy and Baylor are not liked by the Jury and that Jury's have a habit of looking for the big move. Voting out Baylor makes the Jury happy because they don't like Baylor and are more then a bit miffed that Baylor has outlasted them. Voting out Baylor in such a spectacular manner, handing Jaclyn the idol after ensuring that Jaclyn voted the way Natalie told her to, makes what appears to be a big move by handing off the idol, voting off a strong ally, and conducting a blindside. All of this makes Natalie look awesome in the eye of the jury. This would help her if she had to face Keith in the finals.

 

Keith was Natalie's only real competition. She need to build a case against Keith. Toss in the possibility that Keith could win final immunity. If Keith wins final immunity and Missy and Baylor are in the final four, Natalie is pretty certain that Missy and Baylor would vote for her. Keith would be crazy to keep Natalie so forcing a tie would be tough. Voting out Baylor means that Natalie has other options available to her if Keith wins final immunity. 

 

It was a smart move

[Hanahope]

Ok, I do see the logic in voting off Baylor on the chance that if Keith wins FI, Nat would be sunk if both Baylor and Missy were in the F4.  By voting off Baylor, if Keith won FI, Nat would at least be able to talk with Keith, Missy and Jaclyn to argue her case to stay (the easy one being that she didn't have a loved-one on the jury for an automatic vote).

 

BTW, Nat said that (about how Missy and Baylor are stronger together) in a talking head during the show, not in an interview afterwards.  I don't recall if she specified "stronger in an F3 or stronger in an F4.  Its definitely stronger in an F4.

[KimberStormer]

I think she said Missy had a better case with Baylor than without.  Perhaps the idea was that Missy could say she'd gotten two people to the end, and therefore played the best?  Like maybe the argument might be that it's hard to get yourself to the end, but it's harder to get yourself and another person to the end, like Boston Rob in All-Stars did.  I dunno.

[Lingo]

Respectfully, you're putting words in Reed's mouth, but that's not how he felt.  He would be a hypocrite if he apologized for something he wasn't sorry for.  No need for him to do that in order to appease other people.  I thought that a lot of what he said at the final tribal was unnecessary, but he had a right to say it. 

 

 

Well if he reflects back on that night and STILL doesn't feel bad about hurting her feelings needlessly, then I feel sorry for him.  Anyway, sometimes it's better to be polite than to be honest or "real".

[kikaha]

Question for the forum: did Natalie's experiences on TAR help her in Survivor? 

[ProfCrash]

I think yes. I think that there is a difference when someone appears on their first show and then comes back for a second or goes on another show. They are more comfortable with the cameras, less nervous at the beginning of the game, and have a better idea about strategy. Obviously there is a downside, you could already be known and targeted. Nadyia suffered because she was known and allowed Dale to provide a reason for her to be the first ones voted out.

 

Natalie came on and was probably little more comfortable then the others and had a better idea about strategy then most of the newbies. I also think that Natalie and Nadyia are not the best examples of this because they were both invited due to being loud and obnoxious on the race. CBS had to love that the twins filled a variety of slots, all female, minority, and known to be loud personalities that would make for decent TV.

[ByaNose]

And, oddly enough they never got to be that loud & obnoxious other than with Rocker. They only argue with each other. LOL!!

[himela]

I always wait till the whole season has ended and then I watch it altogether in like 5 days cause I can't take all the waiting. This season I was really excited and happy to watch Survivor Season 29, but to be honest my expectations were not met. This season was not that exciting, despite the few surprises and blindsides that took place. There were not memorable players, memorable strategies or scenes that I'm going to remember. The only good thing was that the player who won was worth the win cause she played a good social and strategic game. Generally I like Blood VS Water but this time I saw that the person who had no loved one after day 3 played the best game. I think that when loved ones play, the game becomes different than the usual game we know.

 

Some comments about the players. Natalie as I said played a very good game and she deserved the money, but I think she was just lucky cause the players that were left after a certain point were not that smart or aware of the game strategy. She made smart moves, but she was just the best in a bad group. Regarding Missy and Baylor, I don't think neither of them deserved to be in the final 5. None did anything strategic, they just followed stronger people and they landed this way in the final 5. I liked Reed and Josh as a couple, I'm happy that homosexuality is able to be shown as normal in american houses and families. From the get go I thought that Jeremy would be the one who would win but he was just unlucky. Overall it was a boring season with just flashes of something interesting. I don't very much like the collar theme but I hope that people will be at least memorable this time. I want the reunion show to last a lot longer and I really don't understand why they don't make it last longer.

Edited January 21, 2015 by himela