S31.E08: You Call, We Haul

[Zuleikha]

Not really.  She'll do the same thing to him, if he comes to her aid, as soon as she can.

Everyone will try and get Joe out before FTC. No one wants to sit next to him for good reason. But Ciera will need him much longer than Jeremy/Stephen/Tasha who Joe knows--beyond a shadow of a doubt--are already trying to eliminate him. Ciera/Kelley/Abi cannot work to eliminate Joe until they've knocked out other people (but obviously, they'll vote with Stephen if the alternative is one of them going home). Also, Ciera/Kelley/Abi have currently been easier competition than Jeremy/Tasha. 

[Miss Scarlet]

Savage is one of the most insufferable people to ever play this game. I don't know how anyone can speak and act the way he does and be so delusional that they have no clue what an asshole they are. His whole obsession with being an alpha male (and hanging with the younger alpha men) is pathetic. It's sad and detrimental for him that he doesn't realize how much happier/better off he would be to drop this way of thinking and just be a decent human being. And this issue is only going to get worse for him as he continues to age. The funny thing about his bro-lliance is that he's convinced that he, Jeremy and Joe are so similar, but they're not similar to him. They're athletic and muscular, but seem like pretty decent guys overall. He's a total asshole bully. His whole way of thinking is to constantly make himself feel better by cutting other people (e.g. women, nerds) down. I read that he has two daughters. I'm frightened for them. 

 

I don't care for Jeremy's dismissal of Kelley Wentworth in the secret scene posted above and I also didn't care for Stephen's comment about "I want to get rid of people like Joe, not people like Ciera or Abi in the game". Again, it's just this gross dismissal of women as not being "real" players. Not a good look for Stephen. I wish there was some all seasons thread where I could discuss this topic (maybe the past seasons thread?), but Survivor players really need to change the way they categorize "threats". Joe is strong and athletic, but you could argue that Ciera (who I don't particularly like) is a much bigger threat because she's more strategic and willing to make big moves. Granted, I don't think her strategies are that sound, but she still tries and plays a proactive game. But it doesn't matter because she's just a "small woman" and Joe is a man so according to the sexists Joe is an amazing player and Ciera sucks.

 

I'm also confused by the editing on this show sometimes. I've said similar things before, but it's like the editors want to use this show as an opportunity to showcase the downfalls and hypocrisies of privileged asshole douchebags like Savage and expose their prejudice, sexism, etc and I tell myself to enjoy the show specifically for that reason. But the show can't be that interested in illuminating sexism when they give terrible edits to most female players. Editors, you don't make any sense.

 

I agree with people that one of themes this season seems to be Stephen trying to learn from past mistakes and missing the same mistakes right in front of him. He's obsessed with Joe, but Jeremy is probably his new JT. I remember thinking that Jeremy's quote about being his JT and giving him second place in one of the earlier episodes was pretty telling and it seems like we've gotten some sort of commentary on that in almost every episode.

 

Stephen's comments about getting to go on the reward didn't even make sense. If his main concern was Joe being with that group of people then even if Stephen had won, Joe still would have had a chance to work on that group. It just would have been back at camp instead of at the reward.

[Miss Scarlet]

So was Tasha lying when she told Kass that her and Stephen aren't close? Or are they close? 

 

I found it funny that people kept saying the tight 4 (or 5 apparently) were Savage, Tasha, Jeremy and Stephen when Savage had some sort of freaky pathological hatred of Stephen from the beginning of the game.

 

I agree with Ciera when Stephen was saying that their alliance was different and not "hierarchical". I think that a lot of the time, in an effort to sound intellectual, Stephen ends up saying things that just aren't that smart. Also, he knows he's on a beach with other people who, although some may be smart, are not intellectuals and are leery of intellectuals. Why not play that down a little bit? Just re-calibrate the language use.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Miss Scarlet

[Zuleikha]

Savage, Tasha, Jeremy and Stephen when Savage had some sort of freaky pathological hatred of Stephen from the beginning of the game.

My current understanding is that Savage/Tasha/Jeremy were a tight three. Savage was tight with Joe and wanted Joe to be the fourth. Jeremy preferred Stephen because Stephen was more loyal to him. Since Tasha's been rendered invisible (grr!), I'm unclear who she prefers. 

[SVNBob]

I also didn't care for Stephen's comment about "I want to get rid of people like Joe, not people like Ciera or Abi in the game". Again, it's just this gross dismissal of women as not being "real" players.

I don't think this is about Stephen dismissing women in general, and these two women in particular, as players.  It's that Joe is pretty much liked by everyone, which makes him a threat to win at FTC.  While Ciera and Abi are pissing people off, so they're perfect goats.  Of course Stephen would want to keep to people he could beat and eliminate the golden child he couldn't, regardless of gender all around.

 

To put it another way: if it were Kim Spradlin instead of Joe, and/or both of the Hantzen instead of Ciera and Abi, you'd get the same reaction from Stephen.

[KimberStormer]

Not really.  She'll do the same thing to him, if he comes to her aid, as soon as she can. 

 

Yes, as I say, he still has to play the game.  I know it's hard on poor Joe.  But it's reality.  Easier psychologically to pretend he doesn't need to play.  But Ciera is right.  It shouldn't be easy.  If he doesn't make the difficult, stressful, agonizing moves to reach a 5% chance to win over a 0% chance to win, he's not playing to win.

 

The important part is "as soon as she can".  Which won't be for a much longer time than Jeremy & Co.  Then, you see, Joe can figure out who's on the bottom and needs him this time, and flip to help them.  Eventually he may need to win crucial immunity, when there's no one more to flip to.  Luckily, Joe is good at challenges, and the people who need him right now are not, for example, Malcolm and Reynold, but Abi and Ciera, who have not proven to be very good at them.  So he can get rid of more dangerous people, like Jeremy and Tasha and Spencer, now, which is perfect.  He should be trying to be needed, so he doesn't need to win immunity, with an eye towards the time when inevitably he will need to win it.  That is playing Survivor to win.

Edited November 18, 2015 by KimberStormer

[ProfCrash]

 

Stephen's comment about "I want to get rid of people like Joe, not people like Ciera or Abi in the game". Again, it's just this gross dismissal of women as not being "real" players. Not a good look for Stephen. I wish there was some all seasons thread where I could discuss this topic (maybe the past seasons thread?), but Survivor players really need to change the way they categorize "threats". Joe is strong and athletic, but you could argue that Ciera (who I don't particularly like) is a much bigger threat because she's more strategic and willing to make big moves. Granted, I don't think her strategies are that sound, but she still tries and plays a proactive game. But it doesn't matter because she's just a "small woman" and Joe is a man so according to the sexists Joe is an amazing player and Ciera sucks.

I have no problem with Stephen's statement. Ciera and Abi are in the minority and are not likely to be able to build a counter alliance. They have had six days to do so and they didn't. Hell, even with Joe and Andrew wanting to take out Stephen, the three women could not find their way into the majority for one vote. He is dismissing them because of their position in the game not because they are women who are not physically strong. Stephen targeted Kelley because she was able to win immunity and because of her ties with Joe.

 

Also, Ciera and Abi could make it to the final tribal with Stephen and they would lose because they do not appear to be well liked. Abi has flipped on everyone and Ciera has been stirring up shit trying to get the folks in the middle to move. I am sure that Keith, Kimmi, Spencer, and Kelly do not appreciate being told that they are playing a crappy game.

 

Joe is a much larger threat at challenges and at FTC. The goal is to win the game, which means knocking out the people who might beat you. Stephen is correct in seeing that his social skills and challenge abilities make Joe a much greater threat then Ciera and Abi.

[How Bout That]

Parv's Idol play only served to get Russell's paranoia antenna up which eventually led to his booting her closest ally.

 

I disagree. Parvati made the then unprecedented move of playing not one but two idols at the same time and neither were for herself. She saved Jeri and Sandra who were members of her voting alliance because she knew one of them was going to targeted and she was right as Jeri turned out to be the target that night.

It was a masterful play that most likely changed the complexion of the game. Combine that with her owning more individual challenges than anyone in the history of the game should have given her a shutout victory at final tribal. It is unconscionable that they gave the victory to do nothing Sandra whose only strategy was, "who you wan me vote." 

[How Bout That]

 

What does that mean?  I don't think Parvati holds any challenge records.

 

 

By the end of HvV, Jeff announced that she held the record for the most individual challenges won.

[Special K]

I wonder what he meant by that.  Parvati has 6 over her three seasons.  I just checked a few others for comparison:  Ozzy has 14, Rob has 11, Colby has 9.  

 

Maybe he meant "for a girl."  :-/

[Oscirus]

I disagree. Parvati made the then unprecedented move of playing not one but two idols at the same time and neither were for herself. She saved Jeri and Sandra who were members of her voting alliance because she knew one of them was going to targeted and she was right as Jeri turned out to be the target that night.

 

1. Sandra wasn't her ally.

2. Her trick with that idol did lead Russell to get paranoid as shit to the point where he tried to set Danielle vs Parv. When that failed, he booted Danielle.

don't care for Jeremy's dismissal of Kelley Wentworth in the secret scene posted above and I also didn't care for Stephen's comment about "I want to get rid of people like Joe, not people like Ciera or Abi in the game". Again, it's just this gross dismissal of women as not being "real" players.

 

I see neither one of those instances being misogynistic. Lost in all of this people dismissed Kelley's finding an idol because she was a woman stuff, is the fact that since she found the idol, Kelley spent most of her time convincing takeo 2.0 that Terry had the idol. If people want to  just ignore her hard work and say that the only reason the votes weren't split due to misogyny then be my guest.

 

Stephen's comment had more to do with immunity threats. Admittedly he is underestimating both girls as immunity threat but that has nothing to do with their status as real players.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Oscirus

[Zuleikha]

Lost in all of this people dismissed Kelley's finding an idol because she was a woman stuff, is the fact that since she found the idol, Kelley spent most of her time convincing takeo 2.0 that Terry had the idol. If people want to  just ignore her hard work and say that the only reason the votes weren't split due to misogyny then be my guest.

 

No one thought Terry left with an idol in the his pocket. It's not ignoring Kelley's hard work to say that; it's just listening to what the contestants themselves said about not splitting the vote on Twitter and in exit interviews. They thought there may be no idols in the game because no one was finding clues or idols.

 

And if you listen to what Jeremy actually said, he explicitly said that he didn't think she could have the idol because he didn't think she could have pulled off getting the idol at an immunity challenge like he did. Perhaps if he'd underestimated her less, he could have enlightened his alliance to the presence of idols. But instead, he let them fail to split the vote because he didn't consider Kelley to be as capable as him.

[ProfCrash]

 

I see neither one of those instances being misogynistic. Lost in all of this people dismissed Kelley's finding an idol because she was a woman stuff, is the fact that since she found the idol, Kelley spent most of her time convincing takeo 2.0 that Terry had the idol. If people want to  just ignore her hard work and say that the only reason the votes weren't split due to misogyny then be my guest.

Jeremy flat out said in his confessional that he didn't think Kelley could grab the idol at a challenge without people seeing. She was not capable of it. I don't think it is misogynistic but I do think it shows that he did not think highly of Kelley and her abilities to do the exact same thing that he did. He underestimated Kelley in a bad way.

[Oscirus]

The second part of that statement was because he was watching during challenges after he got his, meaning that he failed to take into account that she could've grabbed one prior to him. That was the error on his part.  Oh and he also said he wasn't 100 percent that she didn't have one. Meaning that he thought it was possible that she could've had an idol.  But if people want to say that Jeremy underestimated Kelley because she's a stupid girl, to fit into their narrative then be my guest.

 

[willpwr]

Jeremy admitted on twitter it was dumb of him to underestimate her when that video came out. Stephen admitted they were arrogant and condescending towards the 3 women on his review. Andrew admitted in exit interviews that they didn't believe the 3 women deserved to be there and he's since changed his mind on Wentworth. These are things the contestants themselves have admitted to.

[BigRedCheese]

 

Andrew admitted in exit interviews that they didn't believe the 3 women deserved to be there

 

An attitude like that might make a little sense on a newbie season, and there's some people that were recruited, and haven't even seen Survivor. This season was all returning players chosen by producers, and voted on by fans, they all deserve to be there based on that. 

[Rick Kitchen]

An attitude like that might make a little sense on a newbie season, and there's some people that were recruited, and haven't even seen Survivor. This season was all returning players chosen by producers, and voted on by fans, they all deserve to be there based on that. 

 

Jeremy has proven to be a misogynist in the past.

[pennben]

Jeremy's number one ally was Natalie.  That he dismissed the notion that Kelley could have found the HII doesn't make him "someone that hates women", nor does anything I've seen from him on the show. Sometimes I think folks throw "misogyny" around too easily.  Were his assumptions sexist, yep!. I'm sure Val and his daughters will remind him to not underestimate women in the future.

Edited November 19, 2015 by pennben

[Rick Kitchen]

He repeatedly said on BvW that he had to ""protect" his wife, the police officer.

[pennben]

I don't see how that makes him a misogynist.

[Nashville]

He repeatedly said on BvW that he had to ""protect" his wife, the police officer.

Protecting someone because you think they're incapable of protecting themselves is one thing.

Protecting someone because you love them and want to spare them difficulty or pain is another thing entirely.

[peachmangosteen]

I too got real tired of Jeremy's need to always talk about how much he protected Val. It's what made me grow very tired of him. I certainly see some sexist attitudes from him though.

[Zuleikha]

Misogyny is often used colloquially as a synonym for sexism rather than as a description of conscious hatred for women (which I still wouldn't describe as a serious accusation... it's not like people go to jail for misogyny!). It looks like we're all in agreement that Jeremy's demonstrated some sexist attitudes, so is there really a point in quibbling about the semantics?

[Nashville]

It looks like we're all in agreement that Jeremy's demonstrated some sexist attitudes, so is there really a point in quibbling about the semantics?

A sexist firefighter???

SURELY you jest!

;>