Even though the recent Survivor finale ended with Tony winning, it was just as much Sarah Lacina's episode as it was his. The highlights of the night were her emotional face off against Tony, the scene where Ben sacrifices himself for her success and her commentary at the first tribal council about how the jury perceives her in comparison to Tony and the amount of gender bias present there.
It's a compelling moment for her story, the season as a whole, and it's refreshing to see the show and Jeff Probst address that idea more directly than ever before. However, the issue has not been a secret and people wouldn't have to look far back to see how it has bubbled up to be a more present issue in recent times. The clearest evidence of what Sarah spoke about, for anyone who doesn't believe she's correct, would simply be to look at the statistics. In the six seasons, the winner has been a man. In the five seasons before Winners at War, no woman received a vote. That doesn't look great! It's a huge problem that at this point seems impossible to ignore and it's in part due to biases like Sarah mentioned, but also what isn't helping the issue are the format changes that are openly there to help more aggressive players win. Obviously those players tend to be men.
It's not a coincidence at all that the male winner streak started once the final four fire-making twist was added, and right after the new final tribal council format was established; that's something designed to give the jury a specific criteria on what they should look for in a winner, which isn't how that jury should work at all. Survivor has been adding a lot to benefit bigger players. It can even be seen way back when Survivor switched from ending in a final two, to a final three. The next four seasons that ended that way had a male winner, though the show did balance itself out again before going off the deep end in recent years.
The effect of game format changes weren't explored by Sarah or Jeff, but it ties into it because it has put the issue under a microscope. These changes weren't knowingly made to help only men. They were inserted to help visible, aggressive players succeed, and that being the case has only made it more clear how difficult it is for a woman to be one of those players. The new final tribal format and in general how the show wants players to view the game looks down on the styles of gameplay that women can more easily work with. All around they're put at a disadvantage.
Sarah was comparing the perception of her game to Tony's in past seasons. He was largely respected for backstabbing his allies while Sarah was viewed as even more villainous and left with guilt. It extends well past Sarah and to other women, especially older women in the game and how they're viewed after betraying people. There was a large trend in Survivor's second decade with older women being losing finalists. Lisa in Philippines, Dawn in Caramoan, Monica in Blood vs. Water, etc. Women were in swing positions ended up betraying a lot of people and received limited respect for it in the end because it's not what others expected from them. Trends in perception like that from the past are noticeable when looking for them, they're still present, and that's exactly what Sarah was highlighting.
It's not entirely impossible for a woman to beat a man in the end nowadays. There are some examples where if maybe one or two things went differently then it would've happened. So there could be another female winner soon, and that would be great, but the fact is still that the odds are stacked against women winning in several ways within the modern Survivor format. Biases were always there, but unfortunately they have only been amplified in recent history.
from ScreenRant - Feed https://ift.tt/2Z64xqK
0 Comments