MiniCap: Survivor

131 Comments

1. 1
   shantigal
   Posted October 4, 2012 at 11:09 am

   Wow, lots to discuss PM, but I will also wait for the full recap. I watched agape with disbelief, cursed at least two contestants to eternal hell and laughed at one’s shear lack of self awareness.

   And how about that Denise? Is her last name Norris?

2. 2
   crankyguy
   Posted October 4, 2012 at 12:05 pm

   Ave Maria must DIE!!! She can’t talk to my Banker Boobs the way she does and get away with it, no matter how beautimous her bunda is.

3. 3
   itchy
   Posted October 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm

   I’m on your team, crankyguy, now that she got rid of that ridiculous yellow underwire thing and went full on leopard. Grrrrrowl!

   But I’m really hoping Denise wins this whole thing now. She totally kicked everyone’s ass (although Boobs was pretty fucking impressive during that challenge too). Also Ms. Teen Plastic had a huge handicap, seeing as how it it’s impossible for her to dive below the surface. I suppose that how you tell the real thing from the fake?

   I don’t have such as bad take on Malcolm. He seems more amused by the situation than anything else. But yeah, as someone who’s dreamed of being on Survivor too, it would completely suck to be on the loser tribe.

   What really sucks is that, for at least six people in this season, everytime I see them I say: Huh? Who the fuck is that?

   Also I thought for sure Russell was going to get the boot as soon as he started praying — and then when he started comparing his tribulations to being a slave, well, I HOPED he’d get the boot.

4. 4
   alicecarroll13
   Posted October 4, 2012 at 1:01 pm

   nice lay outs in this show of the chicks but i remember the great moments of this show where once for peanut butter and choclate”cant remember her name” goes topless and jeff agrees with the deal..”jeff very smart”.

5. 5
   timgunnssister
   Posted October 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm

   Two words – flotation device. That’s all I”m sayin’.

6. 6
   andyourlittledogtoo
   Posted October 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm

   My hatred for Angie is like a thing of beauty this week.

   First challenge: ‘I want to run! I can’t do puzzles!’ ‘I told you I can’t do puzzles!’

   Second challenge: ‘I can’t run!’ Don’t make me run twice! It’s too much!’ ‘I told you I couldn’t do it!’

   Third challenge: ‘I can’t go down into the water! I can’t do it again!’ ‘I never said I couldn’t, I would totally have done it, I just felt it was better for other people who are better at it than I am to do all the heavy work in the challenge. I’m a team player! Can’t you see that?!’

   Then she goes all sniffles and sad horns. I hate women like her. And I do not care that Malcolm and Russell both referred to her as a ‘little girl’ and a ‘young girl’ at Tribal, to me in that context it was not a sexist dismissal of a young woman. When you play the ‘I’m just a girl, what do you want me to do? I can’t be expected to carry my own weight or meet challenges like every body else — sniffle sniffle’ card as hard as Angie has you forfeit the right to assert the feminist ‘I am woman!’ defense AT ALL. She acted like a spoiled little girl, she gets to be called a little girl. Period. She’s a pageant girl, all bleached hair and fake boobs and pat cliche responses and trying to manipulate the judges (Jeff and her teammates) into giving her what she is after. Even her final TH at the end she was doing the pageant speech deal. I’m only surprised she didn’t throw in a line about hoping to end world hunger and working for world peace in there.

   And people get sucked into the machinations of girls like her all the time. Roxy was vile in many ways but she was dead on about Angie. So glad that little ‘booby trap’ is outta there.

   Looking forward to the full recap.

7. 7
   itchy
   Posted October 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm

   Angie’s a mormom. There’s no such thing as feminism in that cult. I’m pretty sure that would be grounds for excommunication. In mormon scripture, women are inferior beings meant to subjugate themselves to the will of their menfolk. It’s probably why she found it so difficult to speak up to Probst too.

8. 8
   shantigal
   Posted October 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm

   She would have performed better if they only had cookies.

9. 9
   juddfan
   Posted October 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm

   I don’t have a lot of hope for Russell . . . being unable to climb the ladder . . . huh! And I saw, while they were solving the puzzle, R’s hand spun away the right letter . . . .I think they showed it on purpose. It’s like his head is not in the game and he’s rushing around.

   Denise rocked! I respected Juggs more, and Ave is dead to me as well-tho I’m not sorry for the drama as a viewer!

   Skupin . . . it’s becoming ridiculous . . . is it me!!?

   Itchy, I had oh so many, who is that? Am I supposed to know that person this time around, heh!

10. 10
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    But see, that is the traditional women’s power play right there. Men control things so women have to be pretty and manipulative to get what they want, and if all else fails, cry. Angie plays right into that. And she’s got the killer instinct of the pageant girl going for her too. That is a hard manipulative little girl, and I use that term advisedly.

    The reason I went into a defense of the ‘little girl’ accusation was that on other boards Russell and Malcolm are getting slammed for being anti-feminist and dismissive of Angie with that comment and I think in Angie’s case it fits and she deserved it. So I defend their comments IN THIS PARTICULAR case. Usually I hate that kind of dismissive shit but Angie deserved it IMO. So I remarked upon it.

11. 11
    crockpot
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    @timgunnsister …… me a thinking the same thing!!!

12. 12
    Robin
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Stop with all the superficial wounds.

    I wish Skupin would just go ahead and chop off his own head with a machete. You know he is working up to it, so get it over with.

    Robin

13. 13
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    What is it with Skupin? I’m almost suspecting that Probst is boobytrapping (HA!) the stuff he is given to use just to cause him superficial injuries and up the tension all of America feels whenever he does something. I know I’m holding my breath!

14. 14
    Robin
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    I am almost suspecting something different.

    After his last try ended in disaster you would think he would be more careful this time. He has done exactly the opposite. I truly wonder if he has a tendancy to be a complete klutz, if he just enjoys the attention that a severe injury gives him because it happened on Survivor, or if he just thinks that if he has alot of scars at the end, he can say he played hardest.

    The jumping in the water face first with a mask on was stupid. I keep harking back on that. Everybody knows that you dont jump in the water face first like he did. And I am sure that he, and those that were raised in AZ were told not to do what he did before the challenge. Makes me wonder about his injuries…

    Kinda like a Munchausens syndrome _Survivor style.

    TC, Robin

15. 15
    pretty good year
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    andyourlittledogtoo: You have a problem with recall.

    First challenge: Angie says she ran track in high school. That’s actually relevant because that was, like, a year ago for her. Russell instead puts himself and the chain-smoker who gave up cigarettes the day before the game on the running portion. Great move, right? Also, Russell was the one who said, “I can’t do puzzles, so I’m running and that’s that!” Again, terrible leadership skills.

    Second challenge: Roxanne, who was in the military, is older than Angie, and yet apparently did no work around camp (according to interviews and secret scenes on the website) says that she couldn’t run twice because she was didn’t drink water that day (which was her own fault, mind you). Also, according to interviews, Angie was the one who volunteered to go a second time after Roxanne dropped out. She stepped up to the plate. Arguably she shouldn’t have, because it was clearly a mistake, but it’s not like she whined about it. Malcolm could have — and probably should have — gone twice instead.

    In either case, all the interviews, including the post-boot interview with Roxanne, confirmed that Roxanne was let go because she was lazy and Angie actually worked hard around camp. The cuddling drama was all trumped up by editing. That vote was unanimous for a reason.

    Third challenge: Angie said essentially what Russell said when he was trying to justify the fact that he gave up on retrieving his puzzle piece. She realized she sucked at diving and decided to let the good swimmers go instead. Angie and Russell did the exact same thing. The only difference is that Angie realized it was better to let Denise and Malcolm do the diving after her first failure. Russell had to fail twice — and he failed harder the second time — before relinquishing his role in the challenge. In terms of being a “team player,” Angie actually was one.

    Also, everything else you said? You are a sexist pig. Sorry. Saying, “I hate women like her” is just as bad as saying “I hate women.” In either case, you’re connecting any perceived negative traits to her gender. Imagine if last season I said, “I hate gays like Colton” or if during Nicaragua I said, “I hate black people like NaOnka.” Do you get a sense of how awful that sounds?

    I don’t care if you hate Angie. I do think you’re buying into the show’s editing tricks just a little too much, but different fans have different levels of investment and not everyone scours the interviews and secret scenes like I do in order to read between the lines. I get that. So you can forget all I said above if you don’t give a crap. Angie’s a reality show character and she signed on for this, so hate her all you want.

    However, connecting your hatred of her to her gender (or whatever “type” of girl you think she is, because apparently women come in types and models to you — just like cars!) is really, really gross and 10 times more sexist than anything Russell or Malcolm said last night. They were referring to her age and experience, you are referring to her character and her gender.

    And that’s just icky.

16. 16
    Robin
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Hi pretty good year,

    Lets all calm down, OK? Nobody has a problem with recall. It is always just a difference of opinion

    You are absoulutely right when you said “Roxanne was let go because she was lazy and Angie actually worked hard around camp.” She went before Angie for that reason. The writing was on the wall though, that she was next to go, then. She was lessor of two evils and this evil worked around camp.

    But she really needed to put her big girl panties on if she didn’t want to be treated like a cookiemonster. Her tribe of course didn’t think of her as a contmporary because she was playing the little girl card and if it bit her in the ass, then she has only herself to blame. It bothered me from the get go that she thought that snuggling up to a cute guy and telling folks what she will or will not do during challenges would get her far.

    “Also, everything else you said? You are a sexist pig. Sorry. Saying, “I hate women like her” is just as bad as saying “I hate women.” In either case, you’re connecting any perceived negative traits to her gender. Imagine if last season I said, “I hate gays like Colton” or if during Nicaragua I said, “I hate black people like NaOnka.”

    “Do you get a sense of how awful that sounds?”

    Yeah, I do. And I am glad that folks here don’t post like that.

    It is Icky.

    Robin

    TC, Robin

17. 17
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Ooooo, I’m sexist because I called her out on her manipulative shit. Bad me. People play games, and some of them are gender-based. Angie’s game is gender-based and I called her out on it. Refusing to see differences in personality and games is not being gender-neutral, it is being blind. We are shaped by our society, and Angie is shaped by hers. She chose to play that, I am just recognizing it. She could have chosen to play differently. I do not like or respect women who play the manipulative little girl card and pretty-blink their way through things. Period. YMMV. But that doesn’t make me a HATER. It makes me a feminist. If she was in a societal situation where that was her only power (and women have been in that situation for millenia) I would not be so annoyed. But she is an adult woman in twenty-first century America who chose to play with other adults on a game where stepping up and challenging yourself is part of the deal. And she chose the weak play and that annoys the crap outta me.

    And my recall is just fine. thanks ever so. She collapsed each and every time she was called upon to do a challenge. Apparently her game plan was to pretty-blink her way to the end and she didn’t have any actual intellectual or physical game going into it. Bowing out of challenges and then claiming to be a ‘team player’ by pointing out that you SUCK at each challenge so someone else should do it does not earn my respect.

    I stand by my opinion of her. Very glad she’s gone.

18. 18
    crankyguy
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    I felt okay hating women like Angie, but now I see how very wrong that is. Just kidding. I still feel okay about it.

19. 19
    itchy
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    I can very well understand being annoyed by a woman (well, let’s face it, a girl, because she really is still a child) like Angie — just as I’m always annoyed being around uber-macho sports-yapping guy types. This doesn’t make me sexist. Just impatient being around walking stereotypes.

    But I don’t really blame them for this, since most of these people — including Angie — aren’t really in control of who they are, they’ve been formatted by the society around her. In Angie’s case, as I’ve suggested, she has the triple burden of being a) young, b) not very bright, and c) mormon. And C is pretty important in determining her behavior. Hopefully being around Denise might help her to realize what a real woman is like. Perhaps one day she’ll be confident enough to have those ridiculous balloons extracted from her chest.

    I think what really happened is that Angie got her ass kicked out there — she just wasn’t physically or emotionally prepared for it. She thought she was, she wanted to be — but she was not. She’d assumed that the ‘got-get’em’ attitude that worked for her in cookie-dough Utah would work for her in the tropics.

    That’s not really her fault. Kid like that was probably coddled her whole life. And definitely sheltered in an overbearing male-dominated religion.

    But it made total sense for the other two to get rid of her over Russell. (That and the producers whispering in their ear to keep him?)

    Meantime, on EW there’s an extra scene with a really hot-looking woman, who even appears somewhat intelligent — who the hell is that? She’s apparently on Survivor this season.

20. 20
    pretty good year
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 4:03 am

    No one said it’s wrong to see Angie as manipulative and bratty if that’s how you see her (although, like I said, I think the actual footage and all the additional evidence points to something very different, so I don’t know how you came to that conclusion). But it’s wrong to see “manipulative” and “bratty” as gender-based traits.

    I’m gay. Last season I had to deal with a bunch of idiots who kept on connecting Colton’s entitlement and racism to his homosexuality. He was a “type of gay” they didn’t like and therefore it was okay to make inappropriate statements about his homosexuality. Couldn’t they have just said that he was entitled and racist? Why bring his sexuality into it? Same goes when people connected NaOnka’s aggressiveness and rudeness to her race.

    And it’s weird, because people are assuming that since Angie is attractive she was trying to play the “pretty” card. But she never said she was doing this. Even on the show, she never said she was flirting with Malcolm, and as a Mormon who is barely out of her teens, I’m pretty sure that she wouldn’t be flirting with the Dartmouth pothead. If she did have that strategy, it’s not like she was overt about her flirtatiousness — players like Parvati and Brenda admit that kind of game in confessionals; Angie didn’t. She was a pretty girl who cuddled with the guy closest to her age for warmth. Stop the presses.

    While we’re at it, can we discuss the casual, rampant sexism in the descriptions (and depiction) of the Angie/Malcolm friendship? It was just so one-sided. No one would ever suggest that Angie was hypnotized by Malcolm, or that he was getting by on his looks (even though he’s as much of a handsome man as Angie is a beautiful woman) and that it was “cheap.”

    After all, in their eyes, Malcolm’s worth (a.k.a. him being a man) was so obvious that it didn’t even need to be stated out loud. It was just understood that Angie was the one benefiting from being hot because that’s what people assume is her primary value. But in reality, Malcolm could benefit just as much from Angie being charmed by him and his pretty ways. (And she was charmed by him and his pretty ways.) She was a vote in a game about votes.

    Obviously Malcolm is stronger in challenges and, on a tribe that size, the obvious choice to keep, but people act as though women are the only people who attempt to get by on charm and attractiveness, and that’s ridiculously sexist. Attractiveness is a benefit in life in general and many people utilize it. The claws always seem to come out among the Survivor fans when a cute girl tries to attach herself to a guy but no one ever blames the guy for trying to utilize that same strategy (even though Ozzy was very overt about playing that card on Elyse in South Pacific).

    It’s like, men can get by on their attractiveness too, you know? Men can get “blinded by boobies” but women are apparently chaste angels with no interest in sex unless it benefits them, so they don’t get blinded by cute guys? Ugh.

    Bowing out of challenges and then claiming to be a ‘team player’ by pointing out that you SUCK at each challenge so someone else should do it does not earn my respect.

    You must have hated that Sandra won twice, then. I think she holds the record for sitting out of challenges. If you want your team to win, and you know you’re a liability, then sitting out of a challenge (or taking on the less-physical role) is in the best interests of your team. That’s what being a “team player” is.

    I agree with itchy that Angie probably just got her ass kicked out there and didn’t know what she signed up for. She clearly wasn’t a fan of the show and I’m friends with one of this season’s contestants in real life. She said that Angie is sweet and enthusiastic about everything but that the near 24/7 rain broke the spirits of pretty much everyone who hadn’t applied for the show themselves (which was about half the cast — they really have to stop with recruiting non-fans).

21. 21
    timgunnssister
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 7:31 am

    My issue with Angie is simply that she lied. She insisted that she never said she couldn’t or wouldn’t go again. But, I have a great tv, sound system and DVR and she absolutely said “I can’t go again” then Denise took over and she and Malcom and Russell did it until Russell also bailed. She wasn’t ready for this game. Or those two humongous flotation devices made her so bouyant she actually couldn’t go below the surface of the water.

    As to Skupin – thank you mama llama; I cannot look at him now without thinking Skupin=all 3 stooges. And, of course, he keeps proving how true that is with each and every episode.

22. 22
    pretty good year
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 7:42 am

    I think the main reason I want to defend Angie — and I actually feel nothing special about her; she’s a typical weak link early boot — but I guess there’s been this irrational hatred of her and this sentiment that, “Well, she’s pretty, so obviously she’s been handed everything her whole life without having to work for it.”

    I don’t like the sentiment that pretty women somehow won the privilege Olympics. Straight white men (especially attractive ones) are the gold medalists of the privilege Olympics and yet no one ever says that kind of stuff about people like Peter or Malcolm, even though it could easily apply.

    (I think this comment might be a duplicate of a comment I left earlier, but I put in the wrong email address for that one. If that’s the case, please feel free to delete one or the other.)

23. 23
    crankyguy
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 7:54 am

    What I have against Angie is that she thinks she can rely on her looks, fake boobs, coquettish pouting, and when all else fails, turning on the waterworks, to get what she wants. And really, that’s all she can bring to the table. I hate girls/women like that.

24. 24
    crankyguy
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 8:01 am

    “My issue with Angie is simply that she lied.”

    She is a very particular kind of liar. She is like Gnat, the finalist who lost on Big Brother several seasons ago who would deny doing something to the very people who saw her do it. My kid brother used to pull that shit when we were growing up. “I SAW you!” “No, you didn’t.” He grew out of it.

25. 25
    Mister_Dangerous
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 8:20 am

    Uh, the only one on that team that isn’t a LOSER is Denise.

    I don’t dislike Angie because she’s big boobed or coquettish or a girl/lady/woman/Mormon. I’m just amazed anybody would be stupid enough to fall for the load of crap she’s pitching. She made me laugh a number of times during this episode. Some of the stuff that came out of her mouth was pretty funny.

    P.S. I didn’t realize there was another black guy on the show. When did he show up? So I went to the SURVIVOR cast bios and he (ARTIS?) says he’s a combination of Rudy, Rupert and James and that he has “James physical appeal.” Okay, ARTIS is doing drugs.

26. 26
    crankyguy
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 8:36 am

    I don’t thing there is anything wrong with being a Mormon per se. I have these Mormon “missionaries” come by the house about once or twice a year. They always are a pair of guys, never older than mid-20s, riding bicycles, and have the same uniform of short 50′s-style haircut complete with grease, dark slacks, white shirt, and thin black tie. When they introduce themselves, they always attach the title “Elder.” Very weird, but polite. They are very polite.

    But, itchy, I hope you’ll be happy to know that they have been unsuccessful in turning me and mrs. cranky into Mormons.

27. 27
    pretty good year
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 9:34 am

    What I have against Angie is that she thinks she can rely on her looks, fake boobs, coquettish pouting, and when all else fails, turning on the waterworks, to get what she wants. And really, that’s all she can bring to the table.

    Where the hell did you get that? Nothing about her says that at all unless you stereotype all pretty girls that way. She cried because a man old enough to be her father yelled at her. Are pretty women not allowed to have emotions?

    This is what sexism is. It’s assuming that if a woman is attractive or has a certain body type, she’s somehow manipulative or insincere, when nothing in the edit pointed to that. It’s a total stereotype and it’s a cultural bias that you’re promoting.

28. 28
    crankyguy
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Pretty good year, I’m sorry, but you are full of shit. There is something about your pc theory that needs reworking because I HATE and will continue to hate women like Angie, and I have an example in myself where that is NOT the same as saying I hate all women because I definitely do not hate all women. You seem to have a stick up your ass about handsome white males getting undeserved advantages. If you turn your wagging finger around and point it at yourself, I suppose that makes you a sexist pig too.

    I am not assuming anything about Angie except what I was shown. You say I am duped by editing and I don’t have the whole picture. I have enough of a picture.

29. 29
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 9:51 am

    See, I don’t think that is what we are saying. We aren’t alleging that Angie’s being pretty or well endowed (I am too, and naturally, not that it matters all that much but I didn’t go after it) are crimes or make her a bad person. It’s her attitude. We aren’t imbuing her with an attitude because she is pretty, she is using her pretty to cop an attitude and we are seeing through her. And she is a pageant girl, and that is a dog eat dog world where presentation is everything. All I saw was a young woman who was very pretty and pretty useless in challenges trying to manipulate and lie her way along in the game. And she was pretty arrogant about it too. There have been other beautiful women on Survivor who were kinda crafty as well but they had the game to back them up usually. Angie clearly did not. She was looking to her looks and her manipulative skills to see her through. And I hate when women do that. I don’t see anything underneath it. She’s young. She may learn from life and grow and mature. Maybe she won’t. But right now, at this point in time, I have no respect for her. And it galled me to see her playing a game she was not ready to play and to play the ‘team player’ deal when her only contribution to challenges was explaining how much she sucked and someone else needed to do it. She only did what she was absolutely forced to do in challenges by virtue of being told to do it or be final default. She never stepped up and then she’d point the finger at others for not being good enough. I’m glad she’s off my TV. But it’s not her femaleness or her beauty that is my problem, and I am not judging her for either. It’s her stank attitude.

30. 30
    pretty good year
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Yeah, but if she had been all, “Well, I’m useless, so you might as well just keep Russell and vote me out! Good luck, guys! I get to go home and eat cookies!” people would be shitting on her for quitting and not giving it her all. She’d be Purple Kelly Part II, and she’d be hated on for it. I don’t see how she lied and manipulated. She made a pitch to keep herself, tried to minimize her own errors and threw Russell under the bus. Just like Roxanne had tried to do to her the week before, and just like Zane had tried to do to Russell the week before, and just like Russell did to Angie that very night, and just like everyone who plays this game has to do to the other players when they’re on the chopping block. If you’re playing for a million dollars and realize you suck at challenges, what are you going to do? Just give up and not try to stay?

    It reminds me of Season 20 when the Villains tribe consistently sat out Courtney and called her useless. Then when Courtney stepped up to the plate, but lost the challenge for them, they wanted to get rid of her. Much like Angie, she was damned if she did, damned if she didn’t. She only survived that round because Sandra owned the fuck out of Coach (let me take this moment to express my eternal Sandra appreciation), but it’s the same standard and it’s a crappy one.

    crankyguy: One, let’s assume for the sake of argument that I agree with your perception of Angie. If that was the case, I’d still have the same problem with you and the language you’re using to express your hatred. You could hate Angie all you want. Just recognize that there are also men like Angie. There are plenty of people — male and female — in this world who take advantage of their looks, charm and privilege, and the fact is that women always get called out about that shit, but men almost never do. It’s called a double standard for a reason. You’re making it a woman thing and it’s just a people thing. Would it really be that hard to say that you hate “people like Angie” instead of “women like Angie”? You’ve never met a guy who tried to get by on his looks?

31. 31
    crankyguy
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    You’ve never met a guy who tried to get by on his looks?

    Met? No, but JFK Jr. comes to mind. He would probably be president by now, just because of his looks and the Kennedy aura, if he hadn’t augered in. But, as a matter of fact, I do not see men batting their eyelids in lieu of actual performance to gain advantage. Maybe there are good looking guys with female or gay bosses who do something similar, but I have not run into them. Even if I did, I still don’t see the problem with somebody saying, “I hate guys like that.”

    And, frankly, I don’t understand this attitude of hate anybody you want but just don’t use language that some ultra-sensitive liberal types might find sexist. If you are gonna lecture me, shouldn’t it be about being mean and hateful instead of being sexist?

    You’re not one of these people who look at a cast iron lid in the street and see a “person-hole” cover, are you?

32. 32
    pretty good year
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    No, of course not, but I think it’s kind of naive to think that men who use attractiveness, charm, connections and privilege (as opposed to actual merit) to get ahead in life aren’t extremely common. Attractiveness isn’t all about sex appeal, so it’s not about gay or female bosses. (On the flip side, this plays into the stereotype that attractive women only get ahead due to sex appeal, not merit, so that’s another reason I hate this kind of attitude.) Studies have proven that attractive people are more likely to score an interview and get a job. Men earn more than women, and white people don’t face the same kinds of daily prejudices that non-whites do.

    It’s not even conscious on their part — and there’s no reason to assume it was conscious on Angie’s if you saw her that way. It’s just that for some people, the privilege they have just by good-looking — and not a racial or sexual minority — makes everything in life go their way, and they evolve a sense of entitlement because of that.

    And, frankly, I don’t understand this attitude of hate anybody you want but just don’t use language that some ultra-sensitive liberal types might find sexist.

    You don’t? It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? I hated Na’Onka from Nicaragua because she was an aggressive bully, but it would have been wrong to use racial epithets against her. I hated Colton from One World because he was elitist, petty and bigoted, but it would have been wrong to use homosexual slurs against him. I don’t think Angie is like you say she is, but if I did think that, I’d hate her for being manipulative and bratty, but it would be wrong to connect that to her gender or say that she’s being a certain “type of woman” because of that. If you want to judge someone based on their character, have at it. They control that (to a certain extent; itchy was right to point out that culture shapes us a lot). No one controls his or her race, gender or sexuality, so why bring it up when talking about choices and personalities?

33. 33
    crankyguy
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Where is the sexual epithet in “I hate women like her.”? It’s not obvious, even if you claim it is. Clearly, we are just gonna have a stalemate here, cause I ain’t seein’ your point of view and you aren’t seeing mine.

    I mean you can carry this to an even further extreme than you already have. I hate dogs that bite. Oh, cranky, you doggist, you. Other animals bite besides dogs, you know.

34. 34
    pretty good year
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    I mean, I agree it’s a stalemate, but I also feel like I’m not expressing myself well. It really does seem equivalent to if you had said of Na’Onka: “I hate black people like her.” I mean, you could say that you’re just talking about her personality and not trying to make a statement about her race, but if that’s the case, why call attention to her race at all? Ditto Colton and his homosexuality. I’m gay and it did suck to see people say, “I hate gay guys like him.” He was an asshole. What did his sexuality have to do with it? And why was I supposed to not be offended?

    Similarly, when you say you’re just talking about Angie’s personality — but instead of saying “people” you say “women” — that implies that her personality is solely within the spectrum of womanhood. There are people who are emotionally manipulative, bratty, spoiled and who use their privilege (whether good looks or otherwise) to get ahead. It’s not something that’s unique to women and the general tone of your post (not just that one phrase you quoted) implied that it was.

35. 35
    pretty good year
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    And I’ll also grant that it’s one of those language things, which might have led to misunderstanding. “People” — and even “guys” — tend to be gender-neutral and can refer to a group of people of any gender or mixed gender. When one specifically says “women,” it sounds like they’re specifically talking about women and, therefore, excluding men from their critique.

36. 36
    lindaw205
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Good grief, you’re making a big issue out of a non issue. I’m going to weigh in on this one and say that I don’t like women like that, either. And I also don’t like dogs that bite and cats that scratch. And birds that peck. And snakes. I hate snakes that slither.

37. 37
    pretty good year
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    I wouldn’t say I’m making a “big issue” out of anything. I’m naturally the kind of person who speaks in paragraphs instead of sentences and writes 300-400 words about all my opinions, no matter how simple. Also known as a graduate student.

38. 38
    juddfan
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    And I’ll add, as a gay man, I bat my lashes quite a lot! LOL!!!

39. 39
    itchy
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Man, I’m dizzy, you guys lost me. Are we talking about Parvati? Cause we should. We should always talk about Parvati.

40. 40
    crockpot
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    Parvati was that type of woman who knew how to work it unlike stupid Angie.

41. 41
    ZipLock
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    This is the most tedious thread ever. I hate boring posters.

42. 42
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Oh for the love of Larry. Angie SUCKS as a human person. There. Happy now? I have no idea what her gender is, I am completely gender neutral in fact I don’t even see gender I just see unisex humanoids who either suck or they don’t. And I think she SUCKS.

    (Oversensitive graduate students kinda tick me off too, but I don’t want to come off as graduate-student-ist so I’ll just mutter that one under my breath.)

43. 43
    crankyguy
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    @ZipLock, thank you for your enthralling post. You are a breath of fresh air.

44. 44
    crankyguy
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    “And I think she SUCKS.”

    Have we learned nothing? You did not use a gender-neutral pronoun, thereby making it perfectly clear that it is a female that you think sucks. Write 100 times: “And I think that person SUCKS.”

45. 45
    Robin
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    “I hated Na’Onka from Nicaragua because she was an aggressive bully, but it would have been wrong to use racial epithets against her. I hated Colton from One World because he was elitist, petty and bigoted, but it would have been wrong to use homosexual slurs against him.”

    You came pretty close, here. Anybody with any sense knew what you meant. Perhaps it’s time that you discontinue your accusations of others now. It looks to me like you may have a few problems with certain folks that could be questioned also.

    ” Imagine if last season I said, “I hate gays like Colton” or if during Nicaragua I said, “I hate black people like NaOnka.”

    Robin

46. 46
    juddfan
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    I hate global warming . .. so there’s that!

47. 47
    Robin
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    @juddfan

    Global Warming is certainly a problem statewide….umm.what did you say? I am distracted by your lovely batting eyelashes.

    TC, Robin

48. 48
    pretty good year
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    Robin: I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I came close to what? You realize that I was raising analogies and hypothetical scenarios, right? I wasn’t actually saying those things about Colton’s sexuality and Na’Onka’s race. I was using that as a parallel of how people have been talking about Angie (and no one has responded to that argument yet).

    andyourlittledogtoo and crankyguy: Wow, way to miss my point? This isn’t about being oversensitive. It’s not about the use of a pronoun, but about the whole concept that it’s okay to trash a girl because she’s pretty and does pageants (and sucks at a game show). Plenty of players in the show’s history have had the exact same attitude and style of play but not gotten half the negative feedback, and it’s because they were a) older, b) male or c) not as attractive.

    I mean, you can continue taunting if it helps you sleep at night (and I’m sure you will), but I’ll be damned if I don’t have the last word so, in the words of Sandra, stop talking so I can finish it.

    And the graduate student thing was just a joke. Never have and never will make that particularly unwise investment. I have enough debt as it is.

49. 49
    Robin
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    @pretty good year,

    “Robin: I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I came close to what? You realize that I was raising analogies and hypothetical scenarios, right? I wasn’t actually saying those things about Colton’s sexuality and Na’Onka’s race.”

    I am saying that I took notice that you have brought up this particular analogy twice in this thread. They were differently worded, one a bit more tame, in the middle of a discussion that you brought up concerning sexism. Call me annoyed.

    Robin

50. 50
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    Okay, someone disagreeing with your view doesn’t mean they ‘missed the point’. We think differently than you. I think at this point you’re gonna have to deal with it and move on. I am.

51. 51
    Robin
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 1:02 am

    Re: Survivor
    by Robin » Sat Oct 06, 2012 1:30 am

    “Ringgggg”

    Skumpin House~ Hello

    Survivor~ We are calling to inform you that Skumpin passed away

    Skumpin House~ How did it happen?

    Survivor~ There was an ax involved, his hea….

    Skumpin House~ We told him not to get an ax anywhere near his head! We told him!

    Survivor~ Well, the ax didn’t kill him..

    Skumpin House~No?

    Survivor~No. The slingblade that he tried to use to get the ax out of his head is what killed him.

    Skumpin House~ He is always trying to get stuff out of his head with a slingblade. Most folks use Qtips. Darn, I knew that would happen one of these days.
    Thanks for calling. I appreciate it. I need to go now, our Grandson Skupin III is building a fire.

    “Ringgggg”

    Skumpin House~ Hello

    Survivor~ We are calling to inform you that Skumpin passed away

    Skumpin House~ How did it happen?

    Survivor~ There was an ax involved, his hea….

    Skumpin House~ We told him not to get an ax anywhere near his head! We told him!

    Survivor~ Well, the ax didn’t kill him..

    Skumpin House~No?

    Survivor~No. The slingblade that he tried to use to get the ax out of his head is what killed him.

    Skumpin House~ He is always trying to get stuff out of his head with a slingblade. I kept telling him to use a Q-Tips to clean his ears, but no he wouldn’t listen. Darn, I knew that would happen one of these days.
    I need to go now, our Grandson, Skupin III is building a fire. Thanks for calling.

    Survivor~

52. 52
    itchy
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 1:44 am

    With all Poopkin’s cuts, how is it that he isn’t running some massive infection? The camera crew must have a first aid kit and medic on hand at all times. I kind of liked his puppy-dog eagerness his first season, but it seems kind of pathetic now.

    Oh and that baseball player and his four-finger handshake thing — what a douchebag.

53. 53
    lindaw205
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 2:44 am

    His plan has been revealed – he’s going to Tribal one piece at a time. He’ll only be voted off when they can rebuild a whole Skupin.

54. 54
    pretty good year
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 7:11 am

    itchy: One of my good friends is a former contestant. She said that they do treat the very, very minor stuff. They also do medical checks before each challenge to make sure everyone is in good enough shape to participate (so sometimes — rarely — people are asked by production to be on puzzle duty or to sit out if they’re eligible to sit out).

    I feel like that last one must have been implemented after the string of medevacs they had a few seasons ago (Russell’s included). Medevacs really mess up the production schedule, so they probably try to avoid them at all cost. (Last season was obviously a bust, though.)

    Robin: Sorry I annoyed you. I brought it up twice because it illustrated my point well (i.e. sexism/homophobia/racism all share the same traits and are made of the same stuff) and I was talking to two different people. I didn’t want to presume either one had read the entire thread. Wasn’t meant to offend anyone or be repetitive.

    Also, re: Skupin. Remember Boo from Fiji? He was pretty invisible but he had a season-long story line of being a strong guy who was also a total klutz, constantly getting injured. I kind of hope Skupin has the same story line this season.

    They’ve been handling all three returnees very well this season. I don’t feel like any of them are being shoved down our throats like Russell Hantz/Boston Rob/Coach/Ozzy were in the Redemption Island seasons. Skupin has been practically mute for the past two episodes, which I would have never guessed.

55. 55
    giffordsaz
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 7:54 am

    Who the hell pissed in Goodyear’s cereal> ?
    Does it really need repeating that this is a snark site that
    -Is going to tear chicks up because you are that kind of stupid Barbie girl?
    -Get pissed at you because you are dragging your lazy ass man juice on the television I bought and paid for?
    -Roll my eyes because your biting tongue of nasty wit is typical for gay dudes?
    -How about getting my panties in a bunch about the black guy pulling out the race card when it is just their stupidity that got them where they are and not slavery THAT HAPPENED over 200 years ago?
    -grossed out because the stupid cafeteria lay wears a mullet on national television.
    -Having a single fucking emotion about a player that I see using her fake tits and good looks, tears, inexperience and likability to get by when someone feels she is being portrayed by production one way when she really is the freaking virgin Mary who never did a single fucking thing wrong and is just being picked on by ass hat male freaking pigs who keep all women down because they know in their hearts they are better than every single fucking chick on the planet because they have a dick.
    -I hate sexy looking dudes who use their size DD implants to do the same fucking thing.
    -Fucking tired of feminazies who feel the need to educate grown ass people on a freaking television snark site and think they are going to make a difference and repeat themselves because they don’t feel they are getting their point across when most people come here to read about and talk about the typical stereotypical hamster put on the television to irritate us without the constant bashing of the liberal unshaven.

56. 56
    itchy
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Nope. Still dizzy. But I’ve been working on perfecting my martini recipe. That might have something to do with it.

57. 57
    crankyguy
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 9:29 am

    If you insist on having your eyes peeled for sexism/homophobia/racism and feel the need to pounce on offenders and give them a good tongue lashing, then I respectfully suggest that there are better hunting grounds than TVgasm because I just don’t see any of that on this site. A suggestion to get you started: the comments section on just about any article posted on the CNN site.

58. 58
    Detinha
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 9:45 am

    I’m amused by this thread! And I don’t even watch Survivor!! I have to say that even though I don’t pretty much agree with many things pretty good year says, I like to read his comments. They’re very well articulated (is it OK to say that now??) and he doesn’t resort to name calling and many harsh words.

59. 59
    giffordsaz
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 9:52 am

    HIS?…… HE???

    Who the fuck thought we should call out goodyear by sex??????

    Harsh words,,,,, really? A little sensitive aren’t you?

    What exactly do you watch???????

60. 60
    pretty good year
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 9:54 am

    I talk pretty much the same way everywhere I go. Don’t see a reason to not speak my mind here just because it’s a TV site. Survivor has always been a smart show about social politics, and stereotypes and gender are a part of that. There used to be lots of interesting discussions here about this kind of stuff back in the day. I started reading the recaps back in Cook Islands, the season where the tribes were divided by race, and there were a lot of interesting, well-articulated debates about that season. I don’t think snark has to be separated from deeper discussions, or that reality television isn’t supposed to deeper discussions.

    I mean, for Pete’s sake, I made a quick apology to Robin and then I changed the subject. Now other people are the ones still going on about it, so I don’t know what the deal is.

61. 61
    crankyguy
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 10:39 am

    So, PGY, you say whatever you want no matter where you are or who is around you. You see no reason not to speak your mind, as you say. But, as is typical of thought police, you expect people in your presence to edit themselves so you won’t be offended.

62. 62
    pretty good year
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 11:02 am

    I didn’t expect you to edit yourself. I just brought up my disagreements with you and with what you wrote. And everyone brought up their disagreements with me. And we all talked about it. You know, like people tend to do. I’m not trying to stop you from saying whatever you want to say or thinking whatever you want to think. I’m just saying I don’t like it. And, clearly, people don’t like what I had to say. Do I care? Nope. Did I expect them to care? Nope. This is how discussions go.

    If someone doesn’t like — or is otherwise offended by — what you or I write, they aren’t being “thought police.” Otherwise any disagreement becomes a matter of policing thought, and that’s just ridiculous.

63. 63
    crankyguy
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 11:08 am

    You are the only one here who was complaining about being offended. If you had not done that, then it would have been a simple discussion of different points of view. When you complain about being offended, that implies that you think the people offending you should either correct their wrongheaded notions or shut up.

64. 64
    pretty good year
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    I’m trying to find where I said I was ever offended. I thought what was said about Angie was sexist, and I said so, but it didn’t offend me personally. I did mention that similar things said about Colton last season were offensive to me, but that was just a supporting detail, and it wasn’t even referring to this site or any one individual in particular, but the overall fan response to his sexuality during One World.

    When you complain about being offended, that implies that you think the people offending you should either correct their wrongheaded notions or shut up.

    I disagree with this, but I see your reasoning. However, even when I am offended, I would never tell another person to shut up. I mean, I might wish to myself that they would, but expecting another person to not share their viewpoint is censorship, and that’s crappy. And if someone listens to something I have to say and corrects their wrongheaded notions, cool. But I don’t expect it. Since when have strangers arguing over the Internet really led to a change of heart among anybody? I argue, debate and discuss on here because it’s fun for me. That’s all there is to it.

65. 65
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    I don’t want to beat a dead horse – that would be ‘horseism’ – but prettygoodyear, your INITIAL response to my posts was not simply a ‘discussion’ or a ‘response’, it was very hostile and offensive. Discussion is fine, but you way crossed over the line in your first post to me and made a great many offensive assumptions about me and my point of view. So please don’t try to be all ‘I was just trying to bring up my point of view’ on us now. You started this little sandbox feud, you can’t say ‘who me?’ now. And you never apologized to me for all of your OTT offensive statements to me.

    My responses to you have been snarky because I want to a) keep in mind that this is a snarky kind of place and b) not respond in a deadly serious all out battle attitude for the same reason. This is a fun place, not college seminar. I am more than most people on this site guilty (and I do not apologize for it, just state it as a fact) of really analyzing the human behavior some shows and annoy the crap outta people for doing so. But I don’t usually do it by verbally attacking people who disagree with me.

    And we disagree. That’s life. We disagree, we move on, we continue the discussion like adults and find other common ground to snark upon. I hope we can do that here and not keep going around and around on the argument ad nauseum. You attacked me, I defended, and it was on. Let’s finish it now with post 64/65 ish and do something else.

    Maybe like discuss the Skupin strategy theory someone posted above, which I LOVE. They can’t vote him out until they get each part of him to tribal council. See, THAT is why I come to the ‘gasm. I love that!

66. 66
    pretty good year
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Sorry if you thought I attacked you. I figured that I was just keeping pace with the general tone around here, based on what I’ve seen in recent months. For example, I apologized to Robin quickly because I’ve never seen her be hostile or mean, but based on what I’ve read of yours I thought you dished it out often (and you were dishing it towards Angie) so I thought I’d dish it back to you. Not as an attack but just because I thought it would grab your attention more effectively than my usual “college seminar” tone. But you’re right, it’s just a disagreement and we can move on.

    Anyway, Skupin has surprised me by being the least-featured returnee. Given his iconic status and Probst’s man-crush on him, I thought he’d be getting Russell Hantz-circa-Samoa levels of airtime. It’s kind of weird to see him as this under-the-radar comic relief character, but I like that and it’s one reason I don’t mind returning players. As long as we get to see a different side to them, I’m all for it.

67. 67
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Okay, I see your point. But my aggressive stances have been about the show and players and not toward other posters so that is where we diverged I guess. But thank you. I’m glad we can move on and get on with the show itself.

    Skupin hasn’t gotten much air time at all and whenever we do see him he is bleeding from somewhere. I’m wondering if it is editing though – maybe he has less injuries that are just given more airtime over a longer stream of episodes to play up his accident-prone reputation. Although obviously we’ve seen some happen like in the face mask situation. But other times people just come up to him and ask about his finger or his arm or whatever, and we don’t have actual knowledge of when each of those incidents occurred, only what the show wants us to believe about them. They could all have been on one day for all we know. I hope he makes it a long time though – I like him and want him to get his chance again.

    I kind of like all the returnees this season really. They each have their faults but who doesn’t? Russell can be an ass sometimes but I don’t think he means harm by it, I think he really is trying to modulate himself. Skupin tends to get hurt, we’re being shown. And Penner has had trouble with the social game in the past and is working hard to avoid that this time and I always had a soft spot for him in his old season and really love seeing him again here. So this threesome returning works for me. They didn’t bring back people I loathe (like Colton, not a gay thing, an odious human being thing) or anyone named Hantz so I’m pretty happy.

68. 68
    pretty good year
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Hantz hate brings all Survivor fans together.

69. 69
    itchy
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Ah, much better. Yes. That’s one tasty martini. Time for another. Yum.

70. 70
    crockpot
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    God lord PGY. Around & around we go with a Calamari mother. Just a different show. Please go away with all of your degrees & self proclaimed ability to rise above the injustices put upon the people & those that comment on the money god of reality t.v. Take away all the fun while you sit on your computer dealing out to the idiots that should dig much deeper as if how we are the problem not the fucking bullshit that makes HBB a wealthy star.

    Why do I see you as a above average mentally, overweight (obese), neighbor hated, stuff it in your face, kill joy, that really hates everyone in your “circle” that only puts up with you because they must. Always a person with no view until you can pull the curtain & drive the knife. Gross.

    gifforsaz, crackguy, itch, robin, etc. loving you. Crock

71. 71
    pretty good year
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Why do I see you as a above average mentally, overweight (obese), neighbor hated, stuff it in your face, kill joy, that really hates everyone in your “circle” that only puts up with you because they must. Always a person with no view until you can pull the curtain & drive the knife. Gross.

    Beats me. Do you write fan fiction?

    I’m actually a pocket-sized marathoner with one degree (again, the graduate school line was a joke), one husband, two Scottish terriers, oodles of nieces and nephews and a pretty amazing circle of friends. (Who, if they don’t like me, should probably stop coming to my house on Sunday for brunch. Do you think someone poisoned the muffins I was given last week? They did look kind of suspicious…)

    And who mentioned Honey Boo Boo? I like that show.

    The issue kind of died four comments ago so I think you’re a little late. Thanks for stopping by, though!

72. 72
    Detinha
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    @giffordsaz:
    - I called PGY “he” because those eyeglasses seem masculine to me. Frankly, I don’t care about genders.

    -I said “harsh words” but I really meant “name calling”. If that makes me “sensitive”, so be it!

    - Why do you care about what I watch? I’m on the road most of the time, what makes impossible to me to accompany a show, so I’ll watch what’s on at the time I can. Is that a problem for you?

    AND the fact that I said that I like the way PGY express himself /herself/itself doesn’t mean that I dislike any of the other commenters, in fact, I like very much to read what crackguy, itchy (most of the time) and andyourlittledogtoo write!

73. 73
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    I’d love to see this squashed and go back to the show. I think we’ve pretty much stated our positions and moved on at this point. I am not the boss of anyone but that is my hope right now.

74. 74
    pretty good year
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    andyourlittledogtoo: Same here. I only responded to crockpot because I think he tried to insult Honey Boo Boo.

    Can I bring up the fact that water challenges are back? I’m very, very happy about that. I’m glad we aren’t in Samoa for the fifth time and the Philippines is probably the most interesting location since Tocantins.

75. 75
    itchy
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    See, I’ve always been a whiskey man. But damn these martinis are good. A little precious, sure. But damn they kick ass.

76. 76
    Robin
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    ” two Scottish terriers, ”

    Those dogs always sound like they have marbles in their mouths. I can never understand a word they say!

    Robin

77. 77
    Derek Hazelton
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    @PGY: I kind of have to disagree with you. When cast on a reality TV show, you are cast as a “stereotype” and it’s the person’s strength of character and belief in themselves that draws the viewers in. Angie was a typical early boot, as you mentioned, but because she didn’t play the manipulative man-eater strategy, she was not as interesting and actually fits into the immature, young, naive waifish young thing stereotype that bores most viewers. She wasn’t physically astute, had no strategy, and embraced the fact that her heart wasn’t in the game by demanding cookies at tribal council (whether she was joking or not).

    And, anyone who calls an ADULT over the age of 18 a child irks me to no end. If you are of the age that you can go to prison charged as an adult, most obviously you are one!

    @andyourlittledogtoo, I definitely agree with your points made above. You said everything I thought and more and expressed it in a more logical fashion than I could.

78. 78
    itchy
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    Yes, but Derek, in some states they’ve charged 10-year-olds as adults.

    Meantime, I just had a flashback to that old Hazel tv show. Shudder.

79. 79
    Derek Hazelton
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    You have a point, Itchy, but I’ll say that I was speaking in general terms.

80. 80
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    I loved Hazel! Now that you mention it I’m going to have to try to find some old Hazels and rewatch ‘em. They are never on.

    Water challenges!!!! I love water challenges. They don’t do enough of them. I hope we get more of them too. I’d really like to see some of the challenges of the first few seasons repeated now. Those could be brutal.

    The thing that scares me about the Phillipines season is the food. I can really do without gross food challenges. But considering the locale I’m betting we get at least one. /shudder

    Is Survivor Must See Christian TV or something? Because in the last five seasons or more there seems to be a huge and very ‘out’ Christian contingent for a game show with only 18 initial contestants. The odds seem stacked some how. A lot of people praying in public out loud for strength or to win, some, like Coach, openly forcing others to participate in group prayers without asking if they mind, that sort of thing. Personal faith aside, it’s all just really visible and showy for a game show to me. Where are they recruiting from? Do they have Survivor home fellowship groups now in the megachurches? What is happening there? LOL

81. 81
    pretty good year
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    I’ve wondered about the Christian aspect of the show for a while, too, and itchy and I discussed this a bit in a recap after the premiere. Lisa, Michael, Dawson, Roxanne, Russell and Zane all described themselves as devout Christians pre-show. Angie is a Mormon and Jeff, while perhaps not Christian, is a conservative who donated a lot of money to Proposition 8 in 2008. That’s a good half the cast who is a lot more than nominally Christian. The good thing is, though, that it hasn’t gotten to abysmal, uncomfortable levels like South Pacific did. If someone uses their faith to pray for strength, like Russell did, that doesn’t really bother me. It’s when faith is used to judge people or be self-righteous that makes TV all of a sudden not fun anymore.

    I for one would love a gross food challenge. They’re Survivor staples and we haven’t had one since Samoa! And even that one wasn’t that gross to watch because they were drinking “Survivor smoothies” made of squids and clams and stuff. I’m sure it tasted and smelled awful but you couldn’t really tell just by watching.

    Does anyone think it’s weird how Kalabaw and Tandang keep sitting out the same people? I know the rule is that you can’t sit out people back-to-back within the same cycle, but since they’re only doing one challenge per cycle right now — and there are very small tribes — you’d think they would adjust that rule. As Malcolm pointed out, the weaker physical players on Kalabaw and Tandang have just been coasting whereas every member of Matsing has had to participate in every challenge.

82. 82
    SouthernEssence
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Just a quick post to say….

    Re: Survivor
    by Robin » Sat Oct 06, 2012 1:30 am -LOVED IT, ROBIN…YOU ROCK! ( yep, you are THE rockin’ robin lol)

83. 83
    PinkTop
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 8:38 pm

    Confirmed. Jeff “Four Fingers” Kent is a douche. He has advanced to the top of my next-to-go list. What exactly is with his soft and melodic slow-talking? Bitch sounds like he should be narrating a documentary on PBS about koalas. I hope he loses his shit soon, he seems like the type, and I look forward to the unmasking of his baseball identity.

    I got a good look at Malcolm’s ass during the challenge, and is it ever nothing to write home about. It looks like a small pancake. It goes very well with his droopy shoulders and chicken legs. He better start batting those eyelashes because his ass won’t get him far.

    Are Mormons even allowed to get boob jobs?

84. 84
    itchy
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Mark Burnett is a born-again and member of one of the more radical fundamentalist cults, which probably explains the focus on bible-thumpers. I’m guessing the editing staff is probably not as born-again, though, which is the only thing that keeps this series from becoming the 700 Club.

    Mormonism is nothing if not adaptive. They’ve rewritten their own rules many times since Joseph Smith’s original hallucination. Hell, they even started to recognize black men as full-fledged human beings in 1978! And, who knows, maybe one day they’ll give women equal rights too?

    Anyway, no doubt one of the Mormon elders was a plastic surgeon somewhere along the line and figured out that boob jobs are good for business. And they’ll help keep the womenfolk afloat during the next flood.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath on the gay rights thing though.

    But of course, this need to dominate others seems to be a hallmark of ALL fundamentalists, so that shouldn’t be surprising. So why are they all such suck-ass contestants on Survivor?

85. 85
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 1:07 am

    Not to get all weird here but cults are about structure not belief. You can believe the most extreme and bizarre things you want in the spiritual sense and not be a cult. You’d just be in a religion that someone else might not believe in. As for the extreme radicalness of Burnett’s religion I can’t find what church he actually goes to but I come from an actual extreme fundamentalist cult (and it fit the definition quite solidly) for almost two decades (long story) and the kinds of things Burnett produces and embraces in the entertainment world we wouldn’t even have been permitted to watch. If we were permitted to own a tv, that is. So I’m not sure how super radical he is. There’s a lot of very conservative fundamentalist and evangelical churches out there that are still pretty liberal compared to the real extreme but mainstream religious folks probably aren’t fully aware of that whole underground going on. All I could find on Burnett was that he was really into producing religious stuff and was teaming up with Joel Olsteen, a prosperity kind of guru megachurch leader/tv personality.

    I was just kidding about the Survivor home fellowship groups. Now I wonder if there actually are some out there in megachurch world. I find the whole survivor/ religion thing a little disturbing. But I’m a little sensitive to this kind of thing from my extreme background so it probably doesn’t even resonate with most viewers as so odd. And apparently a lot of very devout people are very tuned into the show because they are clearly watching it and sending in audition videos to get on it. And then pray up a storm once they are there.

    This is a fascinating aspect of this show I had never realized. Huh.

86. 86
    itchy
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 4:02 am

    Well, to me a ‘cult’ is just a religion that doesn’t yet have several million/billion members. Or a ‘religion’ is just a cult that has gained enough of a membership to crush all opposition to it.

    But certainly, those megachurches and their pastors definitely respond to the standard cult definition.

87. 87
    snowshoecat
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 6:22 am

    A self-described Christian is one thing; praying is quite another. There is more praying in a casino than in a church, and there are no Atheists at the top of double black diamonds. Do you ski, Itchy?

    As far as breast augmentation goes, I’ll bet Mormons are all for it, considering that big breasts are more for the enjoyment of men than women, and who would go through that if she didn’t want to please a man? I don’t think there are too many secure, emancipated women who have had boob jobs. Should I have used a neutral noun there? Don’t want to appear sexist.

    AYLDT, you must share. Post on FB or some site and tell your story. Fundamentalist sects/cults are fascinating, having nothing to do with fauxality tv. Always wondered why my fundamentalist cousins couldn’t go to movies, yet watched tv every waking moment.

88. 88
    crankyguy
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 7:26 am

    @andyourlittledogtoo, I wanna know more about the religious cult you escaped.

    @SSC, I visited over 50 Seventh Day Adventist churches over about a two year period several years ago, just to get an idea of what they are all about. If the church was small and out in a rural area, everyone seem to be more conservative and held more tightly to some of the church’s rules, like no makeup, no TV, no jewelry, no tobacco, no caffeine, etc. If the church was in an urban setting, many of the members really didn’t pay much attention to those restrictions. My first visit to one of the larger churches, I was invited to an after-church hike and one of the guys told me I was welcome to ride in his van but warned me that he was gonna smoke. I was a bit taken aback. “An Adventist who smokes????” He replied, “Well, I’m a liberal.”

89. 89
    snowshoecat
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 9:01 am

    @Cranky, that is amazing, but rural people tend to be more conservative than urban dwellers who interact with, and pick up the habits of, others.

    The smoking shocks me.

90. 90
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 9:46 am

    See, the structure of the church is what makes a cult not numbers of believers or the acceptability of the beliefs to the major culture. Scientology is huge but it is aggressively intrusive into the lives of its members and very authoritarian down to the lowest levels and controlling of laity to a large degree. It’s not about belief, it’s about control. So you have can huge Christian denominations that are perfectly normal although you may not subscribe to their conservative beliefs, and yet find specific congregations that have become very isolated and rigid and controlling of their members and focused on that one pastor for control of everyone’s lives. Same denomination, but very different.

    Me, I was just a kid who at fifteen got swept away by a very controlling fundamentalist group that was not part of any mainstream denomination. And once in you were never permitted to leave. Never. Leaving that group was leaving God to them and you would be shunned and hellbound. You could not marry without permission, you could not go away to college or for a job or find another strict church for any reason. Heck, you had to ask permission to go on a vacation, even to see relatives. Which relatives you were admonished to be very wary of. It was the whole shebang of cultdom. I married and had kids in it and was unable to break away for about seventeen years (physically) and more than that mentally. So I found myself studying cults and what they are and what they aren’t and just keeping up in general with the cultworld out there. It is a fascinating world to me, and one that I am happy not to live in any more. So I don’t take the terminology lightly. Most megachurches aren’t cults at all, they aren’t my thing and I kinda hate them structurally but not for being cults. But there are some out there that are very cultish. And there are some secular self-help organizations that are as much cults and the Moonies so there’s that too.

    But this is Survivor so that’s about enough about me. I just felt like I wanted to point out that maybe people could have all kinds of different beliefs about God and not be insane or in a cult because just because it isn’t our cup of tea. And I don’t think the folks we see on Survivor (or from what I can tell, Burnett) rise to that level at all. No even Lisa Whelchel in spite of her espoused religious devotion and her indoctrination into a ‘the child is evil and must be broken down and therefore saved’ mentality regarding child rearing.

    I don’t mind the praying on Survivor, even Russell’s weird one this week with the slavery and all. I mean, it seemed kinda wrong to me about the slave thing when you consider this is a game show, but I am not black and that is not my past nor do I think it my place to judge him on it. I cannot know what that means to him and what strength he draws from it, just how it sounds from the outside. But Coach’s religious takeover of his camp and his insistence on prayer even from those who may not be comfortable really disturbed me because no one dared say no or else they would put a target on them as not ‘one of them’ and no one could afford to do that. That was coercive and very hard to watch. But Roxy’s prayer on the beach by herself didn’t bother me. I just wondered why there were so many religious people gathered each season on a game show about deceit and monetary gain. That still seems weird to me.

91. 91
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 9:55 am

    *as the Moonies* I hate the no-edit feature that won’t let me fix my inevitable typos.

    I just wanted to clarify that I was in a very strict yet weirdly hippie church with many beliefs that mainstream Christians would find questionable. It was like having a family with hundreds of people you knew really really well and saw almost daily and loved very much. It was both very stifling and a lot of fun as well. I will be connected to those people for the rest of my life even when I’m not with them and even though I would up with PTSD from the whole experience I still miss the good parts, the tremendous sense of shared purpose and community. It just turns out that the good isn’t worth what the bad costs you in the long run. Sigh.

92. 92
    crankyguy
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 10:12 am

    @andyourlittledogtoo, thanks for your back story; it is very interesting. There was a hippie religious cult in my college town very much like you described, years ago. We called them “Jesus freaks” and they all lived on a compound, although the group operated several small businesses open to the general public including a little hole-in-the-wall deli which used cult members as free slave labor. They were heavy into recruitment, and somewhat successful at it. There was, so I am told, one guru about ten years older than all the college-age members who had absolute control.

    I, too, bristle at the word “cult” being thrown around loosely. A lot of people, including many Christians in other churches, call the Seventh Day Adventists a cult. From my experience, I would say that is the furthest thing from the truth.

93. 93
    snowshoecat
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    @AYLDT, agree with Crank, thank you for the backstory. Hippies seem to be mildly interesting, strangely dressed, even costumed, people from today’s vantage point. At the time, however, they were an almost necessary outgrowth of a culture that was undergoing great upheaval and change.

    You were at that vulnerable age for cult recruiters, and it took so much courage for you to free yourself, especially since with freedom came great loss.

    I had a Seventh Day Adventist briefly as a college roomie. She was quiet and a little strange, but I learned quite a bit about her religion and understand that it’s a valid religion and not just a bunch of wackos with lots of restrictions. She became engaged to an older man from the area who was a church member and left school in her freshman year.

94. 94
    pretty good year
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    crankyguy: You wouldn’t happen to be talking about the Twelve Tribes, would you? They operated a deli near the college I went to in Chattanooga. I’ve heard some pretty crazy and harrowing stories about them.

    andyourlittledogtoo: Thanks for your story. That’s really fascinating.

    All the Seventh Day Adventists I’ve ever known, even the pretty devout ones, have been pretty indistinguishable from the evangelical Christians I’ve known. They seem to blend into mainstream culture pretty well and there seems to be quite a wide spectrum of how observant they are (similar to Mormons, really; I know some pretty liberal and nominal Mormons, too). I wish they’d show more of Dawson because I’d love to see how her faith is affecting her game.

    Heck, I’d like to see more of anyone on the red tribe not named Jonathan Penner and Jeff Kent.

95. 95
    Robin
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    What should we say if Potty Mouth hits a 100 on this thread?

    “I hate Teresa” doesn’t seem right..or “cock” (while always good, not apporpriate in this case..)

    

96. 96
    Robin
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    I know! Cookies! ~

    TC, Robin

97. 97
    andyourlittledogtoo
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    Do you suppose if Romney had threatened to off the Cookie Monster instead of Big Bird people would be less upset?

    What? I figure throwing in a political hot potato (we’ve had sexism, racism, and religion so far) should get us to 100 easily.

    COOKIES!

98. 98
    Robin
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    @andyourlittledogtoo

    I believe so. We are close to Thanksgiving and folks like their poultry! Some also like to go out and shoot Supper.

    yup..sexism, racism, religion and a nod to the Right to Bear Arms! What a Site ! )))

    Take care, Robin

99. 99
    Robin
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    Thank You Potty Mouth!

100. 100
     Robin
     Posted October 7, 2012 at 10:50 pm

     COOKIES!!!

101. 101
     itchy
     Posted October 7, 2012 at 11:40 pm

     I can understand why people would want to make distinctions between cults and religions (interestingly, in French, “culte” refers to a religion, “secte” is the word for cult), but once you’ve stepped outside of faith altogether, it becomes apparent that the distinction is really only one of degrees.

     Religions perform the same brainwashing tactics on their children as cults do, after all. And it can be just as difficult to leave a religion, at least emotionally and psychologically, if that’s all you’ve ever known and all your friends and family remain in the faith. But sure, I suppose religions are more ‘mainstream’ … until they start bombing doctors’ offices and meddling in our politics.

     Anyway, it’s hard to choose which is more annoying: these religionists polluting my favorite reality show, or those damned mormons and watchtower types knocking my door (and yes, this happens even here, in blissfully secular France). I suppose, since the people knocking on my door rarely wear bikinis, I’ll choose Survivor.

102. 102
     crankyguy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 6:37 am

     pgy said: “You wouldn’t happen to be talking about the Twelve Tribes, would you?”

     Nope, another town. I never learned what they called themselves since I never had any direct contact with any of them, but all I ever heard them referred to was “the Jesus freaks” or “the earth people.” But wow — this really is a small world — I used to talk to this crazy chick at work who had been a member of a hippy cult in Chattanooga. She got out somehow and had joined a criminal biker gang (which I think is just another kind of cult) which pimped her out for prostitution. She got out of that after her “old man” got sent to federal prison for a very long sentence. She had a rough life.

     @itchy — you really are a super-duper secularist if you had to move to a secular country and think that church members shouldn’t be allow to influence politics. I think you might have less trouble with the door-knockers if you just greet them wearing that clown mask with a nice, big 666 painted on the forehead.

103. 103
     Derek Hazelton
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 6:57 am

     In honor of Angie, I do think “Cookies!” is the appropriate 100th post, Robin.

     @itchy, I see where you’re coming from, but I wonder if you see Sophie purposely exploiting Coach and Lil Hantz’s cultlike religiosity a season or two ago to win the game as different than someone just outright believing that god exists? I don’t see what the big deal is; you bring your creature comforts from home (some people crave cookies, some crave warmth and good weather, some crave faith). To me, none of the religious types this season have been so egregious as to involve the whole tribe as the season that Sophie won. As long as they keep it to themselves, I don’t understand the big deal. Religious people exist. Fat people exist. Gay people exist. Ugly people exist. Old people exist. In Probst’s case, women exist. Survivor, at its core, is a social game about using your strengths (whatever they may be) to get ahead to win.

104. 104
     pretty good year
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:12 am

     Derek: Atheist Sophie winning South Pacific over the God squad was the best part of that season (which, granted, didn’t have much going for it to start with). I wish she had revealed her secularism on air instead of in post-show interviews. It made her social game seem so much more impressive in retrospect and made her win much more justifiable than what we saw on television.

105. 105
     itchy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 8:01 am

     I didn’t think Sophie ever said she was an atheist on the show — I think she only said she wasn’t comfortable with the whole prayer circle thing. She was clearly bullied into participating in that — because she knew she’d jeopardize her game by NOT participating.

     So no, I don’t consider her doing this as manipulation. It’s like in American politics these days. It is impossible to get elected unless one publicly professes to believing in one god or another (preferably the god that the majority approves of). There’s a good chance many of politicians aren’t nearly as religious — if at all — as they pretend to be. But they also know that if they don’t pretend, they’ll never be elected. Because Americans are simply intolerant of anyone who doesn’t share their superstitions. As if religiosity should be any criterium at all for holding public office.

     Personally, I refuse to vote for anyone who makes public professions of religiosity. Religions have already held the world hostage for long enough. Which means, of course, I can no longer vote in America. It’s a shame and it’s unfair.

     Of course, Americans have made a bit of progress. It used to be if you were a Jew or a Catholic, there was no point in even trying to get elected. Nowadays, people even seem to be prepared to vote for a twit like Mitt. So at least they’re opening up a bit?

     Cranky, I moved to France for plenty of reasons (Mrs. Itchy being number one). The secular society was just a surprise bonus!

     And religious freaks definitely DO NOT want to knock on my door. I invite them in, sit them down for a cup of coffee to discuss their “faith” with them and don’t let them go until they’ve seen the light.

106. 106
     timgunnssister
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 9:03 am

     Religion? Sexism? I thought this was a Survivor thread.

     I agree about the gross food challenges – I loved those. Nothing like seeing someone hurl on national tv.

     I miss the good old days of Survivor when people ate bugs and stripped for peanut butter.

107. 107
     Derek Hazelton
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 9:18 am

     So, to clarify, Itchy, it’s OK to lie about believing in religion, just not to actually believe in it? As much as I normally appreciate and respect your opinion, on this I feel it’s ass-backwards thinking. Sophie clearly wasn’t bullied into anything; she went with the majority alliance that carried her through the whole game. If we learned anything about bullying (from last night’s RHONJ reunion), that word is bandied about way too much. Sophie clearly wasn’t pressured to do something she wouldn’t have normally done within the context of Survivor, which is to go with the majority. She made an obvious game move, no bullying involved.

108. 108
     itchy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 9:19 am

     I try to mention the word ‘Survivor’ in most of my rants.

     I miss the old days of Survivor too. But I think it’s pretty clear by now they’re not coming back. Although there’s hope that Skupin will toss himself in a fire again, at the rate he’s going.

109. 109
     itchy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 9:50 am

     Oops, missed your comment, Derek. I don’t think one SHOULD have to lie about not believing. But given the current atmosphere in the States, it has become necessary to do so. In many parts of the country it is dangerous to admit that one is an atheist. And as I’ve pointed out, it would be career suicide for a politician to admit that he/she is atheist.

     You might not accept that this is bullying, but it is. (Worse, in some countries you can still be stoned to death for not believing.)

     So yes, if it’s a matter of Survival — and in Sophie’s case in the game, it most likely was, she would almost certainly have been voted out if she didn’t join in — then yes, I have no problem pretending to believe. It doesn’t conflict my religious beliefs, since I have none. And my morality and integrity can handle a bit of fibbing.

110. 110
     KJN
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 10:32 am

     So, does any one else see the guy with blond hair on the red team or am I the only one? Is he a figment of my imagination or is he real?

     Is he a mythological creature like Nessie or Bigfoot? Is he a ghost that comes out only for competitions? Will the spirit ever try to make contact with the living? Will he communicate with us on Halloween, like on American Horror Story?

     Can’t wait to find out, the suspense is killing me!

111. 111
     crankyguy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 10:35 am

     In many parts of the country it is dangerous to admit that one is an atheist.

     I know a lot of Christians, and I don’t know any who would want to administer a death sentence or even an ass-kicking to anyone admitting to being an atheist. It is true that they probably would not vote for one running for office. So, name one of these places. Even if you can, is it more dangerous than just walking around alone at night in the wrong section of town in almost any large American city?

112. 112
     itchy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 11:21 am

     Texas.

113. 113
     michkabibbles
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 11:25 am

     @KJN: HA! i’ve been watching survivor with a friend, and she was convinced for the longest time that he and the girl dana were the same person. when he first took his shirt off, she exclaimed-i thought he was a girl! i think his name is carter, which i only learned during the swimming challenge-but not a lot out of him so far.

114. 114
     crankyguy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 11:34 am

     @michkabibbles, I thought on the premiere, until I got a better look, that he was Michele who made it to the finals on Food Network Star.

     @itchy, I think you may have pulled that out of your ass. I bet it might be dangerous for one of your kids to come home and announce, “Hey, Dad. Guess what. I’m SAVED!”

115. 115
     pretty good year
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 11:34 am

     To me, it’s not that Sophie simply “joined in” on the prayer circle that was Upolu. It’s that she was able to work two of the most religious members — Albert and Coach — into letting her into the core three. She never expressed her atheism on the show, but she did in interviews after the show, and I thought it was impressive.

     Survivor is all about infiltrating social groups and surviving until the end. It’s one thing, to me, for Parvati or Kim to lead a group of women who all have similar ages and backgrounds. It’s another for Sophie, an atheist, to infiltrate the God squad and keep up that charade for 39 days and win the million. I don’t know if it’s “bullying” if it’s a voluntary thing. She could have flipped to Savaii at any point after the merge, but she did what was best for her game and she won a million bucks. She’s an underrated winner in my eyes.

116. 116
     wow
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 11:58 am

     Danger isn’t limited only to physical danger. There are many many people who would, as Itchy stated, experience career damage (this is not limited to politicians) if they were as open about their atheism as Christians are about their beliefs. Can you imagine putting anything indicating such an affiliation on a resume?? And of course there are people who would be shunned (or at the least not fully accepted) by their families and friends as well and this isn’t limited to people in extreme circles. I am grateful that I was raised and continue to live in a VERY liberal area and yet still have quite a few Christian friends who accept me BUT deep down still think one day I’ll see the light. Its fine with me b/c I hope the same for them. Regardless, I know this is extremely tame and harmless compared to what an open atheist would experience in a bible belt area or as stated above Texas.

117. 117
     crankyguy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 12:13 pm

     @wow, the worse thing that would happen to an open atheist in a Bible belt area is that he might have to listen to an unwanted Bible lesson and a little street preachin’. Penn of Penn and Teller has said that he would not even allow a Christian into his home, so if you were to drop a Christian into an atheist ghetto, then this non-physical “danger” might apply to him as well.

118. 118
     snowshoecat
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 12:14 pm

     @wow, I can indeed imagine putting an affiliation other than Christian or Jew, or Muslim for that matter, on an application. I’m a Unitarian Universalist, and it is not a sect, cult, or offshoot of Christianity. It’s largely ignored, but it sometimes inspires questions.

119. 119
     crankyguy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 12:19 pm

     @snowshoecat, don’t UU churches have members ranging from those claiming to be atheist to those who self-describe as Christian?

120. 120
     snowshoecat
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 12:29 pm

     @Cranky, yup. Lots of atheists, and occasionally but not rarely, a Christian minister. They hold dual citizenship.

     Wonderful discussions.

121. 121
     wow
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm

     @snow – I was specifically only referring to putting an atheist affiliation on a resume, more power to anyone that would, I wouldn’t.

     @cranky – I totally agree it can go both ways, I don’t agree the worst that can happen is some street preaching. There are bible belt areas of the country where an atheist is a step away from a devil worshiper, if not right there with them. I think you are highly overestimating the acceptance an open atheist would receive in these areas.

122. 122
     snowshoecat
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 12:57 pm

     @wow, I guessed that was what you meant, but “admitting” to being a UU is tantamount to the same thing in many places. Many atheists refer to themselves as “unaffiliated” which is construed the same way.

123. 123
     wow
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 1:50 pm

     @snow – ah ok, got it.

124. 124
     andyourlittledogtoo
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 1:51 pm

     I have actual friends (old friends) who right now this very minute believe that being a democrat automatically takes you out of being a christian. You cannot be both in their eyes. They live in all parts of the country but the attitude is the same. It’s very alarming. I know a woman who is Catholic that taught in a midwestern christian school (social studies teacher) whose Catholicism was not liked but tolerated but got called up to explain herself to the school board when a student’s parent thought she answered the question of what day would Obama be inaugurated a little too quickly, like she KNEW it. And they accused her of being a secret democrat, which was completely unacceptable to them.

     Small towns in the midwest and south can be very insular and have expectations. They don’t ask if you go to church, they ask which one you will be attending. It is expected. If you don’t affiliate don’t expect too many invitations to BBQs and playdates. It’s just the way it is.

     Survivor is a social game and part of that is fitting in and getting people to like you enough to keep you around, not feel threatened enough by your likeability to get voted off, and not pissing them off enough to lose their final votes. That’s a narrow tightrope. Throw a group religious convergence into that and someone who isn’t comfortable with it is really in a bad position. Play along or risk their game. It is very coercive IMO.

125. 125
     andyourlittledogtoo
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 1:54 pm

     Oh, and I should say that the inauguration was 2009, after he was already elected, so they weren’t alleging that she was rooting for him to win, they just thought that the fact that she knew off the top of her head that it would be Jan 20th was very suspicious. Laugh and cry both, people are that stupid and hateful.

126. 126
     itchy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 2:11 pm

     My brother-in-law’s in Texas. He was shocked to discover he had to hide his atheism. He’s under orders from his boss to keep it under his hat, or he’ll lose his job (he’s a teacher). And he has to be very careful what he says and around whom he says it.

     Anyway, here’s an interesting post:
     http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/06/17/10-scariest-states-to-be-an-atheist-1/

127. 127
     crankyguy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 2:27 pm

     @itchy, your brother-in-law? Is your WHOLE friggin’ family possessed by demons?

     Serious though, if he teaches in a private school most anywhere that has a Christian perspective, I would expect he would have to tow the line. But, aren’t there laws to protect his job if he teaches in a public school?

128. 128
     itchy
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 3:13 pm

     He’s in TEXAS. The laws there are all rigged to protect Jesus.

129. 129
     KJN
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 6:55 pm

     @ayldt and @itchy That is some scary stuff. I grew up in a small Northern Minnesota town where it was probably 70-75% Catholic and the rest Lutheran, with a few Methodists, Presbyterians, JWs, and Baptists thrown in the mix. The Baptists were known around town as “bible-thumpers” because they were pretty extreme. There weren’t a lot of them though.

     My family, like most, were Catholic. Catholics are different though (at least where I’m from), in that they don’t go around talking about God or Jesus very much, and many of the ones I grew up with were very much the only at Christmas variety. Some, of course were hard-core (like my grandfather and my mother-in-law).

     When I decided I wasn’t Catholic anymore, they both weren’t happy with me and I know it chaps my m-i-ls ass big time that I didn’t raise my daughter in the church, but for them I swear it’s more about us just not being Catholic and not about worry for our eternal souls. It seems like it’s just all about the church and that’s what I didn’t like about it.

     I call myself a non-denominational Christian. I say Christian because you have to believe in God and Jesus to be one, and I do. Lot’s of people would say that I’m not because I don’t attend church. Of course, I suppose if it wasn’t the church they attended, it wouldn’t count anyway. That’s why I don’t. How can every religion be the “right”one and every other one “wrong”?

     There seems to be something about every church I’ve looked into that I just don’t like. But, I feel that I do have a relationship with God. I look at how so many “Christians” behave and I think, that is the exact opposite of what Jesus preached. If you’re such a good Christian, how do you not know that? My m-i-l would be a good example of that. Not really behavior that will bring me around to her way of thinking.

     I can’t imagine living somewhere where that could interfere with my employment or the way people treated me. People have the right to choose if, when, and how, they want to worship. Or not to, period. All are worthy of respect.

     And, yes I do come from the same state that has Michelle Bachmann as a congresswoman. But: #1 She represents only a small area of our state and almost half of those people cannot stand her and tried very hard to vote her out. They just might do it this time (I hope). #2 She’s not from here originally. She’s from Iowa, so I think they should share the blame.

130. 130
     KJN
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:25 pm

     This is too funny. I just went through my mail that’s been piling up, and lo and behold! A letter from the Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis urging me to vote “yes” (which means”no”) on the marriage amendment. It’s so cute that they think I’m going to do what they tell me to!

131. 131
     giffordsaz
     Posted October 8, 2012 at 11:35 pm

     Jehovah Witnesses don’t believe in celebrating Halloween.
     I guess THEY don’t like random people coming to their doors.