TV

Mean Girls And Mateship: Why Is ‘Survivor’ So Uncomfortable With Female Alliances?

Mateship among women isn't given the credit it deserves.

by Maeve Marsden  10 October 2016

Want more Junkee in your life? Sign up to our newsletter, and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook so you always know where to find us.

Once again Australian masculinity masquerading as that cultural icon mateship — and its associated tropes of fairness, honesty and friendship — is messing with one of my favourite television shows.

My love affair with the Survivor franchise is passionate and loyal. I’ve spent countless hours yelling at the screen, screaming with delight and mentally high-fiving people I’d never get on with in the real world; their sneaky game play and strategic maneuvers on this, the human equivalent of a chess game, is worthy of respect and kudos. Sadly in Channel Ten’s much anticipated reboot, the stuff that makes the Survivor great — secrets and lies — has played second fiddle to grand speeches about mateship, casual sexism and long shots of men catching fish.

Your Guide To ‘Australian Survivor’ Feat. An Angry Boomer, Liars And A Whole Lot Of White People

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock or you don’t have a Twitter account, you’ll know that after 32 seasons of American Survivor, or as I like to call it The Greatest Show On Earth, Channel Ten sifted through 15,000 applications and we met the castaways who would make Samoa their home. Fast forward a million years (seriously, Channel Ten, three episodes a week is too much) and we’re at the pointy end of things — the final seven — and gameplay is being dominated by an “all girl alliance,” a phrase used on Survivor when more than two women have more than one conversation about strategy.

–

The Alliance Of “Mean Girls”

Even if you aren’t a card-carrying feminist, a women’s alliance makes sense. Much like in life, women are often targeted early on due to their perceived (and sometimes real) comparative physical weakness. Come the merge, when contestants start competing as individuals, men often fare well in the strength-based challenges. Creating a situation where those men are in the minority while also protecting each other is smart.

Despite their use of a fairly standard strategic approach, the online response to the women currently controlling the game has been mixed, with a massive portion of the audience dubbing them “mean girls,” complete with ever popular gifs from the movie of the same name. While “mean” is hardly the cruelest insult you can throw at a person, the comparison with nasty high schoolers paints a disappointing picture of the way Australia views women’s friendship. And “mean girl” is just the tip of the insult iceberg.

In a recent article in the Herald Sun the women outlined just some of the trolling they’ve received as a result of being on Survivor. Trolling and abuse isn’t exclusive to female contestants on reality shows, but there’s certainly a tendency for the abuse to take on a more violent and sexist tone. Sadly, despite the fact that online abuse is researched, reported on, debated and denounced, it’s not letting up.

Unlike the general public, the actual contestants in Australian Survivor have shown themselves to be at least vaguely enlightened. The sexist men who often get carried through American seasons, either for strength or as goats, were swiftly despatched, with early boots for Des and literal-fedora-man, Andrew. To his credit, much maligned player, Nick, told News.com.au that he too thought the audience response to the women was sexist, stating: “They are strong, smart women and they are in a position where people are coming to them and offering up information, that is amazing.”

“This whole mean girls thing is utter rubbish. They were never mean to anyone, they were just strong women who were in a position of power.”

–

Mateship and Reality TV

While I’ve enjoyed these momentary reprieves, Australia’s culture of mateship, its persistent tall poppy syndrome and our valorisation of the “fair go” has prevailed among other members the cast. The laconic, harmless good-guy of Australian reality television is a familiar caricature and we’ve been lumped with a few of him on Survivor.

You know the one: the dude who won the first few seasons of Big Brother, got the television gig when he was a runner up, started hosting a kid’s show even though he didn’t get to the final three; he’s been all up in your television for close to two decades. I think his name is Ben or Steve, Trevor or Fitzy, Peter someoneorother perhaps.

For longterm fans, watching these dudes plod through the game while hugging it out is mind-numbing. Don’t get me wrong, mateship in principle is a lovely thing. But it makes bloody boring viewing and the masculinity inherent to term means that mateship among women isn’t given the credit it deserves.

The “mean girls” in question, Flick and Brooke, have shown themselves to be a loyal pair, sticking together and manipulating the game to their advantage. The women have also dominated the individual immunity challenges, so they have not just led on strategy, they’re genuine physical threats. They are literally outwitting, outlasting and outplaying; it’s the motto of the show.

Their alliance could have been celebrated from the start but neither Jonathon La Paglia’s awkward Tribal Council interviews, nor the online response placed value on their endurance. I’m not saying these women are geniuses or that they are particularly amazing at the game, but they’re not “mean girls” or bitches. They’re just people competing on a reality show, and they don’t deserve an onslaught of sexism and death threats.

–

Maeve Marsden is a freelance writer, director, producer and cabaret performer. She tweets from @maevemarsden