Quote:
Originally Posted by Soncy
Do you people honestly believe that aggressive behavior by a female is generally recieved and accepted the same as aggressive behavior by a male? Come on. We know better, right? I mean, it's not the end of the world, but it's mostly true that aggressive men tend to be more respected than aggressive women.
There is sort of a weird line in Survivor, but it actually makes sense if you think about it. Think about the men they cast on this show. Some are handsome idiot kids, some are brainiac strategists, and some are strong (physically and/or mentally) middle-aged guys. Now, think about the women they cast. A lot of them are models/actresses, some are girl-next-door types, and very few are middle-aged moms.
If you break down each group, you'll find significantly fewer "winner types" in the females. It's not because women are less adept at winning, it's that the show is going to cast way more of the model/actress/girl-next-door females (most of which are stupid) than they will of the mature, wise, intelligent, middle-aged females. They need brain-dead bikini babes way more than they need brain-dead Brad Pitts. In other words, they will consistently cast guys like Marty and Russell (middle-aged strategic males with no sex appeal) than they will women like Jill and Cirie (middle-aged strategic females with no sex appeal).
To answer your question: yes, aggression from males is probably more accepted than from females. However, if they cast more Ciries, the difference wouldn't be noticeable. Women are only "handicapped" because the females cast for the show are, in general, more attractive and less intelligent than the males.