>>567253Keep in mind, the most important variable here is the producers' casting decisions. If he pics frivolous hotties, then that's what you'll get. If he picks self-reliant /out/ies instead, then you get a very different kind of show.
I think this thread illustrates why Lysenko was so popular in the old Soviet Union. It would be great if people were born as blank slates and that our culture is 100% nurture / 0% nature. Because then we just change the culture to whatever you want, and that's that.
The truth is, in a variety of fields the mix is about 50-50. The vast majority of cultures ARE patriarchal. Men primarily compete for status with displays of substantive fitness. That's not always the case, but it's usually so.
And are the women in the show really wrong here? They're not REALLY going to starve. Food/shelter/supplies will be provided if they run out, whatever the "rules" claim. And what show really follows its own rules anyway?
They're going to be on TV. If you crave fame and will be on TV, then your ticket is to be as hot and as much of a drama queen as possible so the producers make you a main character and you have more fame after the show.
Meanwhile men are discovering fire and the wheel, but ten weeks later they'll be ashore and it'll all be over anyway. Will anyone remember Mike who figured out a more hygienic latrine, or Jan, who was a telegenic jerk and played that awful practical joke on hans?
Considering that this is reality tv and the real goal is celebrity status afterwards, I'm thinking the girls were the more rational ones here.
