Survivor Quebec is currently heading towards the finale of its second season, which prompted me to look back on last year’s finale and the deep unease I felt. As a devoted Survivor fan, having followed all 47 American seasons, and an author of books on female leadership, I was troubled by the finale of the first season of Survivor Quebec.

This show, which is a true microcosm of our society, highlights power dynamics and biases that are still present, even in our changing world. I recently read the study Surviving Racism and Sexism by Sidanius et al., published in The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Political Science, which analyzes the first 40 seasons of Survivor. This study reveals disturbing truths about bias and discrimination in the game. I also had the opportunity to speak with Kimberly Fortin, an exceptional candidate on Survivor Québec, to understand how these biases may have affected her journey.

Here’s why, in my opinion, Kimberly should have won Survivor Quebec.

1. Bias in strategic moves: Those of women are often attributed to men, minimizing their impact. Kimberly allied herself with two strong players, Christophe and JJ, to ensure her survival, but her decisions and strategic suggestions were not attributed to her. Although she was the one who often initiated the strategies, Christophe and JJ received the credit.

2. Risk of early elimination: Women are statistically more at risk of elimination first and before fusion. The study shows that women are 54% more likely to be excluded first from their tribe than men. Kimberly successfully navigated these tumultuous waters, demonstrating her resilience and strategic capacity, often overlooked by the jury.

3. Gender and Editing Bias: Episodes of Survivor are often edited in a way that highlights men as the main strategic players, reinforcing gender stereotypes and downplaying women’s contributions. In life as in the world of TV, female leadership is often overlooked. The show’s editing highlighted the strategies of its male allies, obscuring Kimberly’s crucial contributions.

4. Perceptions of strength and intelligence: Women are often perceived as “too emotional” or “too sensitive,” which negatively influences how their actions are judged. Kimberly worked hard not to appear emotional, aware of the harsh judgment towards women showing their emotions. However, another contestant, Joel, claimed she was “doing nothing”, despite identifying his level of danger to his alliance and eliminating him. She also worked hard to ensure the cohesion of the tribe despite the factions.

5. Internalized bias: Even women can contribute to gender bias, often due to internalized bias. Karine, last year, played this woman who harms other women to be the only ally of men, making Kimberly’s journey even more difficult.

6. Subtle discrimination: The justifications given for votes often mask discrimination. Biased juries are criticized by Survivor fans in the United States, and players are beginning to respect the game beyond their personal frustrations. In my opinion, the jury should have put aside their personal disappointment and recognized the major strategic move of the season (when Kimberly took out JJ). By influencing the jury, he made Nicolas, a player who had already been eliminated, win. In the United States, fans are said to have strongly criticized this decision.

7. Social Roles and Expectations: Social expectations regarding gender roles influence how women perform and are judged. Kimberly had to juggle these expectations and stereotypes. In addition, she played a crucial role in team cohesion, especially in competitive environments where men can be heated and emotional, causing splits. Kimberly calmed down the strong players, making sure the team didn’t mutiny against the leaders. Taking care of the team is a strength that is often overlooked, especially in politics, just as Kimberly’s role was.

These biases and discrimination highlight a larger problem in reality competitions: the lack of awareness of female leadership. It is time to recognize and value these skills, both on television and in society in general. Producers, like many others, do not yet know the full extent, diversity and impact of female leadership.

It is by continuing to discuss and question these biases that we can move towards more fair and complete recognition of these essential talents.