The game, Harald Eia | Harald Eia gives “The Game” an important dimension, Ludvigsen

In his debate post on Monday, we could read Nettavisen’s writer, Maria Ludvigsenget annoyed that Harald Eia “mansplains absolutely everything” in the TV 2 venture “The Game”.

The survey in the same debate post indicates that perhaps even more people are annoyed by Maria Ludvigsen.

Because in stark contrast to Ludvigsen’s frustration, 62 per cent of respondents state that Harald Eia is their favorite in the panel.

Is this because the population loves to be “mansplained absolutely everything”?

I do not think so.

However, I think the population does not agree with Ludvigsen’s description of reality.

Also read: The “game” plan went down the drain: – The mood was so bad

“Mansplainings Alert”

At great risk of triggering Ludvigsen’s “mansplaining alarm”, I dare to refer to the Norwegian Academy’s dictionary definition of the term:

“Mansplaine is to explain something (often to a woman) in a condescending way”.

From my perspective, Eia is neither condescending nor obvious in her analyses.

The game is an experiment in social psychology. How the players are affected by the uncertainty, the lies, the alliances, and the constructed class divide, is the nerve and the interesting part of the concept.

The fact that Harald Eia, with his background in social anthropology, reflects on these forces from a scientific point of view helps to give the program an important dimension.

Read also: This is how Danby Choi got time for a reality show

If Eia had been a woman

I find him neither condescending nor obvious, but rather engaged and knowledgeable.

Do you think Ludvigsen would have experienced it in the same way, if only Eia had been a woman?

Speaking out about equality as a white man in his 30s can often be a thankless task.

But shit.

If Ludvigsen’s agenda with the post is to promote women, I think she is shooting herself (and the women) in the foot.

Also read: Martine Lunde goes straight to the basement. It suits her

Constructed reality

She constructs a reality that successful women who Alexandra Joner and Catherine Fossum are dominated by Harald Eia against their will, and that they almost need protection.

She also suggests that TV 2 favors Harald Eia in the editing, without reflecting on the fact that Harald Eia actually represents a counterpoint to the otherwise emotional reactions in the panel, thus balancing the overall impression.

At the same time, we see strong players who Line Andersen and Martha Leivestad dictate large parts of “The Game”.

If I were Joner or Fossum, I would be offended.

Also read: Anette Hoff devoted almost two decades of her life to “Hotel Cæsar”: – Proud and happy

Seeing ourselves through the panel

The panel is meant to reflect the viewer.

Through their reflections and analyses, we see ourselves.

Precisely for this reason, it is important that the panel is also diversified.

Alexandra Joner, Victor Sotberg, Truls Svendsen and Cathrine Fossum have wonderful spontaneous reactions, which infect the sofa, but Harald Eia helps to make the program more interesting.

In conclusion, Ludvigsen sends a small proposal to TV 2, where she promises to say yes if they ask her to be a panelist in the next season.

If Ludvigsen thinks of bringing a new dimension to the panel, preferably an oblique view from a journalist’s perspective, I wish her the best of luck.

If, on the other hand, she plans to join the ranks of spontaneous reactions such as “Oi”, “Damn!”, “Dust”, “No!”, “Betray!”, I think the panel is already doing a good enough job.