Archive through August 10, 2003
TV ClubHouse: ARCHIVES: Big Brother USA 2003 General Discussions Part 1:
Why Do Women Do This?:
Archive through August 10, 2003
What555456 | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 11:48 am     I look at the power of Jee3 and I agree with many of the posters on the Arrogance of the HG's thread that they were handed this power. To me, though, they were handed it because the women in the House were playing for personal emotional reasons not related to this game at all. Erica spent the first two weeks of the game ignoring Robert because she just did not want to deal with him -- she had been hurt too deeply by him (awwwww.........how sad!!) So, Robert had free rein to establish himself with the other two and to besmirch Erica, making her suspect in the eyes of many of the HG's. Even without taking him on directly, she could have countered what he was doing. But she preferred to stay in her snit rather than do anything about it, until she and Robert finally had a talk and smoothed everything over. (how sweet!) By then, it was too late for Erica. Erica allowed Robert the credibility he needed to be accepted as a force to be reckoned with in the house and therefore a part of Jee3. Dana caused the shift in power. Why? Because she wanted Justin not because it made the most sense. (It obviously was a stupid thing to do -- she went out the next week!) To get Justin, she had to go after her competition, Alison. Of course, Alison was her competition for Justin, not in the game. Indeed, and Alison/Dana based alliance would have been very powerful. Dana gave Jee3 the foundation for the power Then, of course, we have Alison's turn as HoH. She certainly cannot go after Justin. She still has romantic hearts in her eyes when she thinks of him. Everybody tells her to get him out, but she cannot do it because...well, she just can't because she promised him she never would. (How sweet!). Of course the real reason is that her fight that week was not to win the $500,000, but to get back at Dana for 1)stealing her man as if he was still her's!) and 2) hurting her feelings by putting nominating her. And so, Dana goes. I am not sure just how secure Jun's alliance with Jee is. Jun thinks its very strong. But whenever I hear Jun telling Jee to go along and play with his little friends but to remember about Jun, Jee gets a look in his eye like he is thinking "Yes Mother" not a look of agreement. I am not so sure that Jee is not the one keeping Jun in tow, rather than the other way around. And so, here we are. Jee3 has all of the power with the confidence and arrogance that comes from it. It was given to them by women playing on personal emotions only. And, the only counterbalance is these same women, but they are all still too wrapped up in their own personal agendas and emotions to think strategically or see reality. Why do women act this way? Why do they make decisions like this? Why can't they set their emotions -- espcially misplaced emotions -- aside and simply deal with the reality they are faced with? Robert will go after Erica long before Erica goes after Robert. Justin will go after Alison, long before Alison goes after Justin. Jee will go after Jun, long before Jun will go after Jee. Why? Why should it be this way? What is wrong with these women? Don't they realize this is a game for $500,000, not real life? |
Maris | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 11:58 am     "Men are not the enemy, but the fellow victims. The real enemy is women's denigration of themselves. " - Betty Freidan I dont know that I agree with you. What I have consistently seen is how women go after each other and tear each other down. Jun, Ali are classic examples, they rip the women to shreds and want the men to revolve around them. The men successfully band together and trust each other far more than the women do. The men are emotional as well when they are on the block. The problem is its been mostlyu women on the block. Nathan has been a ball of emotions since being on the block. Ali has been very cold in how she goes after things. Her attack of Dana on the surface seemed like it was because Dana was after her man. She even said it yesterday. That she didnt like Dana going after Justin and she wanted to protect him. What it came down to is Ali sees the women as her threat. Jun likes to manipulate and wants all women out because they get in her way. She has not played emotionally at all. Erika has been much harsher on all the women than she has on any of the men except Robert. |
Gina8642 | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 12:01 pm     This isn't a man woman thing - It is a casting thing!!! Both sexes have folks like this. They choose to cast these mad, back-biting, b$tchy women for entertainment purposes. You arn't going to find deep meaning about the differences between men and women by studying the folks cast in reality tv shows. |
Karuuna | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 12:04 pm     What, excellent post! I think part of the problem is that, in *general* (not stereotyping ALL women) women are more relationship-oriented, while men are more achievement oriented. There are some great books out that explain the biological differences in the brain that accompany these behaviors. I think it's really hard for women to turn off the part of their brain that biases them toward thinking about relationships, long enough to think about the game in terms of strategy. I also think it's very easy for men to form temporary alliances/friendships in the house in order to further their game, because they have more real life experience in doing so, since most of them grow up playing team sports of one kind or another. Thinking of how to win the game is more natural biologically for men, and it is reinforced throughout their growing up. I don't think ALL women are that way. Dani is a good example of MOSTLY being able to put relationships aside, but in the end, I think she let enough of that kind of thinking seep in to ruin her chance at winning. Lisa clearly did put her relationship (with Eric) completely aside in order to further her in the game. It worked, however, she got raked over the coals here for doing it. It's kind of a no-win situation. Thanks for starting a thought-provoking, interesting thread! |
Kalekona | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 12:08 pm     I diagree about Dana, I think it was the right move for her to make. It made sense anwould have worked for her if one of the guys had won HOH instead of ali. I also think the power of Jee3 had less to do with the woman than it did the entire "originals" who were so focused only on getting rid of the ex's that they forced the guys together and made the bond solid. plus Nate went after Amanda instead of one of the guys. |
Xarph | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 12:10 pm     This is NOT what women do. This is what the women whom Arnie casted do. The women on BB 2,3,&4 are a reflection of Arnie's attitude about women. BB1 had a really classy woman, Cassandra. You will never see such a woman on an Arnie produced BB. |
Lancecrossfire | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 12:17 pm     I think these are very good points. It happens in business too. There are women that can match any guy in business tactics, playing hard ball and looking at what it takes to get ahead without seeing anything that is in general, associated with how women look at the importance of relationships in everything. (a generality--just like Kar said) Unfortunately, what seems to happen is that often, these women are looked down upon, while their male counterparts are seen as great business men. As Kar said, a no-win situation. I think that is very unfortunate. At the same time, there are men that do well in the role of care taker for the family. They too are often looked down upon for taking advantage of the money their wife makes, being lazy, etc. Another no win situation that results from someone doing well in a role that is seen generally outside the typical boundries. One of the things I've seen first hand is a woman in the business setting, working hard to hold her ground with the men. The men, rightfully so, treating her like they would any other peer, then the woman complaining that she isn't being given considerations that one would typically associate toward a woman in a non-business setting--yet from their perspective they were treating her the same way they would a fellow business man. In the game of BB, I think that icluding both perspectives gives the best chance for a win, or at least doing well. You have to include game strategy, logic, competition, and such things as that--but you also have to consider human interaction, emotions and how they affect the game, and very relationshi oriented thinking so you don't allienate everyone for being a driven forceful bull in a china shop. |
Penpoint | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 12:22 pm     Robert and Jee are probably so insecure in real life that they are emotionally clinging to each other and to Justin. I don't really know about Justin since he hasn't had to face anything in the game that would bring out an emotional decision. Because of other's emotions, the three amigos are in good shape in this game. The least emotional players this year are Jack, Jun, and David, while Dana, Scott, Nathan, and Erika are probably the most emotional. Amanda and Michele just didn't play. And Alison--well, she's so devious who can tell if it's emotion or intellect that drives her. |
Oregonfire | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 01:14 pm     Good post, Karuuna--always so easy to agree with you! My thoughts exactly. I thought "Dani" before I even got to your last paragraph. The "guys first" reaction is biological default setting and requires a bit of self-reflection to master, which the female HGs this year may not do in abundance. That seems like the real problem. |
Lurknomore | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 01:34 pm     There are very good points already made here so I won't be redundant except with one clarification. <M> |
Sanfranjoshfan | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 02:41 pm     I'd have to agree with others that said that not all women are like this. Arnie cast women that are aggressive and/or emotional and/or manipulative for the purposes of drama and getting some entertaining moments on the show, not because their behavior or personalities were representative of most women in general. If this house is representative of most women (or men, for that matter) then this country is in DEEP doodoo. |
Squaredsc | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 07:06 pm     i'll cosign that sanfran. |
Ocean_Islands | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 07:22 pm     David was a very emotional player, that's why he left early. His desire to one-up the other team was a fatal mistake based on emotions. |
Penpoint | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 09:17 pm     Ocean, I saw no evidence that David was an emotional player. He was very competitive, but in this game he was a very analytical strategist. The reason he left early is that Nate used the POV, and David was recognized as a strong player that the others feared. |
Onlyhuman | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 10:40 pm     I agree with Ocean. David got an intense joy out of messing with the minds of the exes. He loved the fact that they were going to be shocked by them saving Erika and by the fact that they thought they were in an alliance with them and they really weren't. An analytical strategist would have looked at the fact that he would now have at least 3 people who were against him due to this power play and tried to have some sort of back-up plan in case he was not in a position of power for the next HOH. David didn't do that. Instead, he was confident that the other side would NOT win, and that he had nothing to worry about. That was his fatal mistake. He chose to save Erika (and I think that there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself) without considering the position it would leave him in. He let his overconfidence blind him to possible repercussions. I consider that letting your emotions interfere with good strategical play. |
Penpoint | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 11:36 pm     Onlyhuman, everyone except the three amigos chose to save Erika over Michelle. Jack also chose to save Erika, and both he and David were in the same position. The next week the HGs chose to save Jack over David. So how was it that David let his emotions "interfere with good strategical play" but Jack didn't? Sorry, I still don't see that David made emotional choices. Just because someone is analytical doesn't assure him of being right or seeing every possibility. |
Onlyhuman | Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 11:57 pm     Penpoint, I don't think it was a bad move to save Erika. I think it was a smart move to save someone in his alliance. However, what David did (as did the others) was burn several bridges VERY fast, mostly because he wanted the enjoyment of seeing the shock on the faces of the the 3 amigos. David & Jack were silly to agree to an alliance with the boys that they had NO INTENTION of keeping, because they still had to deal with those guys in the future. As I watched the feeds that week, David several times talked about how he was looking forward to shocking the guys in such a way. He never once worried about what would happen once his deception came to light. None of those engineering the plot did. They just assumed that they would have the upper hand once Erika was saved and that they were essentially killing the exes with this move. By getting so caught up in their "power" and glorying in their opportunity to undermine the stooges, they lost sight of the fact that they would still have to deal with them in the game. To me, a good strategist would not have been so caught up in the beauty of the current plan that he overlooked the consequences. Because David (and the others) was sooooo impressed with what he saw as a brilliant move, he made no plans for how to deal with the consequences, other than "we have to win HOH". To me, that is letting your emotions blind you to strategic consequences. Alison, for all her "emotional" play, always has a backup plan that she can turn to. She used Nathan, she used the stooges and she continues to use everyone else. Even when she didn't put the stooges up, she already had a plan worked out on how to explain this to her "alliance", using her own "emotional" play as a cover for her strategy. As long as she gives the appearance of playing "emotionally" she will not be considered a threat by any of the men, who are so blinded by their own belief in their superiority that they cannot see how she is really playing them all. |
Widowswalk | Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 12:12 am     To answer the question "Why do women do this?" I am a woman and I honestly don't know why other women do anything. All my friends are men for the simple reason that I have found most women are pissed off about something most of the time. I'm not a tomboy either. I am a girly girl but I still can't figure most women out, not that I've really tried. |
Jane_Bond | Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 12:27 am     I agree, not all women act like this, but I do agree that our culture has made women internalize so much crap that the women who do not act like this are a minority. If an alien was looking at our culture, they'd assume that creating a culture where looking/acting sexy is a top priority was a conscious decision by men in order to keep women preoccupied. Men, "Hey, I've got a great idea, let's make women believe that a specific body type is preferable to all others - we'll reinforce the idea for decades and we'll connect the idea that the desirability of the body type is connected with likeability, success at securing a marriage partner, fertility... I bet women will become so preoccupied with trying to attain this image that they'll pretty much leave us free to do what we want with business and government! We'll have all the power while they'll spend their entire lives resenting themselves and each other for not meeting the ideal!" It's like men are a scarce resource and women have been trained that cultivating that resource is dependant on a vague beauty and behaviour ideal that is in constant flux so they all feel they can never meet it. Even those of us who intelectually don't buy into that bogus ideal find ourselves being occaisionally catty or occaisionally self-destructive. It's like these women on BB can't play the BB game effectively because they're playing a different game altogether. |
Widowswalk | Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 12:35 am     That still doesn't answer my question. Why are women pissed off most of the time? I'm female and I'm happy. I love being a woman and I am very easy going but find most women always angry about something. I don't know why, maybe I never will. |
Jane_Bond | Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 01:35 am     Because they are told overtly that they have personal power and they live in a reality that denies them power. For example, men and women's relationships are supposed to be based on equality now, but I will bet that even the most liberated of couples find that there is an unequal distribution of domestic responsibility - women STILL do more domestic chores than men whether it's cleaning toilets or raising children or even knowing exactly what's in the cupboards of the kitchen. I think that this kind of power inequality is indicative of the power inequalities throughout all aspects of women's lives, whether we realise it or not and therefore we spend a great deal of time being vaguely unhappy with life and our lot in it. Of course, there is a continuum - women experience varying degrees of this, some have no problems some have many. YMMV |
Widowswalk | Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 01:50 am     I see. All I can say to that as a woman myself is, if certain things make a woman unhappy then why can't she avoid them? That's what I do. I don't stay in unhappy relationships, I tell men to kiss my a$$ if they give me trouble and most of all, no-one is allowed to steal my joy. I think maybe some women blame men for their unhappiness when they need to look inword. I'm speaking mostly in terms of social situations. Most women I see just cannot enjoy themselves and seem to resent those who can. As I said, I can't figure them out and so I admit I tend to avoid women as a general rule. They bring me down. |
Marymary | Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 05:53 am     I must say that I recognize my much younger self in the baloney I'm reading here. All my friends were men...blah-blah-blah...here's what I've figured out in 63 years. If you like yourself you don't HAVE to exclude half the population from the honor of knowing you! Sorry if this sounds cliche'....thing is cliches become cliches because of the truth in them! |
Spyder | Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 06:08 am     This is a great thread--intelligent and articulate. I'm a woman and I have to say that the most disappointing behavior of the women (in general) is the way that they turn on each other. For all of their "stoogy" ways, there is something admirable in the Jee3's loyalty. One of the reasons that Lisa won last year was that she stood by her alliance with Dani. Ali's plots may get her farther in the game, but I don't see how they can take her where it matters-- to the end. Who will be left to vote for her, unless she gets the Richard Hatch/Will "evil player vote"? |
Bracken | Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 07:38 am     <mk> I don't know how anyone could profess to "love being a woman" and then discount all others, lol. Secondly, the comments about women always being pissed off, but I'm not, I'm just pissed off enough to remove female friendships from my life is pretty telling. MaryMary, your response was great, I need not add more to it but to say I agree wholeheartedly. As a person with little tolerance for BS in all facets of my life, I don't know where I would be without the support and understanding of my female friends. My male friends are great, too -- that is why they are "friends." |
|