S17.E40: Episode 40

[MrsMommy]

Why is it so important a woman wins?

I wonder the same thing... I don't see why it matters it's a game and if it was 50% both men and women then the game would be fixed for sure, what fun is that?

[mooses]

The women were way stronger than the men of this cast. If you asked me who the two best players of the season were I'd probably answer Vanessa and Shelli.

Then there's Meg.

Oh man, Meg. Can we all agree she's just the worst? I always said I liked her as a person, but that jury roundtable...she was awful.

Shelli was great. If she didn't hook up with Clay, her and Vanessa would've been fun to watch bulldoze that house.

BTW Julie's audio problems? So Big Brother! They're like the ugly stepchild of reality gameshows.

Edited September 24, 2015 by mooses

[thefog]

I see it more as a statement about societal perceptions in general. This game is a microcosm of society.

 

I believe the spectrum of behavior profiles societally acceptable to men compared to the ones acceptable for women to possess slant heavily in favor of men for shows like this.

 

You have to be aggressive, strategic, social and physical in this game. Strategically aggressive women are often frowned upon, so even if they were good at other things, they get negative reputations. To play the game effectively as a woman, you will almost certainly end up disliked.

 

Just look at Survivor. The girls have done well because they don't care much about that any more.

 

A perfect example was the returning winners in Heroes vs. Villains.

 

Tom was considered a hero, but he was one of the biggest bullies near the end of his season. Parvati's black widow alliance pulls off some of the most epic blindsides which should gain her praise, but the audience hardly cheered when she won. She comes back as a villain as a result. Even Sandra was considered a villain and her only merit as one was she was very direct with her language.

 

The bottom line is it is just more difficult to pull the things off on a reality TV show as a woman. It says more about what society expects and tolerates from women as appropriate behaviors than it does the games themselves.

So the answer is to vote a less deserving HG like Liz - so that a woman can win?

[Callaphera]

Oh man, Meg. Can we all agree she's just the worst? I always said I liked her as a person, but that jury roundtable...she was awful.

 

Meg still thinks she's at summer camp, I bet.

[mooses]

I was totally surprised at John's answer to the A or B questions. It was a fine joke, but I didn't think he'd knock his profession on live TV. Ballsy!

Edited September 24, 2015 by mooses

[Rina99]

The bottom line is it is just more difficult to pull the things off on a reality TV show as a woman. It says more about what society expects and tolerates from women as appropriate behaviors than it does the games themselves.

 

 

Vanessa would have beaten anyone she was up against in the final two, despite the fact that she was viewed as aggressive.  Steve was just smart enough to not be Cody.  Because she didn't make it to final 3, based on their merits I just don't think Liz deserved it more than Steve.

 

Oh man, Meg. Can we all agree she's just the worst? I always said I liked her as a person, but that jury roundtable...she was awful.

 

 

God, yes, I think many of us can get behind this sentiment.  That's why I'm glad this was a year that players like her weren't dragged to the finals.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Rina99

[blixie]

 

d the only reason why I view this differently is because Dan made final 2 and that's why he should have been the winner.

 

Just to show I'm not entirely in the bag for Van and her game, this was her biggest problem in the game which she frequently brought up, that she was solo dolo, she never had a #1, Dan Gheesling was on a Rob Cesterino's pod cast and was shocked she didn't have a ride or die, I think it solidified his being both impressed and critical of her game, impressed she got as far as she did w/o the ride or die, but obviously it means she's stuck with person who won't override their intelligent sense of self preservation because they like and trust her absolutely 130%. Instead of making Steve feel like he was her equal if not her BETTER, she definitely showed her cards to him more than anyone and frequently treated him like her hapless minion.

 

Her social game was really really bad, and if it had been stronger, or if conversely if she had been willing to bully Steve harder in the end and bathe in blood and instead of not getting it on her hands, she might have pulled it off. But I doubt it, she'd still be woman and she might have STILL lost to that twit.

[Katesus7]

Majority woman jury, majority woman final 3, majority woman alliances, majority of women making the power moves...

 

...and a man wins.

 

That's 71% men to 29% women winners, all told. But actually, that's just since the start of the show in 2001. In the last 10 years, it's now 82% men, 18% women. Oh, and women are now a big 0-6 against men in the final 2.

 

Something has to change. It has to. I mean, this is embarrassing. It's still 2015, right?

I am a big fan of stats. I think they can say a lot. I don't think they say a thing in the game of Big Brother. Every season has different people, different dynamics, different personalities, different gameplay. Steve shouldn't win because Andy beat Gina Marie? Or Will beat Nicole? (I honestly can't even remember the other woman/man finalies, I forget 80% of these people a month after the show is over).

I feel like this mindset that it's somehow a travesty that Steve won is a disservice to him, who had NOTHING to do with any prior season, to the jury, and to people like me who legitimately thought he played a better game than Liz, including smoking her in the questions. If there was an argument that she clearly played better than him, and the jury just voted for him because he's a dude, I would love to hear it. I haven't yet.

I thought to myself when Vanessa said she was voting for the player who best represented the season, she was voting for Liz, because I DO think this season was about strong woman players, and Vanessa talked that up with Liz a lot. So I think Vanessa voted for Liz because Liz was a woman. Something I have no problem with, but still. I think she voted based on gender. I don't think any other jury member did.

[jjjmoss]

 

Representation (and equality) is important, even on dumb reality shows.

Yeah.

 

It's similar on American Idol where 80% of the last 10 winners have been male (and the last exception was thanks to Idol producers purposefully stacking the finals with bad guys), though that speaks more to "America."

 

I believe there has only been 1 black finalist (who would've won if the sequestered jury rule already started) and 1 Asian finalist - who won. Queen Jun. 

That speaks more to Big Brother casting super super white casts though.

Edited September 24, 2015 by jjjmoss

[Katesus7]

I view Steve beating Vanessa right on par with Ian beating Dan. Not in the same way, but very similar, in terms of gameplay.

Sorry, I don't know how to reply to two quotes on my iPad.

Dan and Ian faced each other in a jury vote. Steve booted Vanessa. Since I feel Vaneesa would've smoked him in the final vote, not the same thing at all, IMO.

[thefog]

Our society has a long standing double standard when it comes to men and woman; men are admired for being strong and aggressive, woman are vilified for it. This show seems to frequently reflect that attitude. So on a season with several strong woman players, it would've been nice to have seen one win and prove that things are changing.

IMO, there was only 1 strong female player this season - Vanessa could not have won, since she did not make the Final 2.

[Ceeg]

Sorry, I don't know how to reply to two quotes on my iPad.

Dan and Ian faced each other in a jury vote. Steve booted Vanessa. Since I feel Vaneesa would've smoked him in the final vote, not the same thing at all, IMO.

Right, that's why I said "not in the same way". But in terms of just looking at the game overall, not just at the F2, Steve beating Vanessa, regardless of how it happened is similar, in terms of gameplay, to Ian beating Dan.

[mooses]

I thought to myself when Vanessa said she was voting for the player who best represented the season, she was voting for Liz, because I DO think this season was about strong woman players, and Vanessa talked that up with Liz a lot. So I think Vanessa voted for Liz because Liz was a woman. Something I have no problem with, but still. I think she voted based on gender. I don't think any other jury member did.

I thought they were pretty equal, so I didn't mind. Any one thing could tip the scales. Jackie voted for Steve because he was a superfan.

Edited September 24, 2015 by mooses

[MKL122788]

So the answer is to vote a less deserving HG like Liz - so that a woman can win?

 

1. I think you missed the entire point of my paragraph. It wasn't about Liz or Steve in general. It was about how society sees some behaviors/traits as positives when exhibited by men and negatives when exhibited by women. The list of behaviors that are helpful on competitive reality television shows like this have more of these behaviors than ones that slant the other way.

 

2. I'm not convinced that Liz was less deserving. I think most people thought they were equally deserving. I think Liz was probably a better overall player for the first 97 days, but Steve was better today(especially with jury). I think most are saying they just want a 50/50 to go the way of a woman. I think given the opportunity, almost all of them would prefer Vanessa had won.

[PaperTree]

Men usually stick together.  Women cat fight among themselves over the men and get wiped out.

 

Vanessa and Lizlia had no problem taking out Jackie, Becky and Meg while keeping JMac, Steve and Austin.

 

The few women who win these things don't do that.

[lyric]

I am a big fan of stats. I think they can say a lot. I don't think they say a thing in the game of Big Brother. Every season has different people, different dynamics, different personalities, different gameplay. Steve shouldn't win because Andy beat Gina Marie? Or Will beat Nicole? (I honestly can't even remember the other woman/man finalies, I forget 80% of these people a month after the show is over).

I feel like this mindset that it's somehow a travesty that Steve won is a disservice to him, who had NOTHING to do with any prior season, to the jury, and to people like me who legitimately thought he played a better game than Liz, including smoking her in the questions. If there was an argument that she clearly played better than him, and the jury just voted for him because he's a dude, I would love to hear it. I haven't yet.

I thought to myself when Vanessa said she was voting for the player who best represented the season, she was voting for Liz, because I DO think this season was about strong woman players, and Vanessa talked that up with Liz a lot. So I think Vanessa voted for Liz because Liz was a woman. Something I have no problem with, but still. I think she voted based on gender. I don't think any other jury member did.

I agree with everything you've said, particularly the bold line.  I don't think it's a travesty Steve beat Liz at all - he played as good, if not patently better, a game as she did.  I'm simply bummed that in this particular season. we couldn't see a woman take it.  Yeah, once we got down to Steve and Liz...hard to fault the jury's decision.

[RedheadZombie]

Well I'm bitter that JMac didn't win AFP. No way that wasn't fixed when James is Les Moonves's favorite. No way he deserved to win.

 

 

James ruled as favorite on Joker's for quite awhile.   How that translated across viewers in general, I don't know.  But I hardly think it was rigged.  Now if Austin won - rigged.

 

Majority woman jury, majority woman final 3, majority woman alliances, majority of women making the power moves...

 

...and a man wins.

 

That's 71% men to 29% women winners, all told. But actually, that's just since the start of the show in 2001. In the last 10 years, it's now 82% men, 18% women. Oh, and women are now a big 0-6 against men in the final 2.

 

Something has to change. It has to. I mean, this is embarrassing. It's still 2015, right?

 

I think casting is partly the problem.  Their main criteria seems to be how a woman looks in a bikini.  I know people are going to say women have subconsciously been brainwashed by the patriarchal misogynistic society, and that's why Steve won.  I prefer to think that while BB men tend to blindly vote for their own gender, BB women vote for who they think played the better game.

 

Because women controlled the season, and will likely never have the opportunity to do so again. I don't want to tell my grandchildren "I remember in 2013, the last time a woman won Big Brother," but that's the way it's looking right now. If on a season where women are the majority of jurors, women are the majority of the final 3, women are the majority in the power alliances, and a woman gets to the final 2, and the result is a man wins? That's a problem, to me.

 

I didn't say this about Victoria. This was the season of strong women, and a man won. That is frustrating on a purely statistical level, as well as a personal one.

 

A woman didn't win in 2013, Andy did. 

[thefog]

1. I think you missed the entire point of my paragraph. It wasn't about Liz or Steve in general. It was about how society sees some behaviors/traits as positives when exhibited by men and negatives when exhibited by women. The list of behaviors that are helpful on competitive reality television shows like this have more of these behaviors than ones that slant the other way.

 

2. I'm not convinced that Liz was less deserving. I think most people thought they were equally deserving. I think Liz was probably a better overall player for the first 97 days, but Steve was better today(especially with jury). I think most are saying they just want a 50/50 to go the way of a woman. I think given the opportunity, almost all of them would prefer Vanessa had won.

Well, the jury obviously didn't think so - and they have the ultimate say here.  Also the fans voted for a guy to win Fan Favorite.

[Ceeg]

Vanessa and Lizlia had no problem taking out Jackie, Becky and Meg while keeping JMac, Steve and Austin.

The few women who win these things don't do that.

Steve put up Meg and Jackie, they had no choice but to vote for a woman. Vanessa didn't put up Becky. Vanessa targeted Meg simply because James won veto. Vanessa chose to evict Austin over Liz. Vanessa chose to evict JMac over Liz.  Vanessa consistently targeted men over women in the game. That was actually one of the things I initially loved about her, is that she wanted to keep the women in the game and get out the strong men. Which is exactly the opposite of what the strong men want to do in this game.

[CrazyDog]

Damn it. A disappointing end to a decent season. I don't hate Steve but I just wanted Van to win. Boo. At least there was no Frankie, and no racists, I guess?

Ugh.

Edited September 24, 2015 by CrazyDog

[TexasChic]

IMO, there was only 1 strong female player this season - Vanessa could not have won, since she did not make the Final 2.

I think Shelli, Becky, Jackie and Liz were strong players. However, out of the final 2 we were left with, I think Steve was the person who deserved to win. But I also think it was a fluke that he got there instead of Vanessa.

[Lady Calypso]

1. I think you missed the entire point of my paragraph. It wasn't about Liz or Steve in general. It was about how society sees some behaviors/traits as positives when exhibited by men and negatives when exhibited by women. The list of behaviors that are helpful on competitive reality television shows like this have more of these behaviors than ones that slant the other way.

 

2. I'm not convinced that Liz was less deserving. I think most people thought they were equally deserving. I think Liz was probably a better overall player for the first 97 days, but Steve was better today(especially with jury). I think most are saying they just want a 50/50 to go the way of a woman. I think given the opportunity, almost all of them would prefer Vanessa had won.

 

I think that Steve and Liz have both been ok players, but not great. There have been much better players, yet their strategies had them survive to the very end. Here's the thing, though. Liz had a good social game with Austin and with Vanessa, and one could argue Shelli as well (but that could also be Julia too). But her social game with anyone else? Very poor. Steve, however, had a better social game. His social game wasn't great; he's awkward, made people feel uncomfortable and people would often leave him out of decisions unless they absolutely needed him. But the thing is is that Steve seemed to get along better with the others who are in jury. I think it's because he really tried with them. Liz didn't seem to talk to the other side of the house much, unless she was forced to in a group setting. I don't remember Liz ever sitting with Becky, for example, to just have conversations one on one. Steve tried with a few houseguests; he may have failed, but he tried. Social game is what gets you the win at the end, for the most part. That, and game play, but social game and getting along with the jury members can be incredibly influential and seeing as Liz's goodbye messages to jury members wasn't always pleasant, I can see why some chose Steve over her. 

 

Men usually stick together.  Women cat fight among themselves over the men and get wiped out.

 

Vanessa and Lizlia had no problem taking out Jackie, Becky and Meg while keeping JMac, Steve and Austin.

 

The few women who win these things don't do that.

 

I would say Vanessa actually tried to target the men. She's one of the only women to put three men on the block in one HOH. A few of her evictions/targets have been men. She never fought over the men or tried to get women out on catty reasons. Vanessa kept Steve because he was the closest thing to her number 1 for many weeks, until she dropped him. Austin was a number more for her than Jackie, Becky and Meg. She got rid of the women when needed, because it helped her own game. Now, Liz you could argue that her targets were for more personal reasons. But Vanessa is the one woman who I can safely say did not target women because she wanted men around. 

[Eolivet]

If there was an argument that she clearly played better than him, and the jury just voted for him because he's a dude, I would love to hear it. I haven't yet.

 

I don't think Liz was a slouch of a gameplayer. She won competitions and was a member of the majority alliance. She managed to avoid being a target despite having a twin sister and a showmance. She convinced others to keep her in the house over her easier-to-beat sister, so she clearly was somewhat effective at campaigning.

 

But Liz was in the low-cut dress, hair done, talking in an accent, not presenting as very intelligent or well-spoken, and there's her tattooed oaf of a boyfriend. Steve was dressed conservatively, with glasses (presenting as intelligent) and was better at answering questions. She's pinging about seven different negative stereotypes and he's pinging about seven different positive ones.

 

Liz wasn't eloquent, but she wasn't Victoria either, resume-wise. This wasn't a slam dunk -- she did do things in the game, and I think one could make a case for her. But I do think institutional (unintentional) sexism helped pushed Steve over the line a bit. Amanda from Survivor: China could tell Liz how that works.

[PaperTree]

Steve put up Meg and Jackie, they had no choice but to vote for a woman. Vanessa didn't put up Becky. Vanessa targeted Meg simply because James won veto. Vanessa chose to evict Austin over Liz. Vanessa chose to evict JMac over Liz.  Vanessa consistently targeted men over women in the game. That was actually one of the things I initially loved about her, is that she wanted to keep the women in the game and get out the strong men. Which is exactly the opposite of what the strong men want to do in this game.

Vanessa couldn't do it all alone and in the end lost by one crapshoot question.

[MKL122788]

Well, the jury obviously didn't think so - and they have the ultimate say here.  Also the fans voted for a guy to win Fan Favorite.

I actually think without evicting Vanessa, if the vote was simply based on the first 97 days, Liz would've won. Meg was talking her up in the Will interview and Steve wouldn't have had Vanessa's feather in his cap.

 

As for the fan favorite vote, that speaks to the problems often much more. I'm not sure there is anything girls could possibly do to be as loved as James or JMAC.

[RedheadZombie]

I see it more as a statement about societal perceptions in general. This game is a microcosm of society.

 

I really have to strongly disagree that Big Brother is a microcosm of society.  The cast is always almost exclusively twenty-somethings with an early thirties occasionally thrown in.  They are either unemployed or tend to be employed in the type of job you can easily walk away from.  They're - for the most part - famewhores looking to become reality stars.  The majority tend to be less than intelligent, and uninformed about the world in general.  The cast is always overwhelmingly white, with an Asian thrown in every five to ten years, one Muslim ever, minimal Hispanics, and one to two black HGs per season.  Casting makes absolutely no effort to fill the house in true representation of American society.

 

I've watched every season.  I have never seen one HG similar to any relative, friend, co-worker, acquaintance, etc. - ever.   Actually my cousin is exactly like Derick, but he wasn't a typical house guest.

[stcroix]

I wanted that camera ON Austin's face as the final three of America's Favorite were announced with his name not in it!!  Booooo!  But all was still good to see him a few seconds later looking shell shocked as he tried to catch up and act enthusiastic (in a half hearted way)! 

 

I wonder how long his Liz love will stay when he realizes he and she aren't a power couple?  heh.  I'm bad but he drove me nuts.

[Cutty]

I think Shelli, Becky, Jackie and Liz were strong players. However, out of the final 2 we were left with, I think Steve was the person who deserved to win. But I also think it was a fluke that he got there instead of Vanessa.

 

Vanessa probably should've taken him out the week she cut Austin. She kinda had a blind spot for Steve. 

[mooses]

Who was top three AFP? John / Steve / James?

[MKL122788]

I really have to strongly disagree that Big Brother is a microcosm of society.  The cast is always almost exclusively twenty-somethings with an early thirties occasionally thrown in.  They are either unemployed or tend to be employed in the type of job you can easily walk away from.  They're - for the most part - famewhores looking to become reality stars.  The majority tend to be less than intelligent, and uninformed about the world in general.  The cast is always overwhelmingly white, with an Asian thrown in every five to ten years, one Muslim ever, minimal Hispanics, and one to two black HGs per season.  Casting makes absolutely no effort to fill the house in true representation of American society.

 

I've watched every season.  I have never seen one HG similar to any relative, friend, co-worker, acquaintance, etc. - ever.   Actually my cousin is exactly like Derick, but he wasn't a typical house guest.

 

I wouldn't say that I've run into many houseguests like my friends, but I also can't say I've gotten to know many people as well as I know the houseguests, either. I will say, the only group of people which I didn't exactly have something intellectually in common with, which would be my high school tennis team, I can see quite a few of them being people on the show.

 

I could even see myself doing crazy things if I went 100 days without the internet. I would be so insanely bored that I probably wouldn't feel all that much like me any more.

[MrsMommy]

Who was top three AFP? John / Steve / James?

James john and jason

[Turtle]

Vanessa voting for Liz isn't bitter IMO. I would have done the same thing. Steve was her lapdog and did everything she told him to do, except right up to the final moment when he had no other choice.

  

I think Liz was even more of Vanessa's lapdog than Steve was. Steve at least formed an alliance that was far outside of his alliance with Vanessa. And booted her. Liz was aligned with Vanessa while Liz and Julia were sill one person (so weird to say), and while she was aligned with Julia and Austin, those alliances were a part of the larger alliance that Vanessa was a part of. Liz never even developed relationships, much less alliances, with anyone else in the house. Vanessa booted Austin and set up Julia in that veto, and Liz kept on believing and trusting Vanessa. I'm not arguing one strategy was better than the other, just saying that I think Steve was less of a lapdog than Liz was.

Majority woman jury, majority woman final 3, majority woman alliances, majority of women making the power moves...

 

...and a man wins.

 

That's 71% men to 29% women winners, all told. But actually, that's just since the start of the show in 2001. In the last 10 years, it's now 82% men, 18% women. Oh, and women are now a big 0-6 against men in the final 2.

 

Something has to change. It has to. I mean, this is embarrassing. It's still 2015, right?

I have a lot of issues with the ways reality shows are cast, and how overt or subconscious biases result in young-to-middle aged straight white men winning the majority of these games/ shows. I think it is reflective of systemic problems in society at large, and I hate it. In this case, however, I honestly don't think sexism had anything to do with the jurors' votes. As I mentioned above, Liz didn't form enough relationships with the folks on the jury, and most of them ever saw her strategize. She was pretty secure in her main alliance of Austin/ Julia, aided by her alliance with Vanessa and sort of with Steve, and I think she got too comfortable there and forgot to "work the jury." Or maybe she didn't internalize that she was supposed to build relationships with people who she thought would be jury - she didn't understand why veto was so important at F4, and so it's possible that she just wasn't aware of some of the aspects of the game. In this one specific instance, I don't think a woman losing to a man at F2 had anything to do with gender. In some other seasons? I do think the "she's a bitch, he's a master strategist" sexism played a part. I just don't think it was in play here. My biggest issue with sexism this season rhymes with Austin.

[blixie]

The fact that Steve and Liz's games were so so similar and were fairly equal is the major reason I think it's entirely down to gender/sexism, because the only difference, IMO, is Liz had a sexual and romantic relationship with her meatshield and Steve wasn't banging Vanessa/John, and even if he WAS he'd be evaluated as undercover stud instead of a cheap floating slut like I imagine a lot of the BB audience/bitter jury evaluated Liz.  

 

Liz had a good social game, she was liked by most of those people on the jury, I found all the jury love for Steve amazing considering how they treated him while they were actually in the fucking house with him. Liz had a good strategic game, because she allied with the smartest women in the house (Shelli and Vanessa) and also cultivated Austin as her loyal meat shield. Liz was good at competitions through the middle part of the game which kept the strongest most dangerous Alliance in the house, Austwins,  around until F6. She played a ridiculously good game, but she used sex to do it so SORRY no 500K for you-uh Liz Nolan. And by god she even OWNED that when she answered questions, I used Austin, I used Van, if only she had added: and here I am, and there you are, level up MOFOS.

 

The problem is not that Steve is *undeserving*, but that he is in now way more deserving than Vanessa and IMO less deserving than Liz, if only marginally and contextually that's bummer during a season when women were balling pretty hard, and running the game. All women who weren't Meg that is can someone put together a Venn diagram?! In purely BB terms Steve earned his win, but his play the last third of the game really turned me off, so I'm not gonna applaud him for it. 

[Katesus7]

I don't think Liz was a slouch of a gameplayer. She won competitions and was a member of the majority alliance. She managed to avoid being a target despite having a twin sister and a showmance. She convinced others to keep her in the house over her easier-to-beat sister, so she clearly was somewhat effective at campaigning.

 

But Liz was in the low-cut dress, hair done, talking in an accent, not presenting as very intelligent or well-spoken, and there's her tattooed oaf of a boyfriend. Steve was dressed conservatively, with glasses (presenting as intelligent) and was better at answering questions. She's pinging about seven different negative stereotypes and he's pinging about seven different positive ones.

 

Liz wasn't eloquent, but she wasn't Victoria either, resume-wise. This wasn't a slam dunk -- she did do things in the game, and I think one could make a case for her. But I do think institutional (unintentional) sexism helped pushed Steve over the line a bit. Amanda from Survivor: China could tell Liz how that works.

So the jury voted for Steve because he wore plaid and had glasses, and Liz wore a low cut dress, and had an annoying accent? Not buying it.

I'm not arguing that Steve 'deserved' it over Liz. I'm just saying that the jury had legitimate game reasons to vote for him, and I agreed with that vote. And it had nothing to do with the clothes they wore, or how they talked.

[RedheadZombie]

One thing I really liked about this season, is they flipped the script of a typical season of Big Brother.  We've seen endless seasons in which women come on the show with strategies of  - looking for my soul mate, or looking for a meat shield - and often sacrifice their games for the guy.  This season, the most pathetic "you're my soul mate" HG was Austin.  And while he did function as Liz's meat shield, I don't think that was her pre-game strategy.  And while Shelli quickly fell into a showmance, she was the brains of the duo, the most competitive of the duo, and he was the one who fell on his sword at the end. 

 

We also had a transgender woman.   And while she was rather crazy -  it had nothing to do with being transgender, the house seemed very accepting from day one, and at least one guy had the hots for her.

 

Then there's the lesbian who's two closest and long lasting relationships were with men.  Which disproves the stereotype that lesbians are man-haters.

[SnideAsides]

Women aren't required to vote for a woman just because they both have vaginas. And this might have been a season of strong women, but ultimately the women overplayed and got themselves voted out, which is why they were on the jury in the first place. Liz spent half the summer canoodling with Austin, who nobody really ever seemed to like, and she completely borked the jury questions. Steve, on the other hand, played an excellent social game and knocked the jury questions out of the park. Is he the best winner ever? No. Is he the best choice of winner from this season's entire cast? No. But in that specific final two? Easily the better option.

 

Depressingly, though, winners of this show are so uniformly terrible that he's probably in the Top 5.

[Coco88]

Steve winning, blah. Vanessa losing, yippee! James winning AFH, double yippee!

[AndreaK1041]

I think Vanessa knows she played the best game, so that makes me not feel too bad that she lost. That HoH competition is asinine. You're gonna lock people in a house for three months and then have a crapshoot? Lame.

Bye forever Austin, you suck.

[Maharincess]

Why is it so important a woman wins?

I'm not understanding that either. I don't see where the race, color or gender of the winner matters at all.

I'm a woman and I would never vote for somebody for anything simply because they're also female.

[vb68]

One thing that I noticed throughout the game that I really think helped Steve win was his goodbye messages, which were always pure class.  I knew Becky was just waiting to vote for him after seeing hers.  Johnny even made a comment when he was evicted the first time that "Steve is freaking adorable".   I think it worked on Shelli too.  Just saying that was one strong aspect of his social game that I think got overlooked.  He really knew how to use those.

Edited September 24, 2015 by vb68

[Vicky]

Why is it so important a woman wins?

I don't think it's important, but it is curious, isn't it?  I'm fine with Steve winning.  Against Liz, it makes sense.  

But the pattern might be telling us something..  

Are there some underlying attitudes driving it?  It's good to take note of and watch for.  

[pennben]

Welp, my DVR for some reason didn't record the finale, I think perhaps it was trying to spare me from disappointment, so I'll have to wait to watch it online later.

 

For me, Vanessa was THE player of the season (and made the feeds endlessly fascinatng to watch) and I so hoped that her comp streak here at the end had one more in it, but alas it was not to be. You've got to make it to the end to win and she came up just a bit short.

Edited September 24, 2015 by pennben

[loki567]

Liz vs. Steve, I think it basically came down to who evicted Vanessa. If Liz evicts Vanessa, she probably wins. BUT I also have to point that from what we saw on the Live Feeds, Liz seemed pretty set on taking Vanessa to the F2 while Steve was always going to evict her. So that's a point in Steve's favor and one against Liz. 

 

And I think that's a big reason Steve's game is somewhat underrated, more than anyone this season, I think he saw Vanessa for the player she truly was. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by loki567

[Joimiaroxeu]

Wow, Austin was determined to be an a$$hole to the very end.

I'm at least glad Steve won over Liz-- mainly because of the way so many of the houseguests treated him like a social leper except when they wanted his vote. However, I think his answers to the jury questions were either delusional or based on some self-serving revision of recent game history. He literally talked a good game, and perhaps a better game than he actually played.

Sorry, Vanessa, I was pulling for you but apparently the Fates weren't.

Wonder why they didn't let Clay, Jace, and Jeff give any comments?

[Vicky]

But we all hate Austin, right? RIGHT?! 

 

Okay.

Oh yeah!!!! :)

[RedheadZombie]

If Vanessa is bound and determined to win BB, she could try to get on the UK's Celebrity BB.

[Maharincess]

Because women controlled the season, and will likely never have the opportunity to do so again. I don't want to tell my grandchildren "I remember in 2013, the last time a woman won Big Brother," but that's the way it's looking right now. If on a season where women are the majority of jurors, women are the majority of the final 3, women are the majority in the power alliances, and a woman gets to the final 2, and the result is a man wins? That's a problem, to me.

I didn't say this about Victoria. This was the season of strong women, and a man won. That is frustrating on a purely statistical level, as well as a personal one.

I have a granddaughter and can honestly say I've never spoken to her about Big Brother but we have spoken about the female who is running for president and other women who are doing great things in today's world.

If there are a male and a female in the final 2, are people supposed to say "hmmm, he played the game better and is much more deserving but there haven't been any female winners for a while so I'll vote her instead"?

[Cutty]

I felt like Vanessa's poker reveal fell kinda flat. Making her articulate how much money she's made and what her rank is was kind of shallow and unfair to her. They would've been better off showing a few highlights of her playing poker or something. Reveal it that way to the HGs.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Cutty

[LoveLeigh]

As I watched the finale, all I could think of was this: I watched this show since June 24th and all those viewing hours, ALL THOSE VIEWING HOURS, with all the intrigue and plotting was for this? This? What a sad disappointment the finale was. No big reveals, no surprises, just a de rigueur connect the dots step by step borefest. 

 

Maybe Vanessa and Mel will do the Amazing Race. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by DakotaLavender

[mooses]

As I watched the finale, all I could think of was this: I watched this show since June 24th and all those viewing hours, ALL THOSE VIEWING HOURS, with all the intrigue and plotting was for this? This? What a sad disappointment the finale was. No big reveals, no surprises, just a de rigueur connect the dots step by step borefest.

Ha! It kind of feels like watching a twisty, suspenseful whodunit filled with intrigue and red herrings - only to find out it was the kid picking his nose in the background the whole time.

Edited September 24, 2015 by mooses