The Bro's Before Ho's Theorum

I always write "bros before hoes" when I write about this concept (frequently, as it turns out), and I realize this is incorrect. Hoes would imply garden hoes, not "pimps n' hos." But I don't know...Something about the word "ho's" as written just looks wrong to me, even with the apostrophe.

Anyway, Big Brother All-Stars ended last night with Mike Malin (a.k.a. Mike Boogie, a.k. Lance Showmance) winning the half-million dollar grand prize. Mike was half of the Chill Town alliance, essentially controlling the entire game from a little bit before the halfway point and onward. So it was only fair that one of the two would win.

I was more intrigued by the reaction after Mike's win than with the win itself. The other finalist, Erika, didn't really stand much of a chance in the final vote because she had not been a visible presence for most of the game. She was what's been called "a floater," someone who doesn't choose one particular alliance and play the game in a forthright fashion, but who floats behind the scenes and tries to align with whomever is in power.

As the game progressed, Mike and Erika began sleeping together (embarking on a "showmance"), and each then used his or her influence with the other to position or gain advantage in the game. This happens pretty much every season and is not, in and of itself, surprising.

What surprised me was the attitudes towards Erika, first from the vanquished male contestants on the jury (who vote to determine the game's winner) and then from my own male friends afterwards. It was fairly obvious for the entire season that Mike and Erika intended to use their showmance as a power play. Mike frequently bragged to the camera that Erika was going to be tremendously hurt by his actions, that she trusted him too much and that he was not growing emotionally attached to her in any way. Erika as well boasted about being "an honorary member of Chill Town," before turning on them right at the end of the game and getting Will kicked out of the Big Brother House.

So you have two people with similar strategies in the finals. One is clearly the winner, as he was overall a more successful and clever player, and is more popular among the former housemates. But the jury's reaction to Erika was astoundingly negative. She was a bitch, a liar and a floater. She was just looking to hook up with someone and rid his coattails to the end. She was, in every way, undeserving of the prize.

Danielle, one of the jury members and a contestant who had been screwed over by Erika during the game, pointed out that there was a double standard going on. Boogie lied to everyone and manipulated everyone, he hooked up with Erika to gain advantage, and yet he was lionized as a terrific player who made all the right moves. Erika lied to some housemates and manipulated eothers, she hooked up with Boogie to gain advantage, but she was a two-faced undeserving harpy.

Obviously, there were other factors going in to the jury's decision-making process. Will, the consummate manipulator, planted the idea that Erika threw the final competition in order to get rid of Janelle, hopefully throwing some votes behind his friend Mike.

Additionally, it is hard to overstate the iron-fisted grip in which Chill Town held on to power for this entire season. Without winning any actual competitions until near the end of the game, Mike and Will controlled just about every major decision in the house. Anyone voting based strictly on ability at playing Big Brother would have to award one of those two guys the prize.

But still...these men on the jury clearly were employing a double standard in making their decisions. James admitted to disliking the "floater" argument against Erika, because Big Brother as he said "is not a team sport" and everyone's in it for themselves, but he then implied that it was somehow shameful for Erika to win because of her relationship with Boogie.

Chicken George, who had no real stake in this decision one way or the other, said he suspected Erika's gameplay because he always saw her whispering in people's ears. But Mike's entire strategy was based on lies and distortions. Howie, however, the house's resident mook, proved the most interesting.

Howie had disliked Boogie for the entire game. Upon being kicked out of the house, he got into a loud argument with Mike. Yet he voted for him to win at the end. Why? Unfrotunately, he was not asked specifically to explain his vote.

Here's my theory...Howie had been upset with Mike for kicking him out of the house. He had hoped that the men of Chill Town would keep him and get rid of Erika that week because of the "bro's before ho's" concept. It did not work out this way. Hence his anger. He felt betrayed by the sacred brotherhood of Maleness.

So here's his quandary in the finals. He'd love to vote for someone else, to punish Mike for the act of betrayal. But the only other person to vote for...is a female! The only way he can punish those who violate the concept of putting bro's before ho's is to place a ho before a bro!

I'm being facetious, but only somewhat. I really do believe that this vote has revealed a subtle but persistant patriarchial assumption among the male population at large. A man who manipulates women is a player. A winner. A guy who knows how to get what he wants. But a woman who manipulates a man is a slutty whore.

Erika made it to the final two without ever really entering into a strong alliance. She had been nominated for eviction three times and managed to keep herself in the house until the very end. She won more competitions than anyone except the winner of the game and the nearly-unbeatable Janelle. And at the end, she got dissed and dismissed immediately as if her gameplay had been sub-par. She played better than almost anyone else there this season.

My other friends who watched the show didn't come away with this same reaction. Some felt that everyone voted for Mike and ganged up on Erika because Chill Town had clearly won the day and everyone wants to be aligned with the winners. To be one of the Kewl Kids. Others thought that it was Erika's unpleasant appearance and flat personality that turned everyone against her. I'm sure these factors played into it on some level.

But I can't shake the feeling that it's harder for a woman to seriously compete in Big Brother and survive with her reputation intact. And this, in turn, has a chilling effect on women contestants from the start of the game...They know that stuff like showmances and betrayals can come back and effect them in the finals in ways it would not matter for a man, so they are more hesitant to take certain risks. So considering that "Big Brother" is an interesting show as a sociological experiment, because so many of its observations can be applied to everyday life, what does this say about the role of women in modern America?