I’ve been wondering over the past several weeks what will be the legacy of Big Brother 18. As a social experiment, each season we are privy to seeing the good, the bad, and the ugly of 16 houseguests who are under constant scrutiny by hundreds of cameras in a game that thrives off of lies, manipulation and back stabbing. As we saw with Season 15, “the racist season,” the ability to hear and see what people say when they forget others are watching often reveals some of the ugliest aspects and harshest realities of our society.

This season we have seen an unprecedented three romantic couples, or “showmances” as the Big Brother fandom refers to them, emerge in the house that have played a significant role in the game dynamic. For the common viewer, Season 18 may be remembered as “the season of the showmances.” Others have highlighted the ways that 21st century misogyny has been on full display. The two of those, in many ways, are inextricably linked this season.

However, what has stood out to me more than anything is the apparent rise of a Big Brother faux feminist movement in the house led by the “girl power” ringleader, Natalie Negrotti.

Coming into this season, I found Natalie to be cute and endearing. She started out bubbly, unassuming, and even created an all-girl alliance, “Spy Girls” with Bridgette Dunning and Bronte D’Acquisto. While it was clear the first week of the 24/7 camera feeds that all her sugary sweetness was going to give me and the other houseguests a cavity, I was still hopeful for her as a game player.

All that quickly changed when Natalie finally started playing the game.

Despite not actively playing the game for much of the first half of the season, it is no secret to those who watch the live feeds that Natalie has a curious obsession with Paulie Calafiore (and his relationship with Zakiyah Everette). She spent the majority of her late-night pillow talk with James Huling discussing how much she did not trust Paulie. And for the most part her instincts were right. Paulie was running the house with no real opposition in sight. He appeared to have a clear path straight to the $500k grand prize. So naturally as an avid fan of the game, I found myself secretly rooting for Natalie to leverage her instincts and rally the girls against the all-guy alliance starting with Paulie as their de facto leader.

However, the sweet nothings Natalie was originally whispering in James’ ear were not working. He was not budging when it came to trusting Paulie. So Natalie made one of the most stomach churning moves to get James to break his bromance, she amplified and exaggerated playful interactions with her and Paulie to pin them as inappropriate sexual advances. She claimed that she felt “uncomfortable” because of the advances and only now she (conveniently) felt like she could bring them to James.

In this moment my jaw nearly hit the floor.

For those who have not watched the livefeeds this season, Paulie and Natalie had an obvious flirtatious relationship, as she did with all the men in the house. Houseguests are quick to point out that James was the third man she had actively pursued for a showmance this summer. And Paulie, similar to his brother Cody from Big Brother season 16, openly leveraged flirtatious behavior to maintain positive relationships with all the women in the house. However, it was clear in all his conversations that Paulie was not romantically interested in Natalie. In contrast, Natalie’s discussions with her closest friends in the house highlighted an attraction to Paulie, jealousy of his relationship with Zakiyah, and she consistently said that she viewed him as a “good guy” that could be her future husband.

Clip shows conversation between Natalie and Bridgette on August 8th. One day before she brings the Paulie makes advances that make me feel “uncomfortable” claims to James.

Her apparent interest in Calafiore aside, this narrative of Paulie making inappropriate and uncomfortable comments became a dominant force in the rationale for James to turn his back on his close friend and ally. It was also the crux of Natalie’s conversation with Zakiyah in a calculated effort to breed distrust in her romantic relationship with Paulie and act as a catalyst for Zakiyah’s eviction.

More importantly, the CBS broadcast version of the events highlighted and validated Natalie’s claim and painted a picture of Paulie as not only sexist, but also, inappropriate in his advances towards Natalie.

As Paulie defends himself in a heated house discussion on the topic, he begins to name several inconsistencies and points of concern in Natalie’s claim. All aligned to his continually voiced apprehension that she is the “typical Jersey girl,” suggesting that Natalie and girls like her, use men and turn them against each other through relationship manipulation and false accusations (like sexual harassment)in order to get her way.

Paulie’s arguments illuminating Natalie’s inconsistency:

Why were the flirtatious actions of Paulie viewed more inappropriate than the actions of other house guest including Paul who often touched Natalie’s thighs? Why was Natalie allowed to be “fun and flirty” without any assumed inappropriate intentions but that courtesy is not given to Paulie? Was this a repeated pattern of behavior for Natalie given she had previously claimed that Victor had been disrespectful to women in the house? Why were Bridgette and Natalie suddenly claiming to be such strong feminists when they failed to say anything to Frank when he sexual objectified Zakiyah and Davonne by slapping their butts and calling them sluts and whores? Note: Paulie was the only one to speak up in this situation and confront Frank about it and this issue never aired on CBS.

In the moment, many Americans and the fellow houseguests dismiss Paulie’s counterarguments and throw support behind Natalie who has been visibly wronged. Both Zakiyah and Paulie were evicted with seriously damaging claims about Paulie’s intentions in their romantic relationship and the integrity of his character heavily publicized. Unfortunately, that is not where this story ends.

With her biggest target out of the house, Natalie has now set her eyes on getting Paul Abrahamin out. And last week live feeders began to see a similar pattern emerge. Natalie began retracting her previous denial that Paul ever touched her thighs and is claiming that he has touched her repeatedly and made her “uncomfortable.” She has gone as far as calling Paul a pervert, adding fuel to James’ current concerns about Paul and amplifying his personal desire to have him evicted.

In this scenario, similar to Paulie’s, the more she sees this tactic working, the more Natalie magnifies and refines her story. At first, she was adamant that her relationship with Paul was more brother/sister, then she couldn’t remember if he touched her inappropriately, now she has gone as far as to admit that she did in fact know that Paul had repeatedly touched her thighs and only lied when Paulie called out Paul’s behavior towards her to the group because she wanted Paulie evicted.

This is becoming increasingly troubling as many live feed watchers note that Natalie claims she is just “fun & flirty” but when she wants you evicted she flips the script and you are suddenly disrespectful, perverted & make her uncomfortable. We’ve seen it with Victor, Paulie now Paul.

To be clear, the comments that Paulie, Paul, Victor, Corey and Frank have made this season about the bodies of their female houseguests have been inappropriate and often obscene. Each of the men this season have helped to cultivate and participate in an environment that reeked of misogyny. Natalie, as well as the other women, should be taken seriously in their claims that the behavior and actions of individuals or the collective male culture in the house has made them uncomfortable. Even if the ways that the female houseguests react or fail to react to this behavior feels equally playful and accepting, we CANNOT dismiss the societal pressures to play along and how those are heightened in a social game like Big Brother. So, I could accept the premise that Paulie’s actions made Natalie uncomfortable even if her actions didn’t readily appear that way.

However, Natalie’s singling out of male players at opportune moments on an issue that warrants this level of seriousness and using it as game “strategy” comes across as disingenuous and is subsequently dangerous. She has opened up the collective discussion for viewers to now believe and accept that Paulie was right. She is validating his claim that there is a “type of girl” who will use sexual harassment as a method for getting their way.

Sexual harassment claims are not strategy.

Lies and manipulation are par for the course and expected in a game like Big Brother where there are no rules on how to get to the end. However, leveraging these accusations as a primary tool to target and evict male houseguests under the guise of “girl power” is the complete opposite of feminism and extremely concerning considering the millions of women who are being sexually harassed in workplaces and other professional/ social settings every year.

1 in 3 women have been made to feel sincerely uncomfortable by the unwanted and inappropriate advances of men in their place of employment. And 71% of the women do not feel empowered or comfortable reporting the issue. For many women, job stability and financial livelihoods are at stake. Victims of sexual harassment don’t take claims of misconduct lightly because society has made us aware of the negative implications for all parties involved. For those who are forced to live and work in these unhealthy environments, they are often in active fear that they may be pegged as the “type of girl” to use these claims for their personal gain.

Natalie’s actions send a subconscious message that there IS in fact a “type of girl” who spins innocent flirting to portray men as predators for strategic gain. She reinforces our natural societal skepticism around the prevalence of sexual harassment and the authentic intentions of those who report it.

In many ways, Natalie has made a mockery of “girl power” this year. While the love of all things “girly” like pink and glitter is cute, fashionable and totally acceptable it is NOT sufficient for the hard work that it takes to really support the social, economic and political equality of the sexes.