It was no surprise when, on Thursday night, seven shallow, fame-hungry women bounced onto our screens as residents of this year's Big Brother house. Big Brother is renowned as being nothing but a Z-list celebrity creating machine, churning out only-tabloid-worthy celebrities who continue to pour their secrets into the press to stay famous. But is anybody else offended that the great diversity of women that live in this country has been ignored?
Last year, Celebrity Big Brother caused one of the greatest race rows of current celebrity news, when washed-up "celebrities" Jade Goody, Jo O'Meara and Danielle Lloyd ganged up against Indian housemate and eventual winner, Shilpa Shetty. The issue was so serious, that Indian officials actually said that it caused the alliance between the two countries to be in danger.
Yet, Big Brother fails to realise that the housemates actually represent our country. They fill the house with attractive, brainless women whose only opinions revolve around what they look like and how many "magazine deals" they deserve, and all that they are doing is enhancing the view to society that women are shallow, appearance obsessed morons.
What about the men? How much more diverse could they have been? A "hot" chauvanist (though his "mama's boy" cuteness could be debated over when deciding whether he is actually "hot"), an arrogant chef, a sweet blind man, a "fabulous" dancer, an excitable albino - just to name a few. All of them had different stories, different personalities.
The women, on the other hand, had the exact same audition tapes - they rated themselves 10/10 for looks and they ranted about how people that dislike them are "just jealous" because they don't look as good.
Alexandra, who explained that she was an "inspiration" due to her teenage pregnancy and eventual climb in wealth to be able to afford a BMW, stated: "I'm not an 'it' girl. I'm it!", whereas Silvia, who described herself as "fashionable" and "trendy", stated: "I have a very sharp tongue". Stephanie went as far as to appear offended with the interviewer who said that she looked "alright", replying: "I think I look better than alright. Don't I? I'm getting offended now."
This is not the first year since Big Brother's debut in which the house has been full of identically minded females. In previous years it has been the same set-up, and this is only highlighted by the fact that the winner is almost resoundingly male, and more specifically diverse - previous winners include a transexual and a man with Tourettes.
Each year, a homosexual male (or two) is welcomed onto the stage to show Big Brother's acceptance of the equality of sexuality, and yet only once in the nine years of Big Brother has there been a lesbian to grace the show - ex-nun Anna. Anna was tipped to win that year's Big Brother, highly acclaimed as the only contestant with "genuine personality", yet there have been no lesbians since. Why? What is the fundamental difference between male and female homosexuals that makes the latter group "bad television" compared to the former?
It almost defies sense that Big Brother fills it's walls with such unusual and diverse, personality-filled males, and yet the women are all equally attractive and brainless - when the expected audience of Big Brother is female, and therefore more likely to be attracted to attractive males. It seems that Big Brother is intentionally attempting to prevent female contestants the chance to win.
But they're not all bad, are they? Kathreya, the strange and wonderful Thai cookie monster, full of the joys of a young, excitable girl proves that Big Brother is interested in giving womankind "a good name", surely? But isn't it odd how the only female with an ounce of character and individuality isn't even a British national?
It makes you wonder whether Big Brother have a secret motive to brand British females with a bad name...
