Is it Love or is it Just the Patriarchy?
There's no rose for falling in love with The Bachelor for all of the wrong reasons
Unfortunately, I can’t predict the future.
It’s a fact about myself that I wish wasn’t true but because it is, I could not have foreseen this weekend’s developments in Afghanistan when I planned today’s newsletter. I have a lot of thoughts on America’s involvement in Afghanistan, why we started the War on Terror in the first place, and what might happen next, which all deserves to be broken down at another time with far more research than I could offer this week.
With that said —and without making light of this unfolding event— this week’s topic may also be horrifying to some readers for very different reasons: we’re talking about The Bachelor.
Today marks the start of this year’s Bachelor in Paradise season, which follows closely on the heels of Katie Thurston’s stint on The Bachelorette. The ongoing prevalence of this reality TV franchise —and its ongoing prevalence of scandals— make it a point of contention and conversation. So put on your best Jovani dress, pour yourself a glass of wine, and get ready for the most dramatic season yet of Emily For President.
I talked with Emily Benson, an incoming senior at Emory University studying Political Science and Film and Media Studies. While none of this qualifies her as a Bachelor analyst, she has also been an avid consumer of the franchise since 2015. Her 10th-grade periodic table assignment was, in fact, Bachelor-themed, which gives her the proper credentials to address the burning questions at the forefront of Bachelor Nation.
Emily and I discussed what kind of messaging the franchise is promoting, why it still often stands in support of problematic contestants when “trying” “to be” “inclusive,” and why we still keep watching it.
And yes, we will be Emily S. and Emily B. Emily For President is nothing if not authentic and a little bitchy.
And the Rose Goes To…
For those among us who are not Bachelor Nation, there are a number of words and phrases within the franchise that have been used in such a meta way that it has kind of become camp.1 Things like, “I’m falling in love with you,” “this rose,” “your son is a frontrunner, don’t worry” are all layered with implied meanings now.
With that, I asked Emily my take on the most meta question of them all:
Emily S: Are you answering these for the right reasons?
Emily B: No. Like most Bachelor contestants, I’m doing this for some Instagram clout and maybe a Fab, Fit, Fun partnership.
Follow @em.bens on Instagram!
By the Way: You Can Say Phyllis Schlafly is in Hell and Still Be a Feminist—Just So We’re Clear
One of my questions for Emily was to ask her to pitch The Bachelor franchise to my father in the hopes that he wouldn’t tune out of today’s conversation. As I typed that, I realized I had to ask a far more pressing question:
Emily S: Why do you think The Bachelor franchise is so gendered and perceived as a show for women when plenty of men clearly watch and enjoy it?
Emily B: I think The Bachelor is perceived as a female show because it features love, romance, and relationships in a way that isn't abundantly sexual, therefore appealing to a stereotypical understanding of female interests and desires.
Nothing past first base (and maybe a loose second base) happens until way further into the season. Instead, the contestants fall in love through deep conversations and romantic dates, fostering a connection. Furthermore, the premise of the show is to find true love and get engaged— notions that are typically aligned with society's perception of women's desires in partnerships (whereas men are thought of as more sexual beings when seeking partnership).
While these stereotypes are widely untrue (many women are more sexually motivated and many men are looking for genuine romantic connections), we seem to accept them and therefore let them dictate the shows we associate with. Women are open about enjoying The Bachelor whereas many men, at least in my experience, find enjoying the show to be embarrassing or unmasculine.
I think this is changing as the franchise has grown with many more people becoming regular fans of the show, but the imbalance of the audience's gender distribution is still highly visible.
I couldn’t help but notice the parallels between Emily’s response and our conversation with Erin Raderstorf about why the things women enjoy are belittled. But in that chat, as well as in the Vox article that inspired it, the question that was not explicitly asked was why? Why do we label genderless things (that are, you know, inanimate) “for men” or “for women” to more easily disparage and mock the things labeled “for women”?
Simply? Because of ✨The Patriarchy✨
Emily touched on this a little when I asked:
Emily S: What kind of messages do you think The Bachelor franchise is promoting, and what effect is that having on viewers?
Emily B: The Bachelor is a tricky entity from a socio-cultural impact standpoint.
At one end, it seems to perpetuate traditional family-values-based relationships (courtship, not fooling around until later in the relationship, meeting the parents and asking for their blessing, etc.)
On the other hand, it does show polygamous relationships, lots of steamy make-outs, a couple of instances of group-date nudity, and the contestants do often sleep together before getting married, which inherently contradicts some of the more traditional notions.
Whichever message is good or bad —or if they are both good or bad— is completely up to the viewer.
I think there are pockets of the audience that may be upset that the show is drifting away from its ostensibly family-value oriented themes (even though one dude dating 30 women can't be all that wholesome), but personally I like the direction it’s going in because I think it's a more adjacent to what real world dating actually looks like (again, minus the whole dating 30 people thing).
Any time someone says “family values,” Phyllis Schlafly’s ears start burning in hell.
What Emily is getting at is that the structure of the show —which has remained the same since its start in 2002— subtly promotes the patriarchy as it shows the end goal of true love is a monogamous relationship between a heterosexual, cisgender couple. (Also, let’s catch ourselves before we start saying this line of thinking is “too much” for a “silly show.”) Regardless of if viewers see this as good or bad, as Emily said, the show itself is rooted in the idea that this ideal is good.
And if the show still follows this fairly restrictive structure and promotes that message, is it really becoming more progressive in its reflection of modern dating as Emily mentioned? Tune in next section to find out.
Podcast Killed the Bachelor Star
It turns out Schlafly-approved heteronormativity is not the only issue The Bachelor franchise has. Last year, tidal waves flooded through old Bachelor Nation and swept its longtime host, Chris Harrison, out to the Pariah Sea (to put it lightly).
I asked Emily:
Emily S: Can you explain the Great Chris Harrison Controversy of 2021?
Emily B: Ugh yes.
In a nutshell: it came out that a contestant on the last season of The Bachelor had attended an event that had a really racist and ignorant history, and was representing really racist systems. People were obviously upset about it, especially because it was becoming increasingly clear throughout the season that this contestant was going to end up with the Bachelor.
In the midst of all this backlash, while the season is airing, Chris Harrison does an interview with a former Bachelorette, Rachel Lindsay. It's important to note that Rachel was the first Black lead in the entire franchise (and that was just in 2017), and has been the victim of a lot of racist hate due to her role as the Bachelorette and her criticisms about discrimination and racism within the franchise.
In the interview, Chris basically defended the contestant in a way that was clearly out of touch and was explaining to Rachel, a Black woman, why what the contestant did wasn't that big of a deal because it was “before we were all woke” (the event in question happened like, within the last 5 years).
The whole thing was a bad look and there was a demand afterwards for Chris to step down, and he was replaced with two former leads (both women, one of whom was a Black woman).
Emily S: Why do you think it took so long for the franchise to feature Bachelorettes and Bachelors of color?
Emily B: Honestly, because I don't think they ever felt the pressure to do so before.
For so long, there was talk about how The Bachelor was a super white show but there was no real outcry or financial/ratings backlash for this immense shortcoming. I think only in recent years has the franchise realized: "Oh shit. People are not gonna stand for our homogenous bullshit anymore.”
I think especially after the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, The Bachelor has realized they have to get on board with being racially diverse and inclusive or they are going to suffer consequences (although, boy are they still struggling with this).
I also don't know the Nielsen rating data but I hypothesize that for a long time, The Bachelor audience was mostly white middle aged women, and I think that's changed a lot in the last couple years— hence more of a demand for an inclusive cast and representation with the leads.
According to YouGovAmerica which published Bachelor viewership numbers in November 2020, “three-quarters (75%) of those who have tuned into the reality show over the last year are Caucasian. About one in eight are Hispanic (12%) and 7% are Black.” Unsurprisingly, Emily’s hypothesis that the main viewership for The Bachelor is middle-aged women is also correct:
Out of the 44 leads in the franchise’s history (25 Bachelors and technically 19 Bachelorettes (yes, because of Claire)), only 4 have not been white. In a country with a population that is 13.4% Black, it’s interesting that only 9.09% of the franchise contestants have been.
Even more interesting (in a very sarcastic tone, thank you), this is all the progress that has been achieved.2 While the contestants have been increasingly more diverse than the leads, there have also been some problematic contestants, proving the show’s issues go far past just increasing visual diversity (which, again, they are also not doing a great job at).
I asked Emily:
Emily S: As the franchise makes some moves to try to be more inclusive, it still offers contestants like Hannah Brown and Rachael Kirkconnell platforms. Why do you think more changes need to occur within the franchise past just increasing representation?
Emily B: Especially in the modern age where reality stars become celebrities overnight in an almost unprecedented manner, reality shows very much have an obligation to choose contestants that are in line with important societal values.
With the way The Bachelor is designed, regular people become famous overnight. It can be incredibly frustrating and upsetting when it comes out that people who have done/said/tweeted offensive and hateful things are glorified overnight, and only the producers have the power to control who is receiving this level of fame.
But even more, on shows like The Bachelor, producers owe it to the leads to choose contestants that exemplify positive attributes. Imagine you’re the Bachelorette and down to the last three guys, and one of the dudes you're falling in love with turns out to be homophobic, the other is racist, and the third is misogynistic. That would suck, but it's happened on the show before.
Producers, do your leads justice and VET THE CONTESTANTS.
I also had to ask:
Emily S: Collectively as Bachelor Nation, what do we owe Rachel Lindsay?
Emily B: A fucking apology.
She has gotten so much hate for just expressing personal grievances and negative experiences she’s had with on the show, as well as the racist hate she’s gotten from a large population of Bachelor Nation. She’s been consistently met with people telling her to “shut up, sit down, and be grateful” for the platform she’s given while completely disregarding and invalidating her experience with micro-aggressions and blatant racism while on the show..
She’s been doing the most boots-on-the-ground work trying to draw attention to those mounting issues of unequal representation and treatment of contestants of color, and she gets nothing but hate for it.
After the Final Rose
To close out today’s conversation (because Paradise is starting soon!!!), I had two final questions for Emily:
Emily S: Do you think The Bachelor is actually a good place to find love?
Emily B: I think, statistically, The Bachelor isn’t a GREAT place to find love.
The best possible outcome that comes out of being on The Bachelor is that individuals gain a following and a brand and then sometimes happen to find love as a by-product.
Emily S: Why do we still watch a show that is so clearly problematic?
Emily B: Because it’s entertaining.
It’s not so blatantly problematic that we feel socially required to address it even thought we all can see the problems. It’s really in the intricacies that we willfully ignore.
Not to go full Truman Show on everyone, but isn’t that how so many Americans have floated through 250 odd years of history? Maybe —just maybe— The Bachelor is a show about reality…
Thank you so so so much to Emily who has had a crazy week of moving, flat tires, no toothbrushes, and still answered all of these like the incredible fan she is!!!
If that sentence made no sense to you, Dad, viewers picked up on the constant use of certain phrases and the production team behind the Bachelor franchise decided to double down on them and prompt contestants to use them as much as possible. The result is this self-referential je ne sais quoi that viewers have seen through and regard as entirely ironic now. Like we know they know we know they’re doing it intentionally.
There has not been any other racial diversity amongst the leads, minimal disability representation, and minimal LGBTQ+ representation.