Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Julia Yates, PhD Candidate in Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Health Promotion, Western University
The recent cancellation of the reality TV show The Bachelorette at first glance appears to be a routine network response to save face as alarming information about a star becomes public.
Network executives stated that the decision was made “in light of the newly released video” involving a 2023 incident when the latest scheduled season’s main cast member, Mormon mom influencer Taylor Frankie Paul, is seen attacking her ex-partner in the presence of her child.
At the time of the altercation, Paul was arrested on several charges, including domestic violence in the presence of a child, and later pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, with the remaining charges dismissed. She has been on probation ever since.
According to a spokesperson for Paul, she is “very grateful for ABC’s support as she prioritizes her family’s safety and security. After years of silently suffering extensive mental and physical abuse as well as threats of retaliation, Taylor is finally gaining the strength to face her accuser and taking steps to ensure that she and her children are protected from any further harm.”
But the cancellation of the show highlights important societal biases deeply rooted in gender inequities and the perpetuation of patriarchal norms. It underscores a longstanding truth: women who use violence are often held accountable for their actions, while men are rarely held to the same standards. Especially when fame is involved.
As scholars with expertise in gender-based violence, child exposure to parental violence and trauma- and violence-informed care, we of course oppose violence of any kind. But we want to shed light on the differences in how society treats women who have used violence in comparison to men.
Uneven consequences
It’s well-documented that women and girls are significantly more likely than men and boys to have experienced any form of intimate partner violence (IPV), with violence most often being used by men in relationships.
While society predominantly views IPV through this lens, the reality is that women too use violence in relationships. But understanding who perpetrates it is only part of the story. Equally important is how that violence is interpreted and punished.
The differences are perhaps most visible among professional athletes, including National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Football League (NFL) players. When these athletes are arrested for acts of violence against women, society tends to be concerned about the potential that it will ruin the athlete’s career.
However, research shows no meaningful differences in the career trajectories of players arrested for violence against women compared to those not arrested across the NBA and NFL.
What matters in terms of accountability, or lack thereof, for violence against women is player value and on-field performance. This suggests that society is willing to compartmentalize elite athletes’ identities, separating acts of violence from athletic excellence, when their talent and performance are deemed sufficiently valuable.
Beyond talent and performance, the potential backlash from fans and media plays into the organizational decision-making around outcomes for athletes who have used violence against women. An NBA employee shared that the decision for accountability is weighed based on whether “The guy’s skill bigger than his problems? Does it outweigh his issues?”. This suggests that so long as he is sufficiently talented, violence against women can be ignored.
Women, however, are rarely granted the same leniency. And these disparities are not accidental, they are encouraged by deeply embedded expectations about gender and behaviour.
Gendered expectations
In a society that continues to position women as caregivers first and professionals second, any use of violence in relationships is often interpreted as a fundamental failure of gendered expectations.
The lower value that society assigns to women’s work, especially roles seen as less legitimate — like influencers in comparison with professional athletes — reinforces these disparities by signalling that men’s careers are worth protecting while women’s are treated as more easily replaceable.
This moral framing leads to swift and enduring condemnation. Men, by contrast, are generally expected to prioritize work, which allows their use of violence to be more easily minimized or separated from their professional identities. As a result, women who use violence face consequences that are not only legal or professional but deeply moralized, which men in comparable situations are far less likely to encounter.
The double standard experienced by women compared to men is rooted in patriarchal societal narratives about how women should behave. Evidence shows that women who use violence harm individuals to a similar degree as men do, yet women are judged more harshly, as using violence violates societal expectations of femininity, caregiving and emotional restraint.
This violation of societal expectations means that these women face amplified social condemnation and lasting reputational consequences.
Patriarchal norms
These patriarchal norms around violence have a reach that extends beyond national sports teams and influencers on reality TV.
Recent research demonstrated that patriarchal attitudes strongly predicted personal beliefs about IPV, including tolerance and victim blaming, and that social norms, rooted in patriarchal structures, shape how people judge IPV cases and whether they support accountability or policy change.
Read more:
‘Home is the most dangerous place for women,’ but private and public violence are connected
These patriarchal norms are, in part, resistant to change because they serve those who hold power and maintain the status quo of gendered expectations. As long as society prioritizes the roles and professions of men over women, regardless of the infraction, women will always face more severe and long-lasting consequences — including how both the public and professionals judge those who use violence.
The cancellation of The Bachelorette reflects more than a reaction to a single incident. It exposes how the patriarchy continues to mould public responses to family violence. And meaningfully addressing these inequities requires challenging the gendered narratives that influence all aspects of our lives.
Julia Yates receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Tara Mantler receives funding from SSHRC.
C. Nadine Wathen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. What ‘The Bachelorette’ cancellation reveals about gendered expectations and violence – https://theconversation.com/what-the-bachelorette-cancellation-reveals-about-gendered-expectations-and-violence-279725
#/media/File:Riyadh-Makkah_Road_near_Tuwaiq_Escarpment.JPG){kind=link}
