![\"BACHELORY18GAL043pre-1387324698\"](\"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/files\/2014\/01\/BACHELORY18GAL043pre-1387324698.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLast week Bachelor star Juan Pablo Galavis broke my queer little heart (CJ\u2019s heart to be exact. JP has yet to win Tristan over). \u00a0I\u2014and judging from the interwebs, many others\u2014had fallen for Juan Pablo Galavis. \u00a0Attractive, sensitive, a dedicated single father, not to mention a talented dancer, Juan Pablo had charmed his way into many of our hearts, gay and straight alike. While he may not have been right for last season\u2019s bachelorette Desiree Hartsock, he certainly seduced the rest of us. That is, until his comments last week.<\/p>\n
For those of you who missed it, Galavis had a thing or two to say about whether or not a season featuring a \u201cgay bachelor\u201d would or should ever happen.* As The Huffington Post<\/i> reported<\/a>, after claiming to have a gay friend, Galavis said, \u201cNo… I respect [gay people] but, honestly, I don’t think it’s a good example for kids… Two parents sleeping in the same bed and the kid going into bed\u2026 It is confusing in a sense\u201d and that gay people are \u201cmore ‘pervert’ in a sense. And to me the show would be too strong… too hard to watch.\u201d He later attempted to clarify these remarks apologizing to those he \u201cmay have offended\u201d stating that he has \u201cnothing but respect for gay people and their families.\u201d<\/p>\n Gay blogs<\/a> quickly denounced his comments, as did those at ABC. Even Bachelor host Chris Harrison said<\/a> that he was \u201cdisappointed\u201d and that Galavis\u2019 views \u201cobviously don’t reflect my feelings or my thoughts on the subject.” ABC released a statement<\/a> saying, \u201cJuan Pablo\u2019s comments were careless, thoughtless and insensitive, and in no way reflect the views of the network, the show\u2019s producers or studio.\u201d Apart from some GLBT commentators<\/a> calling for a stronger statement or some \u201cmake-up\u201d activist work, the event seems to have passed relatively quietly.<\/p>\n “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,\u201d he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: \u201cDon\u2019t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers\u2014they won\u2019t inherit the kingdom of God. Don\u2019t deceive yourself. It\u2019s not right. (here<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The outcry was tremendous \u2013 condemnation from multiple corners. Robertson was even suspended from his own show (though it was reversed<\/a> under pressure from conservative groups accusing the network\u2014A&E\u2014of attacking free speech and Christian values<\/a>).<\/p>\n Now, setting aside the question about the logistics of suspending the bachelor from the show of which he is THE<\/strong> star, the differing responses seem to have a lot to do with intersections of class, region, religion and masculine styles.\u00a0 Certainly, Robertson\u2019s sexual prejudice was more vehement, violent, graphic, and distasteful. Galavis\u2014in fewer words and with a bit more caution\u2014made some similar claims. But, Galavis failed to garner the backlash Robertson received (with a notable exception<\/a> or two).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In an incredible piece about the reaction to Robertson<\/a>, Mimi Schippers<\/a> argues that the response reflected class bias and privilege:<\/p>\n “While I wholeheartedly and vociferously disagree with Robertson, I am also uncomfortable with how he is made to embody\u2026 the rural, poor, white redneck from the south that is racist, sexist, and homophobic. This isn\u2019t\u00a0just<\/em>\u00a0<\/i>who he\u00a0<\/i>is<\/em>; we\u2019re getting a narrative told by the producers of\u00a0Duck Dynasty<\/em>\u00a0and editors at\u00a0GQ<\/em>\u2014extremely privileged people in key positions of power making decisions about what images are proliferated in the mainstream media\u2026\u00a0 We are getting a carefully crafted\u00a0representation\u00a0of the rural, white, Southern, manly man, regardless of whether or not the man, Phil Robertson, is a bigot (which, it seems,\u00a0he is<\/a>).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Schippers suggests that the controversy over Robertson performs a cultural sleight of hand whereby our disdain for him distracts us from \u201cthe structures of inequality that systematically serve the interests of wealthy, white, straight, and urban men who ultimately are the main benefactors of racism, sexism, and homophobia\u201d (here<\/a>). It inhibits institutional understandings of sexism, racism, classism and homophobia and scapegoats the least advantaged as responsible for perpetuating forms of inequality whose real beneficiaries are higher up the food chain.<\/p>\n This stands in contrast to an analysis of the Galavis controversy. He\u2019s not a laughable, southern, rural, bigot; he\u2019s a charming, sexy, doting father who we are supposed to adore, not laugh at. Indeed, even in his justification for why<\/i> gay men shouldn\u2019t be the stars of The Bachelor, he draws (in his revised statement<\/a>) not on some sort of reactionary disgust for gay men, but on the welfare of children. He\u2019s a dad, after all, and what he cares about is whether or not kids are being raised well. The questions he raises are ones raised by scholars and justices in recent court decisions about gay marriage: \u201cAre the gays good parents\/role models\/caretakers for the kids?\u201d\u00a0 In that sense, Galavis is positioned as a responsibly masculine man, one who puts his family\u2019s welfare before his own.<\/p>\n Indeed, Galavis might represent what Melanie Heath<\/a> calls \u201csoft-boiled masculinity<\/a>.\u201d Gender and sexual inequality in this form of masculinity are not about enforcing patriarchy through some violent Old Testament edict (a la<\/i> Robertson), but through particular understandings of family and wholesomeness.\u00a0 Similarly, Arlene Stein<\/a> argues that there are new emergent forms of homophobia<\/a> that might best be understood as reactions to feminist critiques of traditional masculinity.\u00a0 As Stein writes, \u201cnew forms of homophobia have emerged that are compatible with conservatives\u2019 quest to be seen as compassionate protectors of the family\u201d (here<\/a>).\u00a0 While the style<\/i> in which sexual prejudice is expressed and systems of inequality are perpetuated is dramatically different from Robertson\u2019s brand of homophobia, perhaps the substance<\/i> is not.<\/p>\n As such, Galavis\u2019 homophobia is, perhaps, less easily recognized and more quickly forgiven because it is paired with being such an attentive father who cares so deeply about the wellbeing of his daughter. \u00a0Yet, this is consistent with what Stein refers to as \u201cneopatriarchal politics\u201d\u2014espousing sexual inequality under the guise of what\u2019s good for kids.<\/p>\n Finally, as Galavis makes clear, his comments can show how individual friendship or support for civil rights for gays and lesbians can exist alongside stereotypes that work to re-marginalize these groups. It illuminates emergent homophobias and forms of sexual prejudice that may operate more subtly than previous forms, but continue to bolster some of the same structures of power and inequality.<\/p>\n ________________________________________<\/p>\n *As Funny or Die\u2019s The First Gay Bachelor<\/a> video so entertainingly points out, a gay bachelor (or a lesbian bachelorette) would panic<\/a> particular assumptions about gender and sexual desire upon which the entire show is based\u2026\u00a0 But that\u2019s a topic for another post.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By C.J. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges Last week Bachelor star Juan Pablo Galavis broke my queer little heart (CJ\u2019s heart to be exact. JP has yet to win Tristan over). \u00a0I\u2014and judging from the interwebs, many others\u2014had fallen for Juan Pablo Galavis. \u00a0Attractive, sensitive, a dedicated single father, not to mention a talented dancer, Juan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1958,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25814],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-manly-musings"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7047","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1958"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7047"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7047\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7559,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7047\/revisions\/7559"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a>These reactions seem quite tame when compared to responses to Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson\u2019s recent comments on same sex behavior in an interview with GQ<\/i> magazine.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 Robertson said, among other things:<\/p>\n