IMO: Is Romance Feminist?

 I'm back with another bookish thought post...Is Romance Feminist? 

Before I get into my response, I think romance is often positioned to respond to a lot of social issues and perhaps, this is where this question Is Romance Feminist is rooted in/coming from. I would like to plainly say, it's fiction so it doesn't have to be anything but that. Though I do think it helps that any fiction I consume it's not wilding out. So does it have to be feminist, no. Is it feminist? Hear me out...

First, from what I can gather like many cyclical online discourses people use words interchangeably which is part of the problem. As in feminism/feminists means women's rights and it's not the same...

So what is feminism? 

Translation: political and social activism to fight against isms that disenfranchise marginalized HUMANS. The use of sex here is outdated and not representative of where we are in fully acknowledging humanity (but I digress).

Because I don't want to make this post too long, check out this link that gives a brief history and timeline of the feminist movement in America.  I specify the American feminist movement because in other countries the progression of rights is not the same. 

To my earlier point, I think most people who believe romance is feminist might fall in the camp of women's rights, a faction of the feminist movement (second-wave feminism). But if you're in the 4th wave camp (justice and liberation), then Houston we have a problem. 

Example 1: Romance is written for women by women

  Is this true or even an accurate statement?  

Example 2: I can't relate to or write x character having a HEA

Why is that? When authors, editors, and even readers make this statement I hear only certain people can have a HEA, and for those on the fringe, it's unrealistic to believe it could happen. 

Example 3: Male characters must have a six-pack, be tall, and be assertive (dare I say also mostly white able-bodied).  

Don't get me started. The short version is male characters' one-dimensional caricatures? 

I chatted with Andrea from Shelf Love Podcast a little about this concept in the episode The Vindication of the Rights of Man in Romance Novels. Check it out here  

Comment 1: Romance is basically smut or soft porn

Smut and soft porn aren't inherently bad descriptors, but I think there is some shame mixed in the framing of this comment. I often think about how can people safely explore the wide range of sexual fantasies that doesn't repress or is free of shame i.e. guilty pleasure. 

Comment 2: I can't find x rep 

 Tell me we have a diversity problem and relying on word of mouth to fill the gap

Comment 3: I can only read romance with discreet covers in public 

 What is that about? See comment 1's response. 

I'm going to also insert my tweet here as an accountability post to circle back to what I also think we should acknowledge there might be some respectability politics interwoven in what should be a progressive (or so we say) genre.   

Can someone write about the respectability politics in romance with an overlay of fallacious reasoning? Bc I'm convinced there are ops amongst us or something pic.twitter.com/XcHI0pjwE9

— Weekend Reader- Rocco Jamison's mate 🐻 (@weekendreader_) June 27, 2023

These examples are very prevalent positions that a 4th wave feminist would critique and that criticism would probably come in the form of who is left out in romance and/or we thoughtfully telling the full story. From where I'm sitting, I think there's a HUGE disconnect between what the genre is, the role it plays in fiction, and how it operates. Like any collective, there are niches that are dismantling harmful isms but as a whole, I had to ask myself; can we really say romance is feminist. Can we make this claim when we are still arguing about what a HEA is and who is deserving of it? We also have a glaring diversity problem in publishing hello intersectionality says for every marginalized identity you can experience further marginalization. Do you see where I'm going?

So Is Romance Feminist? The educator in me says I think it really depends on how you define feminism. Since this is my blog post, I considered who is heavily represented in the genre, how harm is replicated (whether that be a caricature of the global majority, stereotypes, and/or outdated tropes), what is considered conventionally attractive, the blurring of the lines of redemption arcs, who is deserving of love, and appropriate representation of lived experiences, etc. And, whether or not I believe centering the cis female heteronormative experience is enough to ignore all of the other very valid critiques. So for me in my household, the answer is not so much. 

But, I think let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Romance has made strides toward conversations about consent, the expansion of Black, Latinx, Asian, and Desi romance, and the mobilization around reproductive rights. So, all is not lost, but IMO we (meaning romance the genre, authors, publishers, and readers) there is still have a hella lot of work to do. Last thought, though it's not all sum situation. So while I might not think romance is feminist there are ideals that are woven through but the execution of those ideals is where things fall apart. In general, I think the genre definitely operates and dare I say thrives on the male-female dichotomy which leaves out a lot of experiences. And I do think it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge nothing is a constant or invalidate the stories that are feminist in nature. So again, it's not all or nothing; there is something happening in romance. 

Do you think romance is feminist?

Happy Reading!