Feminism and the Romance Genre
- Maggie Shayne
- 4 days ago
- 8 min read
I'm an activist. In my actions, I have bumped into a couple of fellow activistst who have mentioned that feminists once (or more than once) burned romance novels while protesting for women's rights. I was frankly flabbergasted by that revelation.
Let me give you my arguments for why that was and is such a misguided approach. And here, I'm speaking about male/female romances, because feminists do not attack gay or lesbian romances for some reason. Maybe it's because they don't feel entitled to tell gay or lesbian readers what they should or shouldn't read.
Just straight women who like romance novels. Got it. Moving on.
First and foremost, women have the right to read and enjoy any kind of fiction they like. When you try to shame them for it, that's the opposite of feminism.
Shouldn't a woman's right to choose her own reading material be considered sacred and protected? Isn't that part of the first amendment?
The Romance industry has mainly been a women's industry. And yes, today there are a few more men and a much wider range of books considered romance, but during its birth, evolution, hayday, romance novels were written FOR women, BY women, ABOUT women. The editors were all women. The agents were all women. The executives were mostly women. And the readers were damn near exclusively women. Most of the book distributors were male, and too many executives.
Most of the above notes are still true.
How dare someone attack one of the most successful female-driven industries in the world and call themselves a feminist? Countless women have raised themselves and their families out of poverty by writing romance novels. I'm one of them.
Romance writers earn an annual income that is, on average DOUBLE what writers of other genres earn. On average 32,000.
Romance novels tell the Heroine's Journey. In every book a woman who could be any one of us, a woman with all the traits we cherish in ourselves, is pitted against scary obstacles, overwhelming challenges, and a stubborn male who's usually one of them. She travels the path of the Heroine's Journey on every page. She discovers she has more power in her eyes, in her heart, and in her little finger than all her counterpart might think he has in his entire body. He is physically stronger, sometimes wealthier or more powerful. This just makes him a bigger challenge. She is smarter, more intuitive, understands more, has more insight. And he doesn't stand a chance. By the end of the book, the hero is laying his sword at our heroine's feet, pledging his fealty to her. She still has all the strengths and gifts she started out with, but now she also has all of his, as well. Read that line again. THAT is the appeal of the romance novel.
*Obviously I'm speaking there of straight romances as this is the dynamic I've studied and understood for three plus decades. I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak of the subtle power dynamics in LGBTQ+ romances, but I can't imagine it's any different. That yearning and longing for the one we love is the same, no matter who we are. It's a universal human characteristic.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the romance novel industry made more money in the US than baseball, the so-called American passtime. What other by-women, for-women, about-women industry did that? None.
One of the feminist anti-romance claims is that the novels give women unrealistic expectations. However, that implies that women are too dumb to know the difference between fantasy and reality. I find that extremely insulting.
The truth is that female psychologists have recommended romances to their female clients recovering from spousal abuse, to show them what a healthy relationship might look like. Granted, that's not every romance novel, but overall, yes. They depict monogamous, deeply loving, healthy relationships.
Romance novels are empowering to women. They pit a woman against insurmountable obstacles and she triumphs over every last one of them to achieve her goal, and finds the love of her life along the way. Women feel like standing up and cheering at the end. That's the hit they get from this genre that keeps them coming back for more.
Another popular accusation against romance novels is that the goal of the stories is getting a man. That's so wildly inapropriate I can't believe anyone who said that ever read one. These are love stories. They are stories about people who want to be together, but can't be together, who overcome everything that stands in their way and end up triumphing over all of them because love conquers all. That's a love story. It's the tale of their journey to each other. It's the push and pull of a powerful I can't! I must! dilemma. In a mystery story, the goal is to solve the crime. To complain that romance novels are about romance is like complaining that mystery novels are about solving mysteries. In a romance novel, the goal is the fulfillment of the love story. It's the whole point. There's nothing anti-feminist about falling in love, or being in a relationship with the person you love.
There's something very anti-feminist, however, about pushing against other women finding fulfillment in that way, or pushing against other womens' reading choices.
Romance novels work for the same reason Black Beauty worked for its audience. You have a girl who sometimes feels powerless and a big, strong, powerful horse. There's a delicate dance between the two as the tale unfolds, but the inevitable result is that the horse's strength and power become the girl's to use, to command.
If men didn't suck so much in real life, there might not be a romance novel industry. Romances depict men as they'd be if they were created by women. We get to sculpt our own perfect specimens in these books. We get to torment them a little for their silly male tendencies, while they learn how to be a good man, how to love a woman, as he falls ever more deeply under love's spell. We get to see our heroine transform into the fullest, strongest, most empowered version of herself while our hero grows into a partner worthy of her. He has no choice, because she will not settle for less and he can't live without her.
That's empowering fiction! And the final reason they're wrong on this, and the one feminists really ought to know best...
Don't ever fucking tell women what to do.
For some excellent insights on the true appeal of the genre, check out:
Granted, the genre has changed a lot since the 80s and 90s. Back then, publishers were gatekeepers and nothing too different got through. Now with the advent of self-publishing, anything goes. A lot of books today straddle the line between romance and erotica.
The books got sexier and sexier over time as women stopped being too intimidated to write about sex, or admit they enjoyed it. That was long overdue! The sexiness started in historical tales, but soon there were dedicated contemporary lines like Harlequin Temptation and Silhouette Desire where the spice factor went higher. (
The color red on a cover in the romance genre is a signal to the reader that the book is on the spicier side. (There's an entire language being spoken in cover art.)
But you could still tell the difference between the romance genre and pure erotica. The point of erotica is titillation. The point of romance is the love story and the heroine's journey. In romance, you coud take out the sexy parts and still have a whopper of a story. In pure erotica, the sex is the point and without it there wouldn't be much of a story.
Also, the romance genre is recognizable because it has mores, unwritten agreements between author and reader that give it away as a romance novel. Not every author still follows these, and I daresay lots of new authors dont even know what these genre-norms are or that they exist. But for decades we had this unspoken agreement with our readers and they trusted us to hold up our end. Rule 1: Once they meet or wake up to each other (like in Sabrina) the two protagonists can never be with anyone else sexually. Even if they try, it's just not happening. Books in the romance genre are generally monogamous. That's the more, the "rule."
Rule 2: "Get them together and keep them together," is a longstanding rule of romance. If there's a long separation, we tend to cover it in a montage or a short chapter, and get the couple back together on the page as quickly as possble
Rule 3: The happily ever after (HEA) is not optional. No matter how bad things look, the reader trusts the author of the romance novel to make it work out in the end. And we drag them through some shit. They trust us not to let them down. The happy ending is no more optional than leaving the murder unsolved would be an optional way to end a genre mystery. The baddy doesn't have to go down, you could get away with that, but the protagonist has to know whodunnit, and the reader has to know too. Otherwise they'd feel cheated.
Rule 4: The obstacle keeping the couple apart has to be as powerful as their desire to be together, at least in the beginning. The harder it is to get past the obstacle, the better the journey for the reader.
Rule 5: Even if bullets are flying over their heads, he's going to look at her and notice the color of her eyes. That's a quote from my very first editor at Silhouette which later became Harlequin which later became Harper. Yeah, I've been around a while.
Rule 6: The dark moment, such as when he's tied up getting the shit kicked out of him and all seems, lost for example – THAT'S when he realizes he loves her. (Another quote from that brilliant first editor of mine.)
So those are my thoughts. And one more. Anyone who advocates for burning books is NEVER on the right side of ANYTHING.
Read your romances PROUDLY!
Now, here's a GREAT podcast about the economics of romance novels that was really worth the listen, and my old friend Brenda Hiatt is a featured guest.
On Janella's planet, women rule and men drool. So earth is quite a culture shock.
Maggie Shayne's
STARGAZER
He told himself it was a dream.
Then she showed up in his woods again.
Dr. Thomas Duffy blames his haunting childhood memories on a vivid imagination. The odd buzzing sensation that woke him from a sound sleep — that was tinnitus. And that night he sneaked out to rescue a beautiful girl lost in the woods behind his family's farm — that was just a dream.
He convinces himself of that for years. Until it happens again.
He is not a little boy anymore, but the buzzing is back, drawing him out of his bed and into the woods, where he finds a grown-up version of the same girl.
Beautiful Janella is stranded on a planet not her own. She is being stalked by mysterious strangers and she is completely alone in this world. The only person who has ever found her — twice now — is a small-town doctor with no framework for what she is, and no intention of turning away.
Stargazer is a sweeping paranormal romance with small-town charm, an out-of-this-world heroine, and a country doctor who is about to discover his strangest memories were always trying to tell him something.
Perfect for readers who love
Small-town warmth with otherworldly paranormal mystery
A doctor's impossible dream returns fully grown
Destined reunion between a human and an alien
Sci-fi paranormal romance with small-town heart
IN PAPERBACK AND EBOOK WHEREVER BOOKS ARE SOLD New cover art takes longer to update at some retailers than others.
I never understood the critique of romance literature either. It is fun, it is empowering, and it is romantic. I know the difference between romance and fantasy and I assume most women do as well. There are some exceptions but they are few and far between. Modern feminists, or ones who think they are feminists say that romance characters are toxic and like fairytales, lead to unrealistic expectations. They also say if you don't agree with them, you are not a feminist. Being pro life, I hear that a lot. I always thought feminism was supposed to be about empowering women so they can make their own choices, not have them dictated to them. Why are we much harder on…