Misogyny in romantic literature

A post in this morning's LinkedIn news feed stated that the Heard-Depp defamation trial sounded a victory for misogyny. I disagreed, but it got me thinking along lines not unfamiliar to me: romance is misogynistic.

The one genre written mainly for women by women is the 800 lb. gorilla of literature with regard to both the number of books and the total amount of sales. It's the go-to genre for writers who think they can make a quick buck by dashing off some sex scenes connected by a barely-there plot. It's the genre that struggles for legitimacy in a world that denigrates romantic literature as "trash" and "unrealistic."

But how unrealistic is it?

We can go back to one of the most egregious, popular, and enduring examples of misogyny in romance, William Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew. The message: Treat a woman like she's an imbecile and browbeat her, and she'll fall in love with you. And we can look back to folk tales and fairy tales in which the woman who upholds societal ideals is rewarded with the grand prize: marriage to a prince or king. Fast forward to today's romantic literature and we have much the same themes disguised in various iterations within the genre of romance.

Among the myriad sub-genres of romance, two have lately risen to popularity, and that popularity shows no sign of waning any time soon. These are BDSM and "dark" romances glamorizing abuse and violence against women. Much of this literature portrays striking, whipping, humiliating, and otherwise punishing or "disciplining" women as sexy. Defenders justify such treatment stating that these punishments occur only through mutual consent.

I wouldn't trust anyone who thinks striking me with a belt or a cane is foreplay.

Much of that literature also incorporates pejoratives aimed at degrading the romantic heroine. Defamatory words like slut and whore are used in intimate situations and are supposed to be romantically stimulating.

Those words insulting and offensive, utterly devoid of affection and respect.

Just as bad are the "heroes" of such literature, who are portrayed as wealthy, successful, influential, and often womanizing boors: all the qualities girls are taught to prize. That seemingly mercenary emphasis has its roots in pragmatism. Biological burden and parental demand reduce women's ability and availability to earn a living wage, so someone's got to pick up the slack to pay for the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter. In traditional cultures, that someone is usually a man. A wealthy man can do that more easily than a poor man. A man's success and influence impart other benefits, too, such as social status. Surival, status, and even comfort are used to excuse a man's poor behavior.

The above paragraph doesn't mean that's all right and proper and good; it simply reflects historical reality for most women. The good old days weren't necessarily all that good.

But I digress.

The literature targeted for women—half the world's population—glamorizes and romanticizes the poor treatment of them. The Heard-Depp defamation trial didn't put a nail in the coffin of women's liberation; the literature we continue to buy and read is nailing that coffin shut with our enthusiastic support.

Language frames our thoughts. What we read informs our opinions and beliefs. Does what you find romantic contradict what you believe? Do you imagine yourself with a hero whom you'd kick to the curb in real life?

Why not read books in romance that have heroes who support and protect their heroines and that have heroines who exercise their brains and know when to stand strong?

Every word counts.

#henhousepublishing #hollybargobooks #romance