Elizabeth Bright ponders the possible sexism of the HEA… and has a giveaway.
I was a thousand feet above the ground with blood seeping from a scrape along my elbow when I finally told my close friend the secret I had been carrying for months now: I had written a book, and in six months I would be a published author.
“Romance?” she said. “That doesn’t sound like you.”
It’s no surprise she said that; we’ve all met a judgmental feminist who hasn’t bothered to read what she derides. But the truth is, my knee-jerk reaction is to agree with her. It’s hard to face that the calls are coming from inside the house; it’s even worse to realize you’re the caller. It’s probably a drunk dial. Internalized misogyny is a hell of a drug, and it took becoming a romance author to for me to realize I’m just as high as everyone else.
There is something inherently feminist about books written by (mostly) women, for (mostly) women, and about (mostly) women. That romance novels exist at all prove that women have worth, both as creators and consumers. Of course there are problematic tropes, and sometimes abuse is wrapped up to look like love. But the same can be said of “serious” literature as well.
No, what really brings out my inner misogynist-disguised-as-a-feminist is the very thing that makes romance a romance: the HEA.
Because it’s not about being happy. It’s about being happy with a man. (Or a woman, in the case of f/f, but either way, we’re still talking about an individual outside of oneself.)
Don’t you have anything better to do than think about boys? Go climb a mountain or something, says the voice inside my head. It sounds like something a feminist would say, doesn’t it? But it’s not, because what it really means is, hey, men don’t read about love, so it must be Less Than.
As a romance author, I have to let my heroines choose love. Every time I sit down to write, I remind myself: Love is not less than anything. Feminism is about autonomy, and while sex and love are biological imperatives, they are not individual mandates. It’s not an HEA just because two people get married; the heroine has to choose this ending for it to truly be happy. Love has to feel right to her.
For some women, the perfect HEA encompasses marriage and children. Others don’t want children. The marriage/children question is about lifestyle, not morals. Wanting an HEA that encompasses children does not make you any less of a feminist. It’s just a choice, like preferring bikers to cowboys, or werewolves to humans. Luckily, no matter what your perfect HEA looks like, there’s a romance to match.
And what’s more feminist than that?
Elizabeth Bright is a writer, attorney, and mother. After spending ten years in New Orleans (yes, she survived Hurricane Katrina), she relocated to Washington, D.C. to be closer to family. When she’s not writing, arguing, or mothering, she can be found hiking in the Shenandoah or rock climbing at Great Falls. Twice as Wicked is her first novel.
Elizabeth is offering, to one lucky US reader, a signed paperback copy of Twice as Wicked and a $25 Amazon gift card. Make a comment below to be entered in this drawing.
‘There is something inherently feminist about books written by (mostly) women, for (mostly) women, and about (mostly) women’
No, actually. Just because something is made by women and it involves women, doesn’t make it a feminist thing. FGM is also done by (mostly) women to females — well, girls. Women are sometimes very bad at figuring out what is good for them, and what isn’t.
As for romance, it’s not the HEA, or finding love that is problematic — those are both desirable things in life (for everyone, I’d argue), and reading about wish fulfilment is always pleasant. What bothers me is what form that wish fulfilment often takes. Speak sexual double standards, submissive women, outright rape and abuse, an encouragement towards a gold digger attitude, etc…
Agreed! Thanks for posting these thoughts!
Love the cover. Thanks for the chance.
magic5905 at embarqmail dot com
Amen to this! We have also somehow internalized the message that misery is an indicator of quality.
I’m 100 percent here for more childless couples, and even more romances that end with a lifelong commitment between pairings versus a marriage. More variety, more joy I say!
I remember when anyone over 30 in a romance was awful to me. Years later, I really enjoy an older couple’s quiet HEA that doesn’t necessarily involve marriage..
I love your thought process on this issue. I’m totally adding this to my shortlist.
Nice article. Speaking of childless, I just read a series of Westerns (Las Morenas by Genevieve Turner) where two of the books ended with no children (one due to infertility and one by choice.) It’s especially rare to see that happen in historicals.
I endorse this message.
Is everyone talking about childless endings aware of our Special Title Listing on that subject? It’s divided by choice, infertility, and adoptive.
https://allaboutromance.com/special-title-listing-childless/
I’m realizing that my “read more diverse romance” might need to include more diverse endings as well!
Thirded for more childfree HEAs. Women are still derided for choosing to not have children. It’s crazy.
Anyway, I appreciate the author’s candid thoughts. Internalised misogyny is such an insidious thing.
I like this. I remember Amanda Palmer saying something along the lines of, the only way to be a bad feminist is to tell someone else how to be a feminist.
Choosing love never makes us less than.
I love this quote so much. I’d like to rain it all over Twitter…..
Great post! I very much like how you’ve reframed the HEA to be about love, and love being important.
I’m with Blackjack and Marian Perera on the issue of childless HEAs. There aren’t that many of them, and there are even fewer if you take sequels into account.
“Luckily, no matter what your perfect HEA looks like, there’s a romance to match.”
This is true only if you accept that “HEA” is code for “married, engaged, or clearly on their way to marriage/engagement.”
Yes, that too is still an issue in romance writing for me in that HEA = marriage. Do committed couples who choose to be together outside of marriage have an HEA or can the happy ending only take place within the boundaries of marriage? I don’t see many happy endings in romances taking place outside of marriage itself. Yet, here in the U.S. marriage has long been on the decline and more and more people choose commitment without marriage.
Thanks.
Beautiful, succinct defense of romances–we shouldn’t need one, but we do.
I am convinced that the contempt of romances is totally rooted in sexism, plus the belief that they are porn. That last attitude is held by modern women and men who WATCH porn and probably read it, but are not out of the closet yet.
Even my friends. who hold in contempt those people who condemn books that they haven’t read, condemn romances, even though they’ve NEVER READ one. Somehow, if you read romances, your IQ descends to the level that you know far less about romances that the people who have never read one. When “forced” to read Milan in a book club, they STILL held onto their prejudice. It infuriates me, but I suppose it’s just too tempting to feel superior to other human beings.
I enjoyed your post. Frankly, it crystallizes how I felt but have never been able express. Thank you for that.
“Wanting an HEA that encompasses children does not make you any less of a feminist. It’s just a choice, like preferring bikers to cowboys, or werewolves to humans”…Love this!
Thank you, Elizabeth, for sharing your insight.
“Luckily, no matter what your perfect HEA looks like, there’s a romance to match.
And what’s more feminist than that?”
I couldn’t agree more!
I agree, Blackjack. Even if the story itself doesn’t have a babies-ever-after epilogue, the message filters into the sequels when we see the heroines and heroes from the previous books in the series, and they all have children in tow. Biological children, of course. Adoption may be too much of a gritty reality here.
And yes, I also love it when the heroine has a career or vocation or hobby that she enjoys and is good at. There should be some aspect of her life that exists independently of the hero. I believe that when a woman falls in love, it should be because this is the best possible choice for her, not because it’s her only choice.
I’m a tomboy, and I too struggle with how my soccer team sees me as a romance reader, because it’s assumed if you read romance, you also like girly things, and I don’t. But you’re right: Love is a human, not just woman, condition.
Also, “Love is a biological imperative, but not individual mandate.” Yes, yes, yes!
I have to admit that I would like more romances featuring a happy ending without children because the overwhelming predominance of children in the vast majority of romances out there feels like a drum beat that children = happiness. For some, yes, but certainly not for all women. The ideology of children as a necessary part of an HEA weighs on many women in our society, and as a woman who has chosen to forego children, I certainly found it hard to stand up to this message.
And as a reader who loves reading about women choosing love, I also know that I am drawn to reading romances that feature women having an additional passion. I am drawn to romances where women have a compelling hobby or career in addition to their love for the partner. Given the historical relegation of women to the private sphere of home and hearth, I find it important for women’s stories to be complex and vast.