One of the things I find particularly interesting about the rise of cozy or "queernorm" fantasy books in the past couple of years is when authors want to specifically focus on one kind of oppression, while eradicating the rest from their fantasy universe.
This is NOT referring to some authors who don't want to overstep with alternate histories or queer stories. For example, I don't mind that Andrew Joseph White mainly portrayed the lives of white transmasculine folks in The Spirit Bares Its Teeth, a horror fantasy novel which is set in Victorian England, without his mentioning the plight of people of color, especially colonized subjects, probably living through the same harrowing cult-like medical experimentation and loss of bodily autonomy as the central white British characters did (and probably worse, because of race, colonisation and class differences). That is actually okay with me, because that is not his story to tell. This is not so much erasure, as discretion about choosing what you can write about, with tact and responsibility.
However, as for the Bridgerton-style rise of alternate fantasy or "diverse" historical romances, I notice that I often come across books where people use neopronouns and everyone is ok with gay marriage, and racism is also eradicated from the world (not just legally, but socio-culturally) but like.....upper class cis women are still somehow the most oppressed faction of all, and are getting bartered into arranged marriages with dukes and nobles.
And this bothers me to some degree, because it seems to contradict how the structures of oppression are interlinked, and how these structures depend on each other to keep functioning stably.
Take for example, marriage and capitalism. Like, you're telling me in your queernorm universe, people are okay with same-sex relationships and marriage. This implies, at least on a very simplified level, that society has overcome its prejudices (or never had any, to begin with) against
a) romantic relationships that do not replicate heteronormativity, or domestic structures.
b) alliances with high chances of non-traditional family structures, in terms of procreation, kinship and offspring. in simpler terms, more possibility of living together (not marriage), or alternately, child-free marriage, poly relationships, commune systems etc.
c) individuals with non-normative marginalized genders.
This would ideally imply that there is no need for women's bodies to be used as capital, and they are no longer dehumanized, used as material goods (in their roles as wives and mothers, in terms of labor and sexual service) and that society is chill with any type of union, even outside of institutionally sanctioned marriages.
However, instead, for necessary conflict, there is *still* intense and often violent social pressures upon women to get married and reproduce in these queernorm books. Why. Like let's just take a moment. Why. If the heteropatriarchy has been dismantled, or at least isn't so rigorously adhered to as in the real world, why is there one isolated axis of oppression that persists in this case (by isolated, I don't mean for individuals, I mean only applicable to one marginalized group)?
I feel like I'm not doing a great job explaining this, but you guys know what I mean right?
Note: I also know that historically upper class women were cordoned off from participating in labor, and often their duties were relegated to childbirth and upholding traditional marriage, while lower-class/caste women were expected to be the bread earners and participate in labor with the male members of their family. But again, let us consider the context of this diverse society and see how that system holds up. Why? Is the functionality of this queernorm society still contingent to the rules of capitalism?
