> I am recommended a feminist historical romance
> I ask whether it’s actually feminist, or whether it’s a story about how patriarchy is good as long as the patriarch is benevolent
> they don’t understand
> I describe the common trope in faux-feminist historical romance where the female lead is able to “escape” the sexism of her time simply by marrying the rare good man who respects women— as if patriarchy is a problem of abusive individuals, rather than an inherently abusive system. As if all the issues in patriarchy go away if the man you marry is Nice. As if “patriarchal systems can actually work well when the patriarch is kind and loves you uwu” is a bold feminist statement, instead of the cornerstone of inherently reactionary tradwife beliefs about gender roles.
> they laugh
> “it’s a feminist historical romance”
> look inside
> it’s a story about how patriarchy is good as long as the patriarch is benevolent
