Complaint: The Assumption That Women Secretly All Want to Be Bossed Around (Or Join Collectives)

As I reference in an earlier post, so much romantic literature is filled with alpha males.

I'll state upfront that I am completely supportive of alpha male romances (even if I prefer romances with sardonic heroes).

This post will address the common assumption that the plethora of alpha, domineering males in romance literature indicates that women have needs (or have been brainwashed to have needs) that only alpha males can satisfy. Even Radway argued that women are using romance novels with alpha heroes to question or negotiate with their patriarchal social training. It's the "popular literature is actually subversive, so I can study it" approach.

This assumption would only make sense if...

(1) Women didn't read Georgette Heyer and love her books (see prior post);

(2) Women didn't read Austen and love her books (see prior post);

(3) Heterosexual women didn't write and read M/M literature (which contains domineering as well as non-domineering male leads);

(4) All women read romances.

(5) All people reacted the same way to a single genre. 

Regarding these statements: 

(1) Lots of women are huge Heyer fans. She is still impressively popular (she wrote in the mid-twentieth century) and her books have recently been reissued on audio.

(2) TONS of women are huge Austen fans.

(3) Lots and lots of women read gay romance.

(4) Lots of women don't like romances at all.

(5) Despite disagreeing with some of Radway's analysis, I applaud her reader-response method. Her quotes from actual readers reveal that how people react to literature/movies/shows has an idiosyncratic element. They find that thing that appeals to them. They may then justify themselves using "acceptable" terms: scholars who truly care about reader response should be careful here.

The tendency for alphas to dominate M/F romance is likely due mostly to three factors:

1. Publishers' attitudes.

2. As in the Humanities, bad attitudes about the romance genre may push certain writers and, perhaps, readers away.

3. Alpha characters are useful. 

Publishers

Not THE cover but an example.

Publishers are kind of stupid. For years, publishers insisted that women were only reading romances to "identify" with the female hero and therefore, no cover could display just a man on the cover. It either had to be a woman or a woman with a man.

Then some brave publisher finally said, "Well, that's stupid," put a hot guy on the cover, and the thing sold like hotcakes.

Publishers are dumb. (Or rather, they are like smart sheep--they herd in the right direction but don't know why.)

Culture

Bad attitudes toward romances run the range from snide and misogynistic to condescending and rude--and that's just coming from the female critics. It's like being a conservative in a Humanities program. You either turn into Niall Ferguson or, if you're me and you hate arguments, you do your own thing and keep your head down.

I believe a lot of women turn to M/M romances simply to get the obnoxious critics off their backs, all the people (some progressive; some conservative; some men; some women) that insist, "All women are like THIS" and "Women only enjoy THIS type of stuff" and "Good women think and vote THIS WAY" and "Women SHOULD want this," blah blah blah blah blah blah. John Gray gone berserk.

The result is that the field is narrowed to women who are willing to put up with the crap. Some female writers will start out in romance and move on to mysteries/thrillers. And some of them can be rather nasty about their "low pasts." I don't read those authors.

But others, like Lisa Kleypas, are honestly enamored with the romance genre, frankly like to write certain plots and characters, and they thrive. And some, like Julia Quinn, whose Bridgerton novels were recently turned into a television series, give the genre its dues while throwing in alpha males, sardonic heroes and heroines, and more. They have intensely loyal followings, as the television series indicates. 

#3 to come...