The Problem with Romantasy

And yet... five chapters later, she's sidelined emotionally, politically, or magically once the love interest shows up.

Feminist writer Roxane Gay has said (paraphrased) that calling a woman "strong" often replaces actually writing her with power. Romantasy sometimes does exactly that - strength becomes a personality label instead of something demonstrated through consistent agency.

If she keeps being rescued, overridden, or "protected for her own good," that's not empowerment. That's branding.

"Morally Gray" Men and the Romance of Control

Let's talk about the elephant in the fantasy court:

Why is coercion still hot in so many romantasy books?

Possessiveness gets framed as passion. Surveillance gets reframed as devotion. Emotional manipulation gets softened into "he's just damaged."

Feminist critics have been warning us about this for decades. As bell hooks argued in her writing on love (paraphrased), love rooted in domination is not love - it's control. Romantasy too often blurs that line and calls it chemistry.

When a male character:

... that's not romantic tension. That's patriarchy in a leather jerkin.

Trauma Is Not Character Development

Another uncomfortable trend: romanticizing female suffering.

Female authors have pushed back on this idea repeatedly. Many have noted (in interviews and essays) that women's pain is treated as narrative currency - something to spend in order to justify growth.

But as feminists keep pointing out:

Women don't need to be destroyed to be worthy of transformation.

Romantasy often mistakes endurance for empowerment.

The "Chosen One" Who Still Needs Male Permission

Here's another contradiction: romantasy loves destiny... but hates autonomy.

The heroine may be chosen by prophecy, magic, or fate itself - yet she still needs approval from:

... before acting.

That's not subversion. That's the same hierarchy with prettier scenery.

Feminist literary critics have long argued that true agency means the power to choose - even to choose wrong. Too many romantasy heroines are only "free" inside invisible fences the narrative refuses to acknowledge.

Feminism, but Make It Aesthetic

One of the harshest feminist critiques of romantasy is that it often performs feminism instead of practicing it.

We get:

... but little interrogation of power structures.

Where are the consequences of monarchy?

Where is the critique of inherited power?

Why does "girlboss" so often mean "better queen," not "dismantle the system"?

As many feminists have said in different ways: representation without resistance isn't radical - it's marketable.

The Publishing Pressure Problem

To be fair, not all of this is on the authors.

Romantasy exists inside an algorithm-driven publishing ecosystem that rewards:

Several female authors have spoken openly about how reader expectations - and publisher demands - push stories toward the same romantic dynamics again and again.

So yes, critique the books - but also critique the system shaping them.

So... Is Romantasy Beyond Saving?

Not at all.

Feminist criticism isn't about canceling joy - it's about making it better.

Romantasy has incredible potential:

As feminists have always argued, we deserve stories that imagine better futures, not just prettier versions of old cages.

Regardless of whether you like Romantasy, or hate it, this doesn't change the fact that many men definitely hate it.

There's a familiar sneer that shows up anytime romantasy is mentioned in certain fantasy spaces - forums, Reddit threads, YouTube comments, even book reviews:

None of this is accidental. From a feminist perspective, male disdain for romantasy isn't about quality - it's about control.

Fantasy has long been treated as male cultural property, and romantasy threatens that ownership in ways men find deeply uncomfortable. Fantasy was canonized through male-centered works like "The Lord of the Rings", where emotion and romance were secondary to masculine heroism. Romantasy breaks that mold by centering relationships, interior lives, and desire - often written by and for women.

That shift threatens male dominance over the genre, and it provokes male backlash for the following reasons:

It isn't written for men. Emotional focus gets mislabeled as "bad writing."

It exposes male fantasy as preference, not default. Lone heroes and domination aren't universal ideals.

It removes male centrality. Especially in queer and lesbian romantasy, men aren't the heroes, prizes, or audience.

"Trash" becomes a gendered insult. Romance, YA, and fanfiction - women-dominated spaces within bookstores - are routinely dismissed wholesale, while badly written epic fantasy is forgiven because it reinforces patriarchal belief structures. Some men, the gatekeepers, essentially don't want to share space in fantasy bookstores with women because they're afraid that women will take over the space and dominate it.