[ SECRET POST #7024 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #7024 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.
[British comedian Jimmy Carr]



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #1003.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/eed6c985b541.png

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

I think “feminist romance” goes together about as well as “monarchist sports story.” You could write one if you want, but the two parts aren’t related to each other.

[(Anonymous)]

I do not understand this secret. I know all those words but they are not making sense.

[(Anonymous)]

Same

[(Anonymous)]

Oh good, well at keast I'm not alone!

[(Anonymous)]

It's a view lacking imagination, apparently.

[(Anonymous)]

What I got is that they don't think that "feminist" really modifies "romance", i.e. there's not a specifically feminist type of romance.

So you can write a romance that is also feminist, but only in the same way as you can write a feminist mystery or a feminist comedy. More of an intersection of a lens/attitude and a genre, not a defined subgenre.

[(Anonymous)]

But...isn't that what people mean when they say feminist romance? The same as when they say feminist mytery or fantasy or any other genre?

[(Anonymous)]

+1

I appreciate OP keeping it short but I would actually love more info on this one, I'm not sure what they meant.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe some do. My sense is that many people think there's something inherently unfeminist about standard romance, so saying "feminist romance" is as good as saying a deconstruction/reconstruction of the romance genre.

[(Anonymous)]

Huh. That is very interesting!

[(Anonymous)]

Valid

[(Anonymous)]

My mind immediately went to A Knight's Tale and Gladiator.

Anyway, I don't understand the analogy or the point.

It's a genre + qualifier. They don't have to have anything to do with each other other than serving as a label.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the question is about whether they directly modify each other or are sort of stacked on top of each other.

People seem to have ideas about what a "feminist romance" is, ideas about how it changes the normal conventions of the genre. (As opposed to a "feminist mystery", which has a lot less genre baggage and could just be a bog-standard mystery with very well-written female characters.)

The actual sports part of A Knight's Tale is pretty standard, it follows similar beats to any other underdog sports story. The setting and the characters might reflect an anti-monarchist sentiment, but that's more like "sport story" + "anti-monarchist" rather than "sport story (anti-monarchist)".

OP clarifies

[(Anonymous)]

This post was inspired by a person who was mad that “feminist historical romances” always involve a woman falling in love with a man who has social power over her but doesn’t abuse it. This person said those stories are actually anti-feminist because they portray patriarchy as good as long as the man is good. So I started thinking about what kind of fictional romantic relationship would be pro-feminist by that standard, and I concluded that even lesbian romance wouldn’t qualify. Like, you could have a lesbian romance that also has feminism in it, but the existence of a lesbian relationship in a story isn’t pro-feminist in and of itself.

Re: OP clarifies

[(Anonymous)]

Are you saying you think the existence of men in a romance automatically equals pro patriarchy?

I think overall you might be confused as what qualifies as feminist. Or maybe I'm just confused what you think qualifies as feminist haha

OP

[(Anonymous)]

No, I don’t think romance with men is pro-patriarchy.

I’ve encountered some people who say it’s feminist to be in a lesbian relationship. My impression is that those people are mostly straight cis women who’re grossed out by the “perversion” of actual lesbians. I also read an essay by a woman who argued that her 24/7 submission to her husband was actually a feminist choice. I concluded that her personal relationship wasn’t pro-feminist, but it also wasn’t anti-feminist because she didn’t think other people had to be like her. So I guess my attitude is that relationships are something where you just do what you want, and feminism is the right to choose what sort of things you want.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Ah ha ha, I'm an old person and in the 90s I actually flat-shared with some "political lesbians" and I thought it would be fine because I'm a lesbian. I was very, very wrong, and they were also very transphobic, which kind of prepared me for the coming wave of TERFs.

I really didn't think het political lesbians were a thing anymore? Certainly there are lesbians and bisexual women who say being in a lesbian relationship is more feminist, but not the old-school kind.

Re: OP clarifies

[(Anonymous)]

I am so confused. Like what about two feminist peasants, or any historical women driven societies?

Re: OP clarifies

[(Anonymous)]

So.... Jane Eyre is a feminist romance? They don't get together until she has $$$$, fairly equal standing, his house is ruined, he is permanently scarred from the fire, and he's lost an eye; i.e. until he has no social (or physical or financial) power over her.

Re: OP clarifies

[(Anonymous)]

I think a feminist romance *could* involve someone in a relationship who's willing to put a hold on his career (perhaps to...move or whatever) in favor of hers or take turns doing that, someone who doesn't adhere to gender roles in terms of household responsibilities, etc.

Re: OP clarifies

[(Anonymous)]

That's just taking the radfem talking point that women should never be with men because the patriarchy gives men social power over women so any relationship is abusive, and narrowing it down to apply to the historical romance genre.