Every few weeks, someone on BookTok declares that romantasy is feminist. Every few weeks, someone else declares that it isn’t. Both sides are arguing about the wrong thing.
Whether romantasy is feminist is not actually the interesting question. The interesting question is why we keep demanding that women’s genres justify themselves politically before they’re allowed to exist.
That framing — prove you’re feminist or surrender your legitimacy — gets applied to romance, to romantasy, to women’s fiction, to every genre where women are the primary audience and women’s desires are the explicit subject.
It doesn’t get applied to the male-default genres that have always been the literary standard. Nobody is writing think-pieces about whether military sci-fi is feminist or demanding that it prove itself feminist before it’s accepted as-is.
So let’s put that framing down and have the more honest conversation instead.
What romantasy actually does.
Romantasy filled a genuine gap. For most of literary history, fantasy was a genre built around male protagonists, male journeys, male friendships, and the occasional woman encountered in a mystic land.
Women could read those books — and many of us loved them — but we were always reading slightly sideways, finding ourselves in the margins, projecting ourselves into stories that weren’t designed for us.
Romantasy put women at the centre.
Not as love interests. Not as dead mothers motivating the male hero. As protagonists with interior lives, with desire, with power. That matters. The absence of those stories was real, and filling it is genuinely significant.
The genre also reflects lived experience with more honesty than its critics acknowledge. We don’t live in a feminist utopia. The power asymmetries in these books — the older, more powerful MMC, the fated mate who organises his entire existence around her — aren’t failures of feminist imagination. They’re honest responses to what it’s actually like to be a woman in the world: exhausted by having to do everything, quietly desperate for a partner who actually shows up, drawn to the fantasy of desire that arrives rather than having to be negotiated for.
That’s not pathology. That’s the exhaustion of women, expressed in fantasy form.
And a good story is a good story. Fiction doesn’t owe the reader a politics. No author owes us a feminist text or good representation.
The pleasure of these books is legitimate and doesn’t require a structural defence.
All of that is true. And.
The architecture underneath matters too.
The genre’s feminist reputation rests almost entirely on surface markers: powerful female protagonists, female authorship, female readership.
The argument is essentially — she has a sword, she fights, she wins, therefore feminist.
But there’s a difference between a protagonist who has power and a story whose architecture is organised around female desire and agency. Romantasy, at its dominant commercial end, very often delivers the first while quietly reproducing the second.
This isn’t a reason to stop reading it. It’s a reason to read it with your eyes open. Here’s what the architecture actually looks like, trope by trope.
The fated mate bond.
The FMC doesn’t choose — she’s chosen. The bond overrides her resistance, renders her consent structurally decorative, and frames her eventual surrender as destiny rather than decision. The fantasy isn’t agency.
It’s the removal of the burden of choosing — which, if you’re a woman who has spent her life navigating the social cost of female desire, is a comprehensible relief. But it’s not a feminist structure. It’s a romantic architecture that replaces consent with fate and calls that liberation.
The cage-and-break arc.
The FMC’s independence is established specifically to be overcome. Her walls exist so the right man can dismantle them. The narrative frames this as healing — she was broken, now she isn’t, and he’s the reason.
The structure is capitulation dressed as character growth. The tell is always in who does the work: if her transformation requires him to unlock her, the story is organised around his power to reach her, not her power to choose.
The age gap and power imbalance.
The 500-year-old MMC isn’t appealing despite the power differential. He’s appealing because of it. The fantasy is explicitly organised around asymmetry — he knows more, has seen more, has accumulated everything she is still becoming. The “but he treats her as an equal” defence doesn’t resolve this, it decorates it.
What the fantasy is actually offering is the dream of being chosen by someone who had every option and still wanted specifically her. That desire makes complete sense. Who wouldn’t like an express ticket out of the patriarchy? The power structure producing it is still worth noticing.
Surface agency, structural surrender.
She fights everyone except him. She wields power in every direction — against enemies, against circumstance, against the world — but the romantic architecture requires that she eventually stop fighting him.
Her exceptionalism exempts her from patriarchal structures everywhere except the bond. She gets to be powerful everywhere it doesn’t cost him anything.
The chosen FMC.
Her worth is externally validated — by prophecy, by the bond, by the fact that he waited five centuries specifically for her. She isn’t valuable because she exists. She’s valuable because she was selected.
This is the same mechanism as the “not like other girls” heroine in more palatial clothing: her specialness requires external confirmation, and that confirmation comes from male desire.
None of this means these books are bad or that you should not read them.
It means the feminist case for them is more complicated than “she has a sword, she’s a girl boss”. You can enjoy a story whose architecture reproduces patriarchal structures — most of us have been doing exactly that our entire reading lives, because until recently those were the only stories available.
Holding both things at once (this is pleasurable AND this is worth examining) isn’t contradiction. That’s media literacy.
And naming the mechanism isn’t the same as condemning the book.
The reading woman is dangerous.
Here’s the actual feminist argument (and it has nothing to do with whether any individual book passes a structural test).
The reading woman is dangerous. She has always been dangerous — which is why “a woman with a book” was for so long an image that made existing power structures uncomfortable, why women’s reading was policed and dismissed and pathologised, why romance novels specifically have been sneered at with a consistency that has nothing to do with their literary merit and everything to do with who reads them and what they’re about.
Women reading, women occupying imaginative space, women demanding stories that centre their desire and perspective — that’s the subversion. Whatever she’s reading.
The most important feminist act in publishing isn’t whether the architecture of desire inside a given romantasy novel challenges patriarchy. It’s that women are writing from lived experience and getting read. The male default has been the literary standard for so long we stopped really noticing it was a default.
Literary seriousness meant male interiority. Universal meant male perspective.
Women writing women’s desires, women’s exhaustion, women’s complicated fantasies — including the ones shaped by the very structures we’re trying to escape — is the elevation of female lived experience to the status that male lived experience has always occupied.
Romantasy isn’t feminist because its heroines fight — it’s feminist because women are writing it, reading it, and refusing to apologise for what they want from it.
Whether the architecture of desire inside those books challenges patriarchy or reflects it is a different and more interesting question, and one worth asking — not to police the genre, but because the reading woman who reads critically is more dangerous than the one who doesn’t.
Read the books. Enjoy them. And notice what they’re doing. Those things are not in conflict.
If you want to hear more from me, you can subscribe to my newsletter. Take your pick of freebie you’d like to get when you sign up 👇
One snake bite. One moment of clarity she really didn’t ask for. Sasha Barrett has survived two years at the Praetorian Academy — turns out her captain was always going to be the most dangerous thing in the field.
Want to get more out of reading books?
Grab this FREE guide on how to start a reading journal, complete with review templates, reading trackers and bingo sheets.
Understand yourself better as a reader, engage more with the books you read & make space for creative self-expression. Get it now!
