Thanks for your response. I guess I put feminism in a box. Its all about choices right?

erika: I guess I’m in the minority as I don’t mind romance not reflecting feminism. Controlling heroes, Cinderella plots are perfect escapism. I can see Feminst examples of women all the time in real life.

Hi Cora,
I think maybe you’re part of the silent majority given the popularity of these storylines.
Not as a steady diet, but I too like uber-rich heroes and I don’t mind controlling heroes if there is a good grovel at the end. I like more realistic income level heroes and heroines too and the richer heroine can really be an interesting plot point.
If I pick up a Harlequin Presents then I want there to be an uber-rich hero and an emotional heroine and lots of melodrama and I feel cheated if its more realistic and won’t pick up the author again. When I pick up and HP I’m looking to escape and not worrying about money – not just in the sense of having it but also not having to earn or manage it – is part of that fantasy.
If I pick up a single title or a category romance from one of the other lines then I’m open to all sorts of plots and devices as long as they’re well-written.
I don’t think its anti-feminist to have these sorts of fantasies or to portray them in fiction. If you treat them as a recipe for real life then that’s a problem. I think we’ll know we have true equality when fiction aimed at men also features the fantasy of the uber-rich partner.
In the meantime there is room for all sorts of plots and something for every taste.

If I saw a hero/heroine in those kind of circumstances, I’d definitely believe that the romance is possible, and HEA is possible as well. But I would want a feeling that they are working towards more, for them or for their children, just because it’s so much easier if you have more than the bare minimum. I agree that self-sufficiency is a great virtue. But there is no virtue in living with little money in and of itself. So I would want to have a heroine who is independent and self-sufficient, but if she starts poor, finds a way to a bit more than that at the end.

I very much liked Courtney Milan’s “The Governess Affair” in that respect. The heroine wants to own a farm, and the couple end up as (well off) farmers. This is a far cry from the typical “marry a rich duke” situation, but Milan gives a sense that this will provide a comfortable way to live for her and the hero, more so than the precarious situation of a governess, and it worked really well for me.

Blythe: Interesting comments, everyone. In my mind I am kind of excluding heroines who have more money because they are heiresses. They seem common enough, especially in historicals. Now if she runs a newspaper and he’s a miner or something…

Blythe, fair enough. But how many women were running newspapers in the 1880s? Heroines in historicals are necessarily limited to heiresses, governesses/maids or the feisty daughter of an indulgent professor/archeologist type who teaches his daughter Greek & Latin. Women did not have many professions open to them so if it is a historical, then heiress is one of the more realistic devices to give the heroine some financial independence.

I agree with Yulie that $ disparities are not such an issue in romantic suspense due to the working class hero jobs (police officer, etc.)