Is it "Book Accuracy" or Just Misogynoir: Bridgerton's Season 5 Backlash

There is a specific kind of "acceptable" queerness that mainstream media has leaned to monetize, and right now, Heated Rivalry is that gold standard. It's gritty, it's male-led, and it's safe for the broad audience (two relatively attractive men having sexual intercourse every episode). But Bridgerton Season 5 is doing something that actually challenges the status quo; it is placing a Black queer woman in the lead. The vitriol following Michaela's debut isn't just about a change in the source material; it's a collision of misogynoir, the fetishization of sapphic bodies, and deep-seated discomfort with seeing a Black woman claim a "Happily Ever After" that isn't defined by a man. 

Before we dive into this topic, I need to preface that the praise for Heated Rivalry doesn't mean it exists in a vacuum of perfect allyship. In many ways, its massive success among straight female audiences is rooted in the long-standing, often problematic fetishization of gay men. (Two things can be true).

When it comes to Bridgerton, this isn't the first queer moment we've seen in the series (foreshadowing for later). There has been a ton of buzz for this season, but what's fascinating and deeply telling is the contrast. While the adaptation of Rachel Reid's Heated Rivalry is being showered with praise for its "raw, queer chemistry," the arrival of a black queer woman as a lead in London/Scotland is now being met with a downpour of scrunity and you may be asking why?

First, the most common excuse for the hate on this season stems from fans arguing that gender-swapping Michael to Michaela erases a specific infertility plotline. If we have to call a spade a spade, the fandom seems to be more comfortable with queer men than queer women. When Heated Rivalry adapts the enemies-to-lovers trope, it's a masterpiece and some of the best queer media we've gotten in decades, but when Bridgerton uses this same trope, it is now being called out for straying from the original plot in the story. This selective purism leaves blanks in viewers' critiques and intially only states that the story can only be accurate if it centers on a man's perspective or a man's desire. 

We cannot talk about the backlash without talking about misogynoir. When cashing a black woman as Michalea, Bridgerton is doing something revolutionary, placing a Black queer woman at the center of one of the biggest romance franchises in television/streaming. It gives this burden of being perfect, unlike the leads in the show Heated Rivalry, who are allowed to essentially be toxic, messy, and aggressive; we are getting more critique on a season that hasn't even been released than we did with Heated Rivalry. When it comes to some viewers, a black woman occupying a space traditionally reserved for a man is a little "too unrealistic." It challenges the intersectionality that is at play in this season.

There is a thin line between celebrating queer stories and fetishizing them. Fandoms often treat MLM stories as safe and aesthetic for the female gaze, but when it comes to lesbaisn the reaction shifts from hot to threatening or conversely into pure fetishization. Lesbians in the media are often ignored or hyper-sexualized for the male audience. Much of this outrage over Michalea stems from the fact that this romance isn't for the traditional male gaze, or the palatable version of queerness that fans prefer. When lesbians are portrayed with emotion and depth rather than as a side plot or fetishized trope, the representation starts to flood those used to the regular status quo. 

The lesbian community has spent decades surviving on crumbs of representation being portrayed as side characters, tragic endings, closeted fate, etc. Now that we are seeing a big expansion in leading roles in mainstream, the pushback is a direct response to that progress. If we can accept two men falling in love over hockey pucks (not to dumb down the plot, but you get the gist) without demanding they stick to the historical realism of the sport, we can certainly accept two women falling in love in a ballroom.

The hate for Season 5 isn't about ruining a book; it's about who we deem worthy of a Happily Ever After. If your support of queer stories stops when a black woman enters the frame, or when the hero is a woman, then it was never the story you were protecting; it was the patriarchy. 

Although the season is not out yet, I am excited to see how Shonda Rhimes portrays this!