Another rant about books...
It's been a quiet month here; for a change, I've even had money coming in (I'm on half-pay with the Census until further notice) so I've been reading and thinking.
One thing that annoys me enormously in historical novels is protagonists and "good guys" who object strongly to things that we moderns object to that were day-to-day ordinary realities in those times. Whether it's slavery (I acknowledge that even in ancient times, you could find people who were uneasy about slavery, but the idea that it should be abolished across-the-board is relatively recent) flogging and other such harsh punishments, or the subordinate status of women, finding people who really objected to them would be anomalous.
Scarlett O'Hara might have chafed at the restrictions on her, but she never questioned the rules of her society in general. A lot of moderns sneer at Gone With the Wind because Scarlett's by no means a modern racial or sexual egalitarian; she takes care of her slaves (and, later, her ex-slaves who stuck by her) but she's perfectly cool with slavery and I don't remember her ever raising a fuss because she couldn't vote, or because women in general were second-class citizens. Margaret Mitchell grew up listening to people who'd lived through the period she was writing about, and did a lot of research to get things as right as she could. At the time the book came out, she was loudly praised for her faithfulness to history. Unfortunately for her posthumous reputation, the "party line" on a lot of these things changed after her death in 1949.
I can understand people being uncomfortable with the less "acceptable" parts of the past. But if you're writing historical fiction from the POV of a contemporary of the events you are describing, at least try to make that person reasonably believable as a member of his or her society. If this is too much for you, maybe writing historical fiction is not for you.