The national conference of the Romance Writers of America is happening in New York City this week. Thousands of writers and readers are descending on the Big Apple, suitcases crammed full of books, promotional materials, playfully-themed gowns and to-die-for shoes. Not surprising, since this is romance, nearly all the attendees are women. The RWA conference is both a celebration of the art form and an opportunity for writers—predominately female—to discuss craft and to network. Especially with the onset of indie-publishing, it’s a world where women reign. Women organize the event; women attend it; women teach at it; women speak at it; women sell their work at it; women are, unquestionably, the experts. Unlike at other writing and book conferences for other fiction genres in recent years, women are not groped, solicited for sex, or talked over and dismissed by male attendees or male colleagues on panels. Why? Because…few men attend. And those who do, appear to inherently respect women. No one in RWA has specifically excluded male writers and readers from the event, but they are notably absent. Apparently, though, it’s the women’s fault.

In a troubling post on Amazon’s Omnivoracious blog, titled “Wherefore Art Thou, Romeo,” writer Adrian Liang published a conference-corresponding post bemoaning the lack of men attending, and by extension, writing in the genre. Some of her comments imply that the underlying reason men don’t write romance has to do with how unwelcoming women in the field are towards male writers and readers. She writes, “it occurred to me that Romance might be the last writing club that doesn’t really want to let the other sex in.” (Italics mine). Ah…what?!…big double take!

Anyone who attends a romance conference or convention, or collective romance author book-signing, can see with their own eyes that the writers in this genre aren’t men writing under female pseudonyms. Nope. They’re women writing under female pseudonyms. So yes, the romance genre—both its professional writers and the bulk of its readership—is dominated by the female half of the world. Is this good or bad? Liang makes a case that it’s bad. And despite her blithe, throw-away comment that “Anyone who reads outside the romance genre doesn’t worry about men writing female characters; plus, hundreds of years of published writing is proof enough that this is a bogus claim,” I think the long-establish canon, some 40-50 years’ worth, of Feminist Literary Criticism about the way male writers have historically constructed female characters will easily annihilate such a silly claim. Something is bogus all right, but it isn’t the respected academic analysis of the way women have been falsely and negatively portrayed in the fiction written by men since, like, forever. If not forever, at least as far back as the Classical Greek era, and a good century and a half before the novel was even invented.

It’s sort of shocking to me that someone—a woman yet—with a university degree in English managed to graduate and go on to write books, oddly oblivious to how many ways her claim (that women are the ones keeping men out of romance) is not only wrong, but blatantly sexist, outlandish and, worse, a damaging lie.  It contradicts the entire history of literature and publishing. It makes me see red. Though the term “male gaze” is more commonly used in film criticism, apparently Liang has never heard of it. And to be so clueless about how writers are themselves societal constructs constructing gender within the world of fiction? Her flippant claims in her post are actually beyond damaging—they fold neatly right into bolstering the ways in which women are continuously and historically blamed for being less than accommodating to men—like when men want to be paid more money for the same work, or when men want to be promoted over women by virtue of having a penis, or when they want to decide when and how women’s bodies will be used to for sex and to produce (or not) children.  Liang’s argument is so insidiously misogynistic and so lacking in self-awareness that I can only envision that her good intentions (being inclusive) blinded her to her own prejudices.

Before I turn you off completely as some bitter, crazed, bra-burning, man-hating feminazi of the 21st century with hairy arm pits, let me tell you that I happen to agree with Liang that men should start reading and writing romance. ( I also happen to be happily married to a man, and I shave my armpits, but consider the bra, being somewhat of a modern torture devise, optional). While Liang’s argument is generally weak and specious (and possibly constrained by some word limit on the Omnivoracious site), I think there are actually good reasons for male readers and writers to venture into the romance field.

The reasons why men don’t write (or read) romance is worthy of an academic study. But we can probably make some reasonable, educated guesses that don’t lay the blame at women’s feet. Let’s give it a try, shall we?

Historically, male authors (and characters, actually) have dominated in every other genre—mystery, horror, action-thriller, science fiction, literary, etc.—but not in romance. In fact, one might argue that romance didn’t exist much as a genre until the late 70s and early 80s when women were finally let through the sacred gates of publishing in numbers greater than a half dozen. Women writers actually helped build up this genre in the early days of the second women’s movement. It’s difficult to imagine, with women’s limited access to the traditional publishing hierarchy, that they were some kind of female Night Watchers holding the Wall as Amazonian gatekeepers repelling male penetration. Despite Liang’s misguided suppositions as to why men are rare in the field of romance fiction, it has nothing to do with women’s exclusionary and proprietary attitudes towards men reading and writing romance. Just as I am sure that the real reasons, if studied, would damningly point to underlining, enduring socially-sanctioned sexism and prejudice against women and the things they find important enough to read and write about.

Though I haven’t done specific research, I’ve had the empirical personal experience that hints to such a bias. I’ve sat through many university writing workshops in which male students dismissed female students’ relationship-focused stories as “fluffy.” Fluffy. That was one of the words I distinctly remember hearing a male writer claim about a female student writer’s story because it was character rather than plot-driven. No self-respecting writer on earth wants their work called “fluffy.” The insult is both about the text and the person who wrote it “like a girl.” I have years of workshop stories to share, if you have the time, and need addtional illustrations.

Maybe you think this kind of thing only happens when discussing amateur student work. Nope. This whole anti-women-writer-brilliance is systematic and institutionalized. Unless a student signs up for a women’s studies class or a literature course focused solely on female authors, they often don’t recognize just how women’s writing is marginalized, viewed as secondary.  I remember work by respected female authors regularly being dismissed (or ignored) as having “no story” or being “boring.” The way those outside the romance community deride every romance as a cliched repeat of all romances. Anyway, in one undergrad course devoted to Modern British literature, we spent weeks discussing Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness, and, unsurprisingly, ran out of time to discuss Virginia Woolf’s complicated, challenging To the Lighthouse. Woolf was the only female author on the entire syllabus of the semester-long class; she is one of the preeminent modern stylists, and we didn’t even spend one hour discussing her work. In a graduate course I took in which we studied award-winning contemporary literature, several male students could not be convinced of the merit of Alice McDermott’s family-focused novel Charming Billy, despite the work winning the American Book Award. Any books about love, relationships and feelings in general, which were penned by women, and often focused on female characters, were frequently misread and misunderstood by the male students in my literature courses. Interestingly, when students (both male and female) struggled to understand a male-produced text, the fault typically laid with the reader; when the students didn’t understand or know how to read a female-produced text, the fault typically laid with, you guessed it, the writer. Apparently, female writers—award-winning or as yet unpublished–are easy to blame and/or dismiss.

Sort of the way Liang blames women in the romance fiction industry of being unwelcoming to male readers and writers.

Sort of the way society likes to blame women who get raped for “letting” themselves end up in the position of getting raped (wearing provocative clothing, consuming alcohol, risking solo grocery shopping expeditions, being in the company of a damned rapist!). That’s how I read Liang’s take on the issue of why men don’t write romance.

Because it certainly couldn’t be men’s faults that they don’t read or write romance.

No. It’s because the female-dominated RWA makes sure the male bathrooms at the conference get converted over for female use. How dare these women ask for sufficient bathrooms? They probably screamed and got all shrillish and bitchy so the conference managers had no recourse but to give them the bathrooms. If Liang’s reasoning is to be understood, men don’t go to RWA conferences because there’s no convenient place to pee. Women have overrun the place and therefore, made it unwelcoming.

Still, since I agree that the romance genre could actually use more male readers, and even male writers, let me share my five best reasons why men should read and write romance (and not one of the claims blames women for men’s lack of interest or participation):

AUTHENTIC MALE POV. Diversity in any genre of literature is a good thing. All writers are constructs of the society in which they are raised. Since books are one of the few ways that people can transcend their own limited world-views, reading books written by lots of types of people—men, women, African-Americans, Native-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Anglo and Ethnic-White Americans, young people, the elderly, etc.—all help readers expand personal understanding and empathy for other people’s experiences.

So, yeah. A positive thing about men reading and writing romance might be the opportunity for readers to see how men experience falling in love. Do they see the experience differently than women? What do men really want in a partnership? What makes a woman (or another man) irresistible? Are women’s perspectives on relationships in fiction universal, or just the outlandish fantasies they are often labeled as by society? Do all male stories about romantic love have to end in tragedy (cue John Green, Nicholas Sparks) or can men write stories that center on relationships that conclude with the classic romance HEA?

In addition to expanding one’s perspective, reading helps us see ourselves better too. We benefit when we connect with a character in a story, when we discover that we share his or her values or feelings. If men could read more male-constructed romances in which they identify with male characters falling in love, struggling with emotional intimacy and overcoming its challenges, then male readers could incorporate the lessons learned in that fictional journey into their own life experiences. And really, regardless of gender, who doesn’t long for rewarding, meaningful relationships in real life? Nothing is more satisfying than experiencing authentic, unconditional love with a partner. Watching it unfold successfully in fiction might help guide men’s real life choices towards finding and sustaining romance in their own lives.

MALE EGO BOOST. Men—we female romance readers and writers worship your whole macho maleness, and if you haven’t been completely sure about this, reading romances written by women should wipe out any doubt. Despite our feminist stances on important things like equal pay, career opportunities, and control over what we do with our own bodies, we aren’t really bashing you 24-7. We actually like your male aggression, especially when it’s working to protect us from danger. There’s a reason so many romances feature cops, soldiers, athletes and other men in power. In real life, we also love the way you willingly take out the trash and fix the broken washing machine, and install the new ceiling fan, and get so sexually excited you want to do it with us on the kitchen table before breakfast, and all the other ways in which you play out your clichéd male-identified stereotypes in reality. Reading romances should confirm that perspective…we love when you get all tall, dark and brooding, as long as you remain in control and use that testosterone for our mutual benefit.

BETTER SEX. The romances being written today are remarkably good sex manuals, at least from the female perspective.  And they’ll convince you that women love good sex—just in case you mistakenly thought sex was more important to men than women. Wrong! If the special woman in your life is not interested…then it might be your technique, or lack of at the root, or maybe she doesn’t read romances. Although I could offer the Spark notes version (oral, and lots of it), the variety of inventive and hot ways to engage in sex, as it’s presented in these books, can have an explosive (pun intended) impact on your sex life. Imagine the benefit of reading the same kinky, fun books with your life partner and then playing out the hottest scenes together. I promise you that if your female partner is reading some of these books, then she’s interested in having sex. In a variety of ways.

ELEVATING THE STATUS OF THE GENRE. This reason is the most important to me. When men don’t care about something, it’s never given much attention or respect. Feminists (both male and female) might resent this fact, but it’s been true since humans evolved into war-mongering tribes thousands of years ago. If men start to read and write (and value) romance fiction, the new respect romance would garner would be nearly instantaneous. We know how society fails to value female-dominated activities, sports and professions, so having more men write seriously in this genre could elevate it faster than any other change in the publishing world. Male romance writers might even increase the number of male romance readers, since studies show us that men tend to prefer to read the work of male authors. Think about the potential. Historically, when men went to work in nursing and teaching, the pay jumped dramatically. A new level of respectability gilded these professions. Balancing out the gender of writers in the field of romance and erotica can only improve its status (which is pathetically low, so it can only rise, right?). Surely men can read and write about love without the fictional relationship ending in tragic death.

SMART, SEXUALLY SAVVY WOMEN. Really. Why just hope the next woman you date/marry or become good friends with will be both intellectual and physically sensual? Stick with romance readers (and writers). These women are passionate thinkers. They aren’t afraid of ideas. Romance readers love to travel, to do new things, to explore, to savor life. They love to move, to eat, to touch, to laugh, to share. As keen readers, they are naturally empathetic, while also analytical, logical problem-solvers. As fearless readers, they know how to use their minds—and by extension, their bodies—in creative and adventurous ways. Sure, many female romance readers crave the alpha male who desires them so much that he throws her down on the bed and has his way with her. But, a lot of romance readers are also happy to switch it up and play the dominatrix. If you’re heterosexual, we’re not going to think you’re secretly swinging for the other team just because you want to give pegging a try. A surprising number of popular romances feature the beta male as hero too—the nice guy who doesn’t seem to win the girl in real life per Hollywood movies? The nice guy gets the gal inside the pages of a romance more often than not.

Readers aren’t afraid of the abstract, so they’re likely to at least talk about whatever you want to try in your relationship (and bedroom) without running, shocked, for the proverbial hills. Want to try role-playing? Heck, that’s just physically acting out the things we’ve already done in our minds anyway. And guess what, once a year, thousands of us open-minded, adventurous types meet up in one city to talk romance and sex. Forget online dating. The RWA conference would make for an excellent place to meet intelligent, kindhearted and generous women. Want to talk plotting or how to write hot sex scenes? Let’s get a drink after the session on writing accurate BDSM stories. Just remember that fiction only imitates life; while dubious consent is a popular trope in romance fiction, it doesn’t translate into reality. No means no.

Unfortunately, if you’re a male writer just getting into romance, it’s too late for you to attend this year’s RWA conference as an author, but please allow me, on behalf of all RWA writers, to extend a whole-hearted welcome to you to drop in on the massive book-signing event and pick up some amazing books to read. And you have a whole year until the next conference to educate yourself about the romance genre, read lots of romances and try your hand at writing one yourself (not as easy as you think). You can even join RWA and sign up to attend next year’s conference. Here’s the membership link: RWA. Never let it be said that we didn’t invite you.

Oh yeah. One more thing. The best reason men should read romance? Some of the best fiction being written and published today is categorized as romance.

Selene has been writing and crafting her art in romance fiction since 2012. Before that, she spent two decades teaching, reading and writing literary fiction. Follow her on Amazon for information about her books and new releases.