This is the response I posted to Palash Ghosh’s apology. I’m not trying to pile on, but I think he’s still missing the point. You should also read Amelia’s comment on the post. It’s a lot smarter than mine.

We got the point. We just didn’t agree. The problem is that you’re making broad assumptions about the genre and you clearly haven’t read much of it. Many modern romance novels—even those set in different historical periods—feature varied personal dynamics and characters that stray far from the molds of the domineering hero and the virginal damsel in distress. The central convention—a couple who fall in love (or fall back in love) and enjoy a happily ever after wouldn’t seem to undermine a woman’s desire for independence and has little to do with traditional gender roles. It’s not that the type of  romance you describe doesn’t still exist, but it’s a small part of a diverse genre.

Two other things you should know:

1. The genre is plenty critical of itself. There are forums and web sites where romance novels are discussed and reviewed at length, and where issues like the alpha male, forced seduction, and other tropes are addressed. The difference is that it’s done without the condescension found in your piece.

2. Every few months, someone writes a piece like this about readers of romance, or more recently young adult. The approaches vary slightly (women are stuck in a prolonged adolescence, girls can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy, these books are not edifying and are poisoning female minds) but they all amount to the same thing: a way to demean and infantilize the audience. There are plenty of genres that indulge in wish fulfillment, but curiously, it’s the genres that predominantly women consume (and frequently write) that incite these responses.

Congratulations on your traffic.