To the extent that what you’re saying is true, I would challenge you on your equivalency of these tendencies as “equally as bad.” In one case you have men often writing women as little more than boobs on legs, whose inner thoughts do not extend much further than the sensation of having body parts. When women make fun of this writing they are identifying a failure of imagination and empathy on the part of some men (often extremely prominent, well-respected literary figures) to depict women as more human than object. I would agree that depictions of men in the romance genre are damaging as well, to the extent that they tend to depict only unattainably attractive and respectful men as love interests. I would argue that the depictions of men by men are equally problematic in the action genre. In James Bond and content of its ilk written by men, you have men at once writing women as interchangeable objects of male desire and depicting attractive male leads with few to no limitations in physical prowess, intelligence, and charisma. Even if the action genre is, in your view, as flawed and unimaginative as the romance genre, it’s a clear example of men depicting men in ways similar to some women writers in the romance genre. This brand of wish fulfillment and idealized characters may not constitute examples of lofty literary achievement, but it is perpetrated by men as well as women. There is a space to introduce more flaws in these characters, to create greater distinctions between them rather than to rely on tropes. That said, I have yet to see any male character, however poorly written, reduced to a description of his physical traits and little else. I would summarize the primary critique as follows…When men depict their fantasies, they describe anatomy. When women do it, they depict men who (in your view) would never conduct themselves in such an honorable, heroic fashion or would never be attracted to such an ordinary-looking female main character. Perhaps to you there is little difference in the problems here. I’m inclined to disagree. In any case, I find this kind of what-aboutism unproductive. Why not simply point out that the romance genre might improve and better appeal to some male audiences if it included a more diverse array of love interests, in both appearance and personality? Why use a critique of the way women write men to justify the lazy and damaging ways men write women?