With Valentine’s Day coming up, we will find ourselves inundated by romantic comedies playing on TV or recommended by streaming service algorithms. Whether you’re single or coupled up this February, rom-coms are truly inescapable during the month of love. We all might as well get comfortable, grab some popcorn and embrace our inner romantic.

Rom-coms have a long, storied history, but the genre gained huge popularity in the late 1980s. Many cinephiles consider this time period to be the “rom-com renaissance,” largely ushered in by John Hughes and Nora Ephron of “Pretty in Pink” (1986), “When Harry Met Sally…” (1989), “Sleepless in Seattle” (1993) and “You’ve Got Mail” (1998). The rom-com started to die off in the early 2010s, as studios began to focus on tentpole blockbusters and franchises.

Despite rom-coms’ success in this era, the genre faced relentless scrutiny by men and women viewers alike. While “Jerry Maguire” (1996) and “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” (2002) did numbers at the box office, audiences made fun of the “chick flicks” they paid to see. A 2007 New York Magazine feature lambasted rom-coms for being too feminine, with the columnist writing, “I am a girl, but I like boys and their sense of humor.”

Criticism of rom-coms largely stems from the historic belittlement of women-centered media. The very term “chick flick” speaks to rom-coms’ target audience. The rom-com genre is one of the few in the industry created by women, for women. Although men are still overrepresented in writers’ rooms and as producers and directors, approximately 80% of romance authors — the source material for many rom-coms — are women, according to Romance Writers of America. 

Over the last decade, rom-coms have gradually started to bounce back, partially due to the renewed growth of romance novels. The revival is characterized by modern classics such as “Crazy Rich Asians” (2018), along with cheesy Netflix fare like “To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before” (2018) and “The Kissing Booth” (2018) — all three of which are literary adaptations. 

Today’s rom-com resurgence is also dominated by television — think “The Summer I Turned Pretty,” “Emily in Paris,” “Nobody Wants This” and “Too Much.” Unlike sitcoms and historical dramas, where romance is significant but not the story’s main driver, these shows’ plots revolve around the protagonists’ love lives. 

Now more than ever, there’s clear audience demand for the cute, upbeat stories that accompany the genre. According to a 2022 YouGov poll, roughly 70% of U.S. viewers enjoy rom-coms. Rom-coms might still be considered guilty pleasures, but they’re no longer a constant, gendered punchline.

In fact, I find my favorite rom-coms empowering. These films feature strong, versatile heroines whose partners are merely accessories, not necessities. Cher Horowitz (Alicia Silverstone), Kat Stratford (Julia Stiles) and Andie Anderson (Kate Hudson) are bad-ass women at the beginning and the end of “Clueless” (1995), “10 Things I Hate About You” (1999) and “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” (2003), respectively. 

Their individual character arcs are more inspiring than their love stories. 

That being said, women rom-com protagonists aren’t always well-rounded individuals who exist independently from their relationships. Sandy Olsson (Olivia Newton-John)’s willingness to reinvent herself for her high school boyfriend might have worked for the audiences watching “Grease” in 1978, but her character doesn’t pass muster today. I say this as an embarrassingly big fan of “Grease.”

But not all criticism of rom-coms is valid. Demeaning women for enjoying rom-coms simply because they’re rom-coms is different from criticizing an individual film for imperfect representation.

It’s incredibly hypocritical to criticize women for watching “chick flicks” and also demand that they devote themselves to finding a husband. If women are taught that they’re nothing without a man beside them, no one should be surprised by their affinity for movies that may support that theme. This doesn’t make rom-coms inherently problematic, but it does inform why women viewers flock to the genre. 

We can consume and even enjoy media while still being critical of it. “Grease” is such a nostalgic, feel-good movie for me, but I view the plot very differently than I did when I first watched the film at 8 years old. I still love the music and the retro campiness, but I can admit that its storyline hasn’t aged very well — and it definitely isn’t shattering any glass ceilings. 

This duality, the ability to hold space for conflicting points of view, is what makes the viewing experience — for both rom-coms and films of other genres — so much more special. We become not only better critical thinkers, but also better people when we approach analysis from a nuanced, multi-layered perspective. 

Viewers should also be mindful of not being overly critical of rom-coms just because they’re rom-coms. Audiences have every right to point out offensive content, but rom-coms should be held to the same standards as male-dominated genres, like action films. Denouncing a rom-com for its shallowness while praising an action film’s spectacle is pure misogyny. 

I wholeheartedly believe that you can love rom-coms as a feminist. The whole point of the ideology is the right for women to make their own choices, and that includes the choice to watch heartwarmingly cliché movies. I will personally be opting to binge as many rom-coms as humanly possible between now and Feb. 14. 

Fiona Feingold is a junior writing about women in the entertainment industry in her column, “Femininomenon,” which runs every other Friday.