 |
 |
 |
 |
I hadn't ever actually picked up He's Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth To Understanding Guys until today. I had heard about it, seen the title, read about its smashing success, and even debated its obnoxious position among the single-women-are-a-pathology lexicon, but I had never actually picked it up, and today I did.
You have probably read about this book somewhere -- it's so cuuuute! It's so truuuuue! It's the way for people who miss Sex and the City to get a fix, because its authors, Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo, are both alumni of the show. And really, it's a trap, a book like this, because if you are annoyed by it -- by its sickeningly condescending, sexist, patronizing attitude toward single women -- it will just shake its head at you. "Well, sure. You don't get it yet," it will say.
The book takes about ten minutes to read, so I looked over most of it in the store, my jaw dropping ever lower at the thought that you can find this stuff in a book outside of a 1950s home economics class, despite the fact that it is supposed to be so thoroughly modern in its sensibility. But take a look at what it's really saying, starting with this excerpt from the first chapter (which I ganked from the excerpt on Amazon, so, whatever):
Are you getting this? That is how you make them prove themselves to you. The thesis of the book is that because men are so simple-minded and caveman-ish, they will chase you if they dig you, and therefore if they do not chase you, they do not dig you, and if you are not with a man who chased you, you are with a man who doesn't truly dig you. Which you deserve, because, you go, girl! Don't settle for less!
The book goes on:
This is what Greg has to say to a woman who says she thinks there's no particular reason not to ask a guy out, and wonders why she shouldn't:
Liz takes over to deliver this gem about why lying back and thinking of England is so awesome:
The book goes on in this same vein for about 175 pages, and the themes remain the same. The only guy who deserves you is a guy who will go to absurd lengths to pursue you. Guys -- all guys, any guys, all the time -- meet two kinds of women. First, there is the kind they spend their entire lives with and immediately know they want to spend their entire lives with and will do anything to obtain (and yes, the idea is "obtain"), and second, there is the kind they trick, lie to, cheat on, fuck over, and manipulate. And why do they trick you, lie to you, cheat on you, fuck you over, and manipulate you? It's you. It's because they don't like you. It's not the guy -- he's like that because all guys are like that. It's because the guy has sized you up and found you inadequate in some way, and although we (the authors of the book) believe he's keee-razy to think that, that's what he thinks, and therefore he is following the natural tendencies of guys to mistreat, lie to, and take advantage of every women who isn't immediately identifiable as The One He Loves. Once he meets that one, he will be delightful, straightforward, honest, and easy to navigate.
Are you fucking kidding me?
This is what they think single women need to figure out?
I honestly cannot figure out whether this entire construct is more insulting to men or to women. Despite my many That Guy frustrations and my persistent single-dom, the fact remains that many of my closest friends throughout my life have been men. I love guys. I love certain qualities I find in individual guys I know and have known, and I also love certain qualities I associate with guys generally. And none of the guys I know fit this bizarre, sick-fuck model in which they never, ever screw up a relationship for any reason other than not liking the women enough. The world of this book is one in which men, unlike women, have no insecurities, no baggage, no bullshit, and nothing that holds them back except that they don't like you. I don't know any of these guys, and if I did, I certainly would not want to go out with them.
It's not just this particular book that bothers me so much. It is the genre to which this book belongs, in which Smart Women, Foolish Choices and Women Who Love Too Much begat The Rules and The Rules begat this piece of shit, and apparently, there is no end to the market for books to instruct single women about all the things they are doing wrong. And what sucks about them isn't that they exist; it's that they're all wrong.
You would think this genre would hold plenty of appeal for me, because I'm single, and I'm 34, and I often complain that I never meet anyone good (even though that's not precisely true), so you'd think that I would either appreciate this stuff or at least appreciate the effort, you know?
I just can't figure out why the entire culture is so nasty to single women. Look, to compare it to clothing, I'm a little bit hard to fit. I'm stubborn, I'm picky, I talk a lot, I'm emotionally cranked-up, I sink a lot of time into reality television, I'm not classically beautiful or particularly glamorous -- I'm not running myself down, I'm just saying I'm not the off-the-shelf model for every taste, which is not something I regret. Do I do the wrong thing sometimes? God, of course. But if I can acknowledge that at times, I fuck up with guys for reasons other than not liking them enough -- in fact, if I can acknowledge that at times, I fuck up with them as a result of liking them overly much -- then how can I reduce them to two-dimensional caricatures, kind of like Hugh Grant in the first half of About a Boy, living off of pure instinct at all times, swimming in confidence, unfettered by the kinds of doubts I have?
This is why, although I enjoyed the first Bridget Jones movie, I have grave doubts about the entire "single girl in her apartment with one gay friend, one bad ex, a refrigerator full of lowfat cheese and wine" literary genre. I feel this obligation to feel sad, like people expect to find me waiting around and sighing. But I, you know, have a job. Actually, I have two jobs. And friends. And a family. And things I enjoy doing. I'm honestly not cranking up '70s music on the stereo and eating ice cream out of the container while I dream about that one very special guy who will love me enough to overcome his otherwise overwhelming "primordial" instinct to act like a manipulative jackass. Is that what I'm supposed to be doing? Why would I wait around for someone who lied to and jerked around the last six women he dated because he wasn't adequately "into" them, which was really their own fault for making "excuses"? There's a name for guys who try to trick you or keep you on the chain or give as little to you as possible, and it's not "guys," it's "assholes." And I find it ironic that a book would simultaneously tell women that essentially (1) they need to get a guy, and here's how to get one; and (2) by the way, he's still going to be an asshole, but he'll act less like one if he reeeeally likes you. Presumably, everyone else will still get the asshole.
My aunt met the love of her life when she was about 50. What if she had tried harder, settled for less, bought a book subscribing to the theory that that men really are ass-scratching simpletons who require coy and dispassionate game-playing in order to be charmed, and what if she had managed to "land" such a person?
I have no idea what will happen. But I can tell you what will not happen: I will not buy this book, I will not stand around like a wallflower at a dance, and I will not "learn" from Greg that it's all about orchestrating the chase properly. Listen to Greg one more time:
Greg, chasing is for escaped zoo monkeys and five-year-olds playing tag. Chasing and pursuit are concepts that almost require resistance, you know? I mean . . . a long chase? Doesn't that mean I'm not just not calling, but I'm actually running away? Is this the idea? That if I see someone coming who cracks me up, laughs at my jokes, looks at me in a way that goes straight to my knees, I'm supposed to . . . run away? Because . . . because the really good ones will run after me?
Amusingly, among other things, I'm not that person. I couldn't do that if I tried. My enthusiasm tends to be rather transparent, and I consider that fact part of my unique charm. Which is why it is fortunate that I am not attempting to woo, for instance, Greg.
I am no longer single and have never heard of this book, but I now officially hate it and everyone associated with it and would not buy it even if the world suddenly ran out of toilet paper. So thanks for the heads up!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.frolicanddetour.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Oh my, I am 31 and single, and having some frustrating and confusing guy problems, and I am now ashamed that I was considering buying this book to help me sort them out. THANK YOU for the kick in the pants! I'm not wasting my money on that garbage. (PS: Your essays here, at Losing the Cow and on TWoP are INCREDIBLE! Keep up the good, no, awesome work!)
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]I thank you for reading this book so I didn't have to touch it to make sure it was, in fact, unforgivably evil.
The idea of love as contest rather than partnership is something that no amount of social evolution seems to remove from the mass consciousness. However, unlike the authors in question, I ascribe the perniciousness of this myth not to a primordial remnant, but to the well-documented human tendency to choose familiar ignorance over new ideas. It's why there's still an astrology column in your local paper, and it's why there's a moron in the White House.
Personally, I'm happy that my wife of 6 years didn't require me to chase her over hill and dale, because frankly, that would've marked her as a mind-game-playing pain in the ass, and therefore not someone I would want to spend the rest of my life with.
I work in an office full of single women who speak this trash all day long, and it infuriates me beyond my ability to verbalize. Where to even start?
But to all who will listen: Marriage is a friendship, not a game. It is, in truth, the highest form of friendship, and if the person you marry is not your best friend, then you have married the wrong person.
That's all I have to say.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]God, THANK YOU. The thing about that book that sends me into a rage is that...I mean, I complain about them often enough, but men? People. People who are all different and have weird different issues and act differently for different reasons and thus are not any more easily figured out than anything else is.
The other thing is, the Sex and the City episode in which the phrase, "He's just not that into you" is uttered? At the end, Miranda tries to apply the HJNTIY theory to a man at the end of a great date and it turns out that he IS into her, but he's got an upset stomach and she looks like a moron for automatically jumping to the conclusion that he didn't like her. So the authors of this book ALREADLY TOTALLY DISPROVED THEIR OWN THEORY IN AN EPISODE OF TELEVISION THEY ALREADY WROTE.
Yeah, so I have kind of a problem with this book.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]I've just recently started reading your blog and I have to say word, word, a thousand times WORD. You hit the nail on the head, sister.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Thank you, Linda - this is excellent. I knew I was missing why this book was so successful, and I guess my thoughts tend to run like yours. Although you are far more courageous than I am, for I have not picked up the book at all for fear someone would see me with it and buy it for me.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]I met the love of my life online five years ago and if I had waited for him to "chase" me, I'd still be waiting. Simply put, he had resigned himself to being single forever and until I gave him a (cyber) smack upside the head, he didn't realize I was "into" him.
And I agree with thematthewshow, the person you marry should be your best friend and vice versa. And we are and, Miss Alli, it was soooo worth the wait---and I was at least ten years older than you are now when I met him. So, hang in there, kiddo.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Prof Grrrl over at Playing School had a similarily great take on the book. Like y'all, I just wasn't that into it =P.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Dear Ms. F&D
Well would you believe that Oprah "Ima gonna heal ya" Winfrey had these monkeys on her show? Oprah (who is happily coupled mind you) was "sick of listening to all her single girlfriend whining about not having luck dating" and believed that these COMEDIANS (that's how greg referred to himself a couple times) could ease the pain of suffering single woman everywhere. I beleived I watched the "after the show" version of this and you wouldn't have beleived it. These beautiful woman in the audience would stand up and tell of your run of the mill complex relationship that they were involved in and ask for his advice (PS....guess what Greg's married now to some chic he "chased" because appearantly before that he was just a big ho dog chasing all the womens - PPSS he's UGLY) so anyway, these "singles" would look at him with torture in their eyes and wait for his response.....which was....he'd dip his head sadly and look at these women with the most pity and say "he's just not that into you" several of these women, upon hearing such distressing news actually CRIED! and he'd laugh and Oprah would laugh in this conspiratorial, you're so stupid, way. HA it was so hilarious. silly girls. He must've said his million dollar catchphrase a bazillion times. It was truly horrible and I want to have Oprah arrested by the Angel Network goons.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Saw numerous adverts for an Oprah Winfrey HJNIY special this week (tagline: "Girls, this will save you years of therapy"). Sounds like it's based on the same book.
Talk about a load of dross!
I'm 32, single and have buggered up significant relationships of my own accord. My faults caused shared hurts. I don't need a couple of idiots spreading the idea that it was all because I wasn't really into the women involved.
(but I stlll love the Bridget Jones and Nick Hornby books)
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]It's a simple fact that I wouldn't have ended up with my wife if she hadn't been frank and honest when I was timid and reticent. Evidentially I'm lazy, and that's all there is to it.
A terrific rant here, which I enjoyed reading very much -- no surprise, that.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]So how does this dreck get to be a best-seller when your That Guy essays aren't expanded into a book and sitting atop the best-seller charts? Four words: he fucking DID it.
Your views on the topic of single-dom (is that a word? Fuck it, if it's not, it should be and I'm declaring it one now) are so insightful, so inspiring, so (cringe) empowering, so entertaining, and ultimately so uplifting that the world would beat a path to the bookstores to buy them, were they to be found on the shelves.
Alas, they are not. And perfectly good money is spent on the HJNTIY poison, the chasm between well-meaning men and women continues to grow, and the world is the worse off for it.
Hate me or sneer at me for loving this movie, but there's a great exchange in that lovely romantic comedy "The American President" (edited for length) (as should MY comments be, but hey):
LEWIS
People want leadership.
And in the absence of genuine
leadership, they will listen to
anyone who steps up to the
microphone. They want leadership,
Mr. President. They're so thirsty
for it, they'll crawl through the
desert toward a mirage, and when
they discover there's no water,
they'll drink the sand.
SHEPHERD
(evenly)
Lewis ... people don't drink the
sand, because they're thirsty.
They drink it because they don't know
the difference.
I guess what I'm saying is, everybody who reads what you write here and in TWoP and TINO and everywhere else would probably agree that, given a choice, they'd buy a book from you about relationships rather than the crap that's out there.
I really just wish you'd give us that choice.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]I remember hearing these knobs on the Oprah show a few weeks ago (TV was on in the other room, I swear!), and there was not one question that wasn't answered with the tagline. By the end, I think they had the entire audience chanting it along with them. Of course, Oprah was just slobbering all over him.
The ridiculous thing is that of course there are women (and men) out there who, for various reasons, refuse to recognize when someone really is just stringing them along. It would be nice to think that some self-help book could have saved me the years I wasted pursuing someone who was totally emotionally unavailable, but there's no way chanting "he's just not that into me" would have cut through the fog of denial.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Not that I haven't already said my piece, but speaking for all the guys out there who aren't toxic scum (yeah, we had a meeting and I was voted spokesperson - deal with it) - what we're REALLY not into is women who mindlessly leap on and devour every carelessly-served-up morsel of tripe that gets spewed out by the self-help industry.
(Is "self-help group" an oxymoron?)
If Oprah only knew the damage she inflicted on this world by crying "Havoc!" and unleashing these dogs ... the Gregs and Dr. Phils and their bottom-feeding ilk, she'd ... well, she'd probably just grin sheepishly and go back to counting her money.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Great essay. Really, when I think about it, if I had a guy friend who was engaged in a "chase" like the book describes, that would really be the only time I'd be tempted to say, "Hey, pal, I think she's probably not that into you."
Because really, who acts like that? I don't necessarily think that when you meet someone, you should lay bare ALL of your emotions and thoughts right away, but showing the interest and excitement that you feel is not only appropriate, it's RIGHT. If you are going to open your heart and your life to someone, what would be more demoralizing than them responding by playing some sort of game with you?
People have enough to deal with these days; the partner you are seeking should be your refuge from that shit.
And finally, if I had been all coy and sly with my now-husband when we began to date, he would have been like, "Uhhhh....okay. Take care, then!" 'Cause he's a little more evolved than the way guys are represented in this book.
Actually, though, now that I think of it, he's probably exactly the type of guy they're writing about, or so they think. I guess he's what would be considered a "man's man" - works in the trades, kinda rough around the edges, jeans-and-tshirt guy - but he's not a freakin' cartoon. He has other dimensions to him that are emotional and philosophical and so on. I think that's what bugs me most about this book, to make it sound like all men are one-dimensional.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]It is literally written in the book, in these words: "Men are not complicated." So your effort to cast your husband as having more than one dimension is, of course, futile in the extreme.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]I don't understand how I can be in control but not be able ask guys out. What kind of bullshit is that? I consider myself a pretty straight forward person so if I like you, I let you know. How is being passive sexy. God I hate books like this one. Thank you for perfectly expressing how I feel about them.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Ah, thank you for making me chuckle by writing so eloquently while also being pissed off by something, that, well... SHOULD piss everyone off.
As everyone has pointed out, I don't know what's more annoying -- what it actually says, or that those two assholes are reaping benefits from it. I remember picking up someone's copy of Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus when I was in college and getting so irritated as I read all these sweeping generalizations. It's that sort of shit that leads us into problems -- if I get upset that my gf doesn't tell me she loves me enough, I immediate think "Wow, I'm acting girly." But no, there's nothing wrong with a guy having some palpable emotions -- just because it's amusing to people to portray us as idiot cavemen (which, honestly, a lot of times we are) doesn't mean we always must be that way.
It saddens me when I hear people rave about such books or shows like that abomination Sex and the City, which was so unfunny and loaded with obvious, poor, hackneyed jokes that it made me (and most people I know with more than a walnut-sized brain) have to leave the room because I was just so embarrassed for the writers, actors, and people in the room who were forcing me to watch it.
The bottom line is that relationships aren't easy -- ever. Even the best ones take work, and if anyone thinks they are all simple enough to be completely summarized and emcompassed in 175 pages of drivel, then those people aren't anywhere near adult enough to enter into a relationship longer than one you might have with a toll collector.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Wow. You expressed the inchoate fury I felt when someone I know was raving about this book. Thank you, a millions times!
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]right on sister! my friends are always quoting this shit to me (i'm in a situation right now if you know what i mean ;)) and it's useless drivel that only made me feel bad (and get this, he IS into me!) i'm glad i'm not the only crazy one!
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Fabulous! As usual, you've expressed my outrage way better than I ever could. Thanks for being a voice of reason for the 30-something, single-and-fine-with-it set.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Even though I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that), you are now my official girl-crush. Thank you for everything you said! For a fantastic opposing viewpoint, may I recommend a book called "Quirky Alone"? Can't remember the author but it's more than worth a read.
Tina (29 and recently single--and okay with it! And willing to hold out for the real thing as long as I need to!)
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Just yesterday I posed this question to one of my best guy friends, "is it true that he's not that into me if he blah blah blah?" Suffice it to say, my friend called bullshit on the book six ways to Sunday.
Thanks for making so much sense against so much nonsense. And hear hear to the recommendation of QuirkyAlone... you can go to quirkyalone.net to find out all about it.
at 12:43 PM on 12.29.04
[ link ]Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
