The Two Sides to the "He's Just Not That Into You" Coin

"Maybe a happy ending doesn't include a guy, maybe... it's you, on your own, picking up the pieces and starting over, freeing yourself up for something better in the future."

 
I remember this book being hugely popular back when I was in high school. My high school boyfriend's mom and his older brother's girlfriend were talking about it, and they told me it was "required reading" for any girl or young woman. I'm hesitant to call it "required reading," but I do recommend it. There are two strong themes in the book: If he's not making the effort, he's just not that into you and you  need to cut your losses and move on already. And, if you're unhappy or making excuses for someone else ("He's really busy!" or "He just got out of a long relationship!"), you deserve better and it's better to be alone holding out for a person who treats you well than to be with someone who makes you feel like less of a person. I fully, whole-heartedly agree with the second sentiment. I've seen so many people wait around for someone to be "ready to be in a relationship" or make excuses for why someone doesn't have time for them. I will admit to doing a lot of the "don'ts" mentioned in the book. It's easy to look at someone else's relationship and point out what's wrong, but it's difficult to look at yours objectively because you're different, he/she's different, your relationship is totally special and not like everyone else's. The best, most encompassing advice in the book is to tell your own story to yourself, and hear it as though hearing it from a friend. What advice would you tell your friend?

The feminist in me,  however, has a few problems with the book. When Greg Behrendt writes about the beginning of a relationship, he really drills the point that if a guy is into you, he'll call. Women are not supposed to call and we're supposed to wait for the guy we're into to make a move. Now, as someone who has made the first move (and it worked out very well for me in this particular instance), I completely disagree. I think the point he was trying to make is that women shouldn't chase after anyone. It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to make the first move. If he doesn't call or text you back, let it go. It's not a big deal. But, can't we say that for everyone? How about no one-man or woman-chase after someone who has expressed (implicitly or explicitly) disinterest? It's a sad waste of time and everyone-men and women-needs to stop. 

Take for instance, the quote: “A man who wants to make a relationship work will move mountains to keep the woman he loves." Yes, that's lovely, but shouldn't we say the same about women? Can't we just replace "man" with "person" and "woman" with "person"? The book is contradictory in a big, but not very overt way. Behrendt begs women to be passive and wait patiently for the man to call in the beginning of the relationship, because if he's into you, he will. It's totally impossible that he might be waiting to hear from you. But then he begs us to take an active role in our happiness instead of just taking the safe route and staying in a bad relationship. I just wish women were urged to be more active in relationships instead of being in this subordinate position. Don't get me wrong, I like Behrendt's idea that we should recognize our unhappiness and take control of the faulty relationships in our lives, but I think it's a silly idea that women must be won over or wooed. Relationships should be fully and equally reciprocal. If you love someone, regardless of gender, you'll move mountains.

This brings me to my next problem with the book. Everything has a pretty clear man/woman divide, but every problem a woman has could definitely be a man's problem. Similarly, every excuse or fault given by a man in the book could easily be the excuse or fault of a woman. For instance, there are several men mentioned who, for whatever reason, are "not ready" or "unable" to get into a committed relationship right now. These excuses range from coming out of a long term relationship, to starting a new job, to going through a divorce, to a death in the family. But, come on, let's not act like women haven't used these excuses before. Behrendt offers great advice (short version: you deserve better; walk away). But we can't talk like the world's problems are in black and white. Nothing is a woman-problem or a man-problem. By describing them as such, we're perpetuating stupid and potentially dangerous roles, like men "always want and will never reject sex". In the book, Behrendt indignantly asserts that "if he's into you, he won't be able to keep his hands off you." I think he means well, but what he should have said is something like, if he's into you, he'll desire a heathly sexual relationship with you (As defined by the couple. No sex till marriage? Two times a week? A month?). It's about finding someone who's a good match. But it's perfectly normal for either member of a couple to not be in the mood, gender notwithstanding. By perpetuating this idea that men will always be up for sex and never ever reject it, we make men feel like less of men and women feel less desirable when it happens (and it will). It also sets up a dangerous assumption that men cannot be raped, which they most certainly can be, but that is a post for a different day.

Anyway, am I reading too much into this? Maybe I'm reading too much into this. There are lots of great points in He's Just Not That Into You, and I want to spread this message of self-love and you-deserve-more. “Don’t spend your time on and give your heart to any person* who makes you wonder about anything related to his/her** feelings for you,” he rightfully says. 

Just take it with a grain of salt.


 Go anywhere; Be anything.




*Original quote says "guy"
**Original quote just says "his". I like mine better.