I am not proud to admit this, but I have a copy of "The Rules ." It was given to me by my mother a few years ago as a gift before leaving for college (I must note that that she also gave me some other books, like the Maria Shriver books "And One More Thing Before You Go... " and "Ten Things I Wish I'd Known Before I Went Out into the Real World ," which were cute/nice - but I digress...). I was sort of really offended that she gave me "The Rules" because, quite frankly, I think it's silly to date with the sole purpose of finding a husband and playing coy little "feminine" games to find "Mr. Right" (not to mention the fact that it focuses on the stupid heteronormative dating standards). I never read the book, though I breezed through it with a look of "bleeech" on my face.
I forgot about this book until recently because I read the book "He's Just Not That Into You: The No Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys " - I am still not sure how I feel about it, nor am I sure why I read it, curiosity on the topic of heteronormative dating "standards" and why they exist, perhaps (Side note: It is written by two writers from "Sex and the City," which irritates me because I feel the show has some false feminist icons, but that is just my opinion and not what I am discussiong now). I feel like this book is, in a way, a modified version of "The Rules" and I am not sure if it is truly applicable, perhaps because once again it applies to heteronormative dating standards. Throughout the book, the author keeps insisting that 90% of men apply to what he says... which I don't know if I believe. I feel that if you follow these standards or "The Rules" (or the modified version of it), you will end up dating a misogynist... just my opinion. (Although, one could argue that this book is about not putting up with the BS of dating, but I still feel it is all about appeasing the man - which is not cool/very sexist.... hence why I am not sure how I feel about this book. I guess overall it aggravates me.)
After reading "He's Just Not That Into You," I found out it was being made into a movie . Which is kind of annoying, because based on the trailers it seems like it is just depicting all these women as needy and desperate (but I suppose I will have to see the movie before making a sound judgment - based on the book, I think that is how it will be).
Then recently I saw a preview for a new movie with Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler, "The Ugly Truth ." The description from IMDB reads:
"A romantically challenged morning show producer (Heigl) is reluctantly embroiled in a series of outrageous tests by her chauvinistic correspondent (Butler) to prove his theories on relationships and help her find love. His clever ploys, however, lead to an unexpected result."
Sounds lovely, n'est pas? I think it is going to be about the same "He's Just Not That Into You" mantra. And it annoyed me a lot, because not only is it a cliche romantic comedy (sorry, not a fan), but it is YET ANOTHER gender implication of dating.
So all of this left me confused. I started to think, are these "dating games" and "theories" crafted to cater to heteronormative dating? Are they even REAL, or is it just ingrained in our heads (or somewhat of both)? Also I stared to wonder, do these "dating rules" and such apply to all types of dating, regardless of gender - meaning is it more a "human nature" thing (whatever that may mean)? Can these "rules" and "theories" be modified into the feminist's version of such? So many questions!
Then I began to wonder, as a heterosexual woman and a feminist, HOW ON EARTH do you take all these things that are thrown at you?!? I think heteronormative dating standards are stupid, but I'd be lying if I said I've never given in to them - a guy takes you to dinner or asks you out - but overall, I don't adhere to those "standards" because they don't apply to me. However, they are everywhere!! For me, I have never felt the need to play games to "land Mr. Right" - meaning I've just been ME and done what I do, and that works (which is good). But it's still frustrating - and not only for heterosexual women, but for everyone. How do we overcome these "standards" that are constantly shoved down our throats yet still date as a feminst? I am conflicted on dating standards because society tells me to do the exact oposite of everything I feel. My rule is to ignore it all and do what you want, but sometimes that is hard.
Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "The Rules" and Such.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11274
I'm not sure what heteronormative means, but there's nothing wrong with looking for a spouse. From my understanding, people have been doing that for the couple thousand years or so; some people want it, and some don't.
From Wikipedia: Heteronormativity is a term describing the marginalization of non-heterosexual lifestyles and the view that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation.
Thank you for adding that - my mistake, I should have defined it.
I feel like books like The Rule and the others that you've listed perpetuate the BS of dating. I don't want to have to calculate my every move with a guy, nor do I want him to interact with me based on some stupid arbitrary rules. I want to be myself with someone, and for him to be himself with me and see if we work together. I think this is along the same lines of articles that caution women to never say I love you first and things like that. Everyone is different, the rules are stupid crap, and if we could just interact with people and stop this whole mentality of men and women as practically different species we could all probably be a lot happier.
I've never read The Rules or He's Just Not That Into You, but I hate this whole idea that there are these things as women that we "have" to be doing so we can "bag" a man.
However, having said that... I may be alone in this (I know I am in my circle of friends) but I kind of love dating games. Things like, making sure I leave it a certain amount of time before texting him back or whatever. Call me stupid and shallow if you will, but it's the way I work. I think it's to do with the fact that I don't actually want a relationship, and I'm only really interested in the chase. Y'know. The bit where you don't really know what's going on, you've had no discussions about exclusivity, and you're constantly being kept on your toes (and doing the same to him). I bloody love that. Once it gets into actual relationship territory, I just get bored.
Just to clarify: I don't think dating games and following "the rules" is necessary and if two people want to be together, they should be without all the stupid fuss. All these books and films tend to portray all women as needy and clingy and desperate to get their claws into any man who'll put a ring on their finger, and I positively despise that stereotype. I guess what I'm saying is... I play the game because I find the actual act of doing so to be kind of fun. Not because I hope that it will eventually lead to the guy being my husband through tricking him into liking me.
Also I just went to check out The Rules on Amazon and I'm reading everything Look Inside will provide me with, and it's making me want to deepthroat a shotgun. 'How many times have you heard someone say, "She's nice, she's pretty, she's smart... Why isn't she married?"' Well, obviously it's because she hasn't convinced a man to bless her by marrying her and taking her away from that dreaded label of "single". Couldn't possibly be that perhaps she just hasn't found the right person yet, or she doesn't feel ready to settle down, or maybe just doesn't want to get married. No, no. Absolutely every single woman in the whole world wants to get married as soon as humanly possible, to anyone who'll have her.
Jesus CHRIST.
I agree that in general the dating game should be fun and apply to everyone and that dating could lead to finding a husband, that's just not my sole intentions. I also agree that the whole deciding-how-long-to-wait-to-text-back-etc stuff is fun.
I also wholeheartedly agree with your second comment.
I like dating games about as much as I enjoy root canal without novocain.
Maybe I'm being an old fuddy duddy here, but if you like a person, you should feel free to spend time with them, call them, text them or whatever without having to play all kinds of stupid games with them.
And if you don't like a person, you shouldn't bother with them at all.
And toying with people's feelings by playing games with them is just kinda mean (not to mention childish) so I avoid doing it, and I avoid the company of those who like to play games.
I feel that if you follow these standards or "The Rules" (or the modified version of it), you will end up dating a misogynist... just my opinion.
I don't agree with that...I think, that if you follow the Rules, you will end up not really getting to know each other because you're so busy putting on a fake face, and then when you end up letting that drop, since you can't really hold that up forever, you suddenly find yourself dating someone you never would have dated if everyone had just been themselves from the beginning. It's all very dishonest and a total waste of time.
Furthermore, from discussions I've had with women who are into it, The Rules are supposed to make a woman "seem interesting" - my counter is, if you're not REALLY interesting, then eventually the guy is going to find out and stop being interested. Instead of faking it, BE interesting. Have hobbies and friends that you spend time with, don't just manufacture the illusion that you're busy and can't always be available to the guy. Actually having a life makes you far more interesting than refusing to accept a date for the weekend X number of days beforehand because you don't want to appear "too available."
I do my part to shatter heteronormative dating, I ask guys out, I call if they haven't, I pay my own half of the bill.
Also, I don't find the philosophy of "He's just not that into you" terrible. There have been times when I'm banging my head against the wall trying to figure a guy out, and when I approach it from "He's just not that into me" it lets me end the endless analysis and finally let go. I mean, let's face it, we can't be The One to every person we date, and it's better to recognize when it's really not meant to be rather than manipulatively trying to stick a round peg in a square hole.
I realize I didn't really answer all the questions posed in the OP, and I'd like to say more, but I think I'll wait until more people reply and see what they think.
Honestly there are so many times that I would just love to say "maybe he's just not that into you" when one of my chronically-alone friends is using me for free therapy going on at length about why X guy won't return their calls, is "playing games," etc. But no one wants to hear it.
"Also, I don't find the philosophy of "He's just not that into you" terrible. There have been times when I'm banging my head against the wall trying to figure a guy out, and when I approach it from "He's just not that into me" it lets me end the endless analysis and finally let go. I mean, let's face it, we can't be The One to every person we date, and it's better to recognize when it's really not meant to be rather than manipulatively trying to stick a round peg in a square hole."
I agree. It took me a long time to do it but when I finally figured out that a lot of the guys I was involved with were just not into me, that that was okay an maybe I wasn't all that into him either, I got to relax and finally have fun. And it was easier for me to figure out then which guys were that into me, and whether or not I even cared.
I agree that the "he's just not that into you theory" is good to tell yourself rather than banging your head and waiting around, but it just made me wonder how can we apply this to other types of relationships as well. Just me pondering.
OP- "So all of this left me confused. I started to think, are these "dating games" and "theories" crafted to cater to heteronormative dating? ... Also I stared to wonder, do these "dating rules" and such apply to all types of dating, regardless of gender - meaning is it more a "human nature" thing (whatever that may mean)?"
These particular rules are written from a heteronormative standpoint, and, hence, are not directly applicable to non-heterosexual relationships. They are crafted to cater to heterosexual dating specifically, which makes them heteronormative. Similar rules could be made for any kind of dating.
The whole "heteronormative dating standards" concept has been peeving me off since the big post about it a while ago. The thing that seems to bother you and the other heterosexual feminist commenters in this thread so far is the gender essentialist behavior stereotyping in these dating guidelines, not the assumption that heterosexual relationships are the only normal or valid relationships.
Regarding "The Rules" - I flipped through this piece of crap when it first came out in the 90's, and laughed heartily a few years later when I read that the author of this "failsafe plan for landing and keeping a man" was being divorced by her husband. It seemed like a cross between some conventional Barbie doll idea of femininity and a playbook for headgames and emotional manipulation. At one point it even admonished women not to make jokes or be too funny because men are "intimidated" by that or some such shit! Also out was wearing sneakers, big boots(like Doc Martins, not like "sexy" thigh highs), accepting a date from a guy who called on the "wrong day" or otherwise acting like a human being.
Regarding "He's Just Not That Into You" - First off, what an appalling and patronizing title! Why don't they just call it "You're Ugly And You'll Die Alone?" Secondly, the "Sex & The City" connection they always mention: the character who actually says this line, Jack Berger, is a frustrated writer who is often jealous, misanthropic, and percieves every little thing as a slight against him. He's a petulant character and it made sense for him to say something so pessimistic, sure. But why it's become touted as some great piece of self-help wisdom is beyond me. It was a sad little remark by a sad little man. Hey, I think once Mr. Big told Carrie "I like the taste of french fries" I'm off to write a diet book, wheeee!
Thirdly, the book itself: I've also read excerpts from this and it's ridiculous--basically if a man is doing anything short of STALKING a woman, guess what? "He's just not that into her."
I'd honestly want no part of any relationship following the advice in these books would lead to.
Yea I agree with how you say they should retitle the book. I also can see the point of view mentioned by alixanna above that sometimes it's good to be able to tell when someone "is just not that into you" - but I don't like the way the book emphasize that the woman must be so passive.
Regarding "He's Just Not That Into You" - First off, what an appalling and patronizing title! Why don't they just call it "You're Ugly And You'll Die Alone?"
I have to sincerely ask....what is so appaling and patronizing about the title of "He's Just Not That Into You"? Just because a man isn't into a woman doesn't mean that she's ugly. And just because a woman is pretty doesn't mean the man will be into her. There could be various reason why a man isn't into a woman.
In the media, you see men being rejected by women that they are trying to court with: "sorry. Not interested" "You just don't do it for me!" "I prefer taller/richer/more muscular/more rugged/more sensitive/more manly/white men..." "There's just no....sparks." "No way!" etc.
And even though I believe that if you were to compare between the sexes, men have more rejections than women (simply because men are expected by society to be the ones who initiate, but that means women do get rejected as well.
So why are the words "He's just not that into you" so appalling and patronizing? I have difficultly imagining men complaining about a book titled "Dude! She's just not that into you!" and about how the title is appalling and patronizing.
Is there something that I'm missing here? Sorry if what I wrote above is offensive to anyone.
It is patronizing because the title assumes that women need to be told or reminded when to realize a man isn't interested in her. As if she can't figure that out for herself. The assumption is that women are so desperate for a man that they'll overlook a**hole behavior/not returning calls/etc. in search of a "deeper" explanation for his behavior. This is a very culturally ingrained stereotype of women that simply does not exist for men. So if a man were to pick up a book saying "dude she's just not that into you!", it really would not have the same condescending undertone that it would to a woman. Just explaining from a woman's point of view, I hope that helped.
That is exactly what bothers it about me. Like I said, I was conflicted. Women shouldn't need a book to tell them that, women should be able to tell themselves, "You know what, I am awesome and if you can't see that, your loss. Peace," without a book.
Thanks for your explanation Alma. It makes more sense to me now.
I actually haven't read the book as I have no interest in reading such books. I was just wondering about the title itself.
I do think that people (both men and women) might need some assistance when trying to find out whether their gf/bf really likes them (being "really into" them or not), but I agree with you that this is something we learn through experience, not from a book.
It just sounds insulting and cold. It smacks of "you weren't good enough." Thus the appalling.
Also it's like the guy who wrote it presumes to speak for all men and their behavior(patronizing to men) and he's going to spell it out for the poor stupid women who can't discern what's happening in their interactions for themselves.(patronizing to women)
So yes, it's patronizing.
Blaaaaaaah.
*ahem* I am nearly 23 years old, a feminist-in-training, heterosexual, and a reasonably attractive, rather intelligent woman.
And I have never been on a date. I haven't been kissed since the eighth grade. And I've never had a boyfriend.
(Okay, I take that back. In the eighth grade I had a boyfriend for like, a month, but then he dumped me because he got bored. But, that's a topic for another time.)
So, clearly, my experiences with romance and men are very, very limited. And now what to do when Mother sends me an email address and a picture of a friend of a friend and says, "Drop him an email! Say hi! He's moving to the city soon-- what could it hurt?"
Oy. If we can't have rules, can I at least have a flowchart?
All of this to say that I can really empathize with wanting to have a set of "rules" to follow-- this whole thing is confusing. Sure, it's the cowards' way out, not really making up your own mind but waiting around for someone to call you and all, but it sure seems a lot easier than mucking through.
I don't think you're talking about the same kind of "rules" as the OP. Nor do I think what you're talking about is rules, per se, but guidelines.
That just reminds me of this: Fake Assholes Finish Last.
Every time I hear about He's Just Not That Into You, I think of these two comic strips from "Dinosaur Comics."
http://www.qwantz.com/archive/001105.html
http://www.qwantz.com/archive/001106.html
I applaud He's Just Not That into You for at least authorizing a catchy way of telling friends that a boy (or girl) who doesn't call (or return calls) for two weeks is probably not interested. But both books are pretty despicable for teaching women to remain passive objects of attention, rather than subjects with their own desires.
Let's read some of the rules from The Rules (courtesy of Wikipedia) and ponder how gender-neutral they can possibly be:
# 02: Don't Talk to a Man First (and Don't Ask Him to Dance)
# 04: Don't Meet Him Halfway or Go Dutch on a Date
# 05: Don't Call Him & Rarely Return His Calls
# 12: Stop Dating Him if He Doesn't Buy You a Romantic Gift for Your Birthday or Valentine's Day
These are all terribly gendered female. Passivity, entitlement to gifts, and such are peddled as legitimate strategies to (umm) test a man's commitment? Nevertheless, some of the rules can found universally prescribed, both for women and for men:
# 03: Don't Stare at Men or Talk Too Much
# 06: Always End Phone Calls and Dates First
# 19: Don’t Open Up Too Fast
# 20: Be Honest but Mysterious
These kinds of "be reserved" tips are given fairly universally because it is imagined that we humans are drawn to mystery, to reserve, to those who don't appear too "desperate". Of course, if both parties follow these kinds of rules, then both will receive a rather deflated view of the other party's interest; I'm sure that I've lost many a girl's attention by playing it too cool, or (more commonly) by not being a little braver in the face of what initially seemed like a lukewarm reception. Certainly, many of us have an attraction to the mysterious, nonchalant person, but most of us also have an attraction to those moments when you just can't stop talking because the other person is so interesting and interested.
I'm thinking about writing a post on dating advice for men, along with some of their dangers and deceptions, if there's any interest in that.
It also always seems sad to me from the man's perspective - men are people too, and I'm sure they appreciate knowing that the person they've just started dating is interested and happy to be seeing them. Requiring the man to do all the pursuing leaves the man's side so empty and unappreciated. Why the hell would they want to date someone who doesn't show any interest in them?
When my friends complain "He hasn't called" I always ask, "How do you know he isn't sitting around feeling sad he hasn't heard from YOU?" But of course the answer is always, "He's the guy, HE'S supposed to call" which just leads to things falling apart when maybe some mutual interest would have lead to a great relationship or at least a friendship.
The guy I am currently dating has made comments about how he hates when girls play hard to get and he doesn't like to always be the one expecting to call (which I noticed when we first started dating and still today).
It didn't post all the way:
The guy I am currently dating has made comments about how he hates when girls play hard to get and he doesn't like to always be the one expecting to call (which I noticed when we first started dating and still today). We didn't find it necessary to play games during the beginning of the relationship, nor do we feel that now (why would you play mind games in the middle of a relationship anyway??)
Okay, I have to write and say that I identify as a feminist and I despise "Sex and the City" and "The Rules" ---
However:
I absolutely LOVE "He's Just Not That Into You." I must vigorously defend this book, because I think a lot of people who haven't read it don't understand it. The ONLY problem with this book is that it's not called "They're Just Not That Into You" because it's a concept that applies to both men and women.
Basically, this book is so much more liberating than it seems. It gives women the opportunity to stop spending their extremely precious time on men, and instead, go out and work on their careers, friendships, family, hobbies, etc. I feel dorky saying this, but this book really changed my perspective on things. Instead of spending time thinking, "Why hasn't he called me? Why did he text me last week, but not this week? Why won't he kiss me? Why does he act like a boyfriend, but not really ask me out?" I can simply pin it down to the fact that - guess what? - he's just not that into me. How freeing! I'm off to make a collage or work on my screenplay. I know I'm awesome and whoever this person is should know it too.
The book is liberating in another way. It helps women get out of abusive relationships because it's essentially a guide to no-excuses. He drinks too much? He makes you feel badly about yourself? He doesn't want to have sex with you? Guess what - you need to leave this "relationship" because he's just not that into you.
Sorry to write a diatribe here, but I think if anybody reads the book, they'll see what I'm talking about. The ultimate message is that you're awesome, you don't deserve a guy who sends you mixed messages, and that you should have high standards for relationships. That's it.
I got that message from the book as well, which was cool. But I also got the message that women are supposed to be the passive ones in the relationship, which I don't agree with. I like looking at it from the two perspectives, but I feel that they don't necessarily mesh. I like the idea of feeling liberated by the ideas of knowing when "he's just not that into you," but I feel that the book (or the movie) presents women as needy/dependent/clingy etc. which I do not like.
I find that these books are damaging because they give false hope to people. Ellen Fein (The Rules) and Greg Behrendt (He's Just Not that Into You) don't have any qualifications. They just want to make money off of the fact that you're lonely/depressed/whatever. These books remind me of the countless self-help books by people like Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura that regurgitate the same BS with nothing to back up their claims. Not to mention the standards these books give are unattainable. For instance, I just looked over some of the rules, and basically Ellen Fein asks you to be the PERFECT person in order to find your PERFECT man. Here are just a few rules I looked at:
-Be easy to live with
-Don't see him more than once or twice a week
-Do these rules and you'll live happily ever after
-Don't open up too fast
-Don't ask him to change (but you should change by following all of these rules)
-Be honest by mysterious
And my personal favorite:
-Don't Discuss The Rules with Your Therapist (Because you're Therapist has a degree and QUALIFICATIONS and may tell you that these rules are bunch of CRAP!)
Basically, be perfect. These are impossible standards unless you are not a human.
Anyway, these books don't bother me so much because they are anti-women, but more because they are harmful. Some people have problems with intimacy/dating and truly would like to date and really could use some advice, and there are a few self-help books written by qualified individuals (Not Dr. Phil, he lost his license to practice because of his questionable ethics) that have been shown to be somewhat helpful. But, crackpots like Ellen Fein who do not have any qualifications or reason to be telling you what to do prey on people's emotions to make large amounts of money.
Simple. The whole "women desperately want to get married and men run away screaming" myth feeds directly into the patriarchal propaganda spiel that women need and want men more than the other way around. If men are more "in demand" they can just do whatever they want, is the message. The converse message to women, of course, is: "a normal woman *wants* to get married. If you don't, you're not like all these women on Cosmo. There must be something wrong with you. And men don't want to commit as much as you do so you will have to jump through a lot of hoops. And you want to. You have to want to. Because that's what's supposed to be normal. We said so, didn't we? Isn't that what everyone always says?" Repeat.
Do you really want to like the women in cosmo? I don't know that I do. :)
I like the title of He's Not That Into You. Lets face it, people who are buying this book are looking for relationship advice and The Rules (mold yourself and pretend you are someone else) is much more toxic advice when looking for a mate that He's Just Not That Into You (don't waste your time agonizing over that dude, your energy is better spent somewhere else).
Of course, it would probably be nice if the title were People, They're Just Not Into You: Don't Worry and Be Happy.
Since my post was about the books and the movies, I just want to ask how do you think the two movies I mentioned will turn out?
Also, have you seen the HORRIFYING previews for "Bride Wars"!?!?! Really, WTF is that... different topic, but feel free to comment on that as well.
Not only have I seen the previews, the log-in page of MySpace makes me want to scream. It shows Hudson and Hathaway fighting and then gives you a couple of options on buttons, one of which says something like "Play Bridal Beatdown!" Ugh.
I couldn't really get what He's Not Just Into You was about from the previews. It seemed random. Also, it was not funny. I will not pay to see an unfunny comedy. Rent The Taming of the Shrew from ShakespeaRe-Told, the BBC miniseries. It has Rufus Sewell dressed in tights and makeup and manages to subvert the old bard. You might even find it on YouTube
I have not read "The Rules" and have no interest.
I did read "He's Just Not that into You". Some of you may not agree with my opinion, but that's fine.
I have and seen other friends wonder why a guy does not call or keeps flaking out. Instead of realizing that he was not into me, I wasted time and energy making excuses. I have seen friends who kept wasting their time with committent-phobic boyfriends only to end up hurt and disappointed. One friend was in a situation like that for 10 years. She said if this book had been out, she would not of wasted 10 years. He was not a bad guy, he just broke up with her when he found greener pastures several times.
From speaking to male friends about this book, they told me a lot of the topics covered are true. And they are not misogynists. They figure by not telling a girl they are not interested will result in less hurt feelings. Either way it sucks when someone is rejected.
If there is no chemistry, why waste time? A colleague of mine was dumped by her boyfriend on Thanksgiving a few years ago after she brought up marriage. Even though they were broken up, they still continued to see each other off and on. She mentioned he wanted to hang out but would not have sex. After she read the part of "he's just not that into you if he's not having sex with you", she had an epiphany. She decided to cut off contact and start dating other people. She credited this book.
Honestly, this book has somewhat helped me and my friends. Why waste time on something that is one-sided? Yes, it is silly a book has to be written about this kind of stuff, but it benefits people, male and female, gay and straight, to know if the relationship is worthwhile or just better to move on.
I am not trying to persuade any one to get this book or have a different opinion. Just wanted to share experiences and put it out there.