He's Just Not That Into You - movie and book

He's Just Not That Into You (HJNTIY) written by former Sex and the City writer Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo is said to debunk many of the myths that women create about men and dating. The book gained momentum from celebrities as Oprah, and now has developed into a high-profile celebrity movie soon to be released. 

Overall, this book tells women to not sit around and wait for the man's call because, ladies – don't take it personally – he's just not that into you. It suggests that men are the active "doers" in relationship and women are simply the passive "waiters" - once again creating an expected gender standard. 

Even writers on WebMD praise it: "The book is implicitly teaching women to have good psychological boundaries, meaning that if he's just not that into you, it's not your problem, it's his and you need to deal with the fact that for whatever the reason this guy is not interested in a relationship with you."



I have mixed feelings about their thesis. The problem is that it actually helps to CREATE gender myths and add to the confusion in dating. While I appreciate the book trying to explicate a common concern about dating, it only addresses that the problem is that of women, not men, who suffer because they have yet to figure out how to decode "male behavior." Therefore, it really causes confusion because it tells women that they are ultimately the "doers" – i.e. the gender that must work at changing the unfulfilling dating situation. 

I am scared this book limits how women should behave. While both genders are consistently told to develop agency in all areas of their life (from car insurance commercials to voting: "Just one call could save you hundreds" – "You and you only hold the power to change your life"), this book, in fact, promotes passive womanly behavior. 

And that is sad. How many times do we have those moments where we agonize that we should have just said this or done things differently or where we recognize, "Wow, I'm glad I said that or did that"? Reflection is a vital part of maturation, but obsessive compulsion is not.

Again, HJNTIY is confusing. While this book suggests women should not obsess about men's dating actions because there is only one simple determining standard. On the other hand, it suggests obsessing about decoding men's behavior by reading relationship books is accepted and will bring women peace. So dwelling on dating and relationships becomes both encouraged and discouraged for women, and it is reinforced that it is highly unlikely for men. But isn't human nature to find ways to use analysis and introspection to piece puzzles together, even if it takes time? Although the writers somewhat admit generalities in their view: "Men, for the most part, like to pursue women," the idea of a collaborative effort in opposite sex interpersonal relationships goes unnoted. What about the men who are tired of the competitive "game" and wish women would acknowledge taking part in the constant negotiation involved in ANY type of relationship? 

            
Overall, HJNTIY is a clever way to reinvest in the unequal "division of labor" conversation essentially defining women's duty additional work. It reminds me of women's liberation and the sexual revolution, especially of Hugh Heffner's claim that he is a feminist in so much as meaning he is ok with women using contraceptives because it allows more of what he wants – freedom for men from the responsibilities of the consequences of sex. And with the success of this book, we are ultimately applauding this view in our society. HJNTIY is really saying dating can be less stressful as long as women recognize it is only their job to decipher men's behavior just like it is the women's responsibility to take birth control pills. This book shifts the accountability to women and off of men, which allows men a lack of involvement in the dating process - exactly what most women lament as the source of the women's complaints. It again situates men as the maypole center around which women must circle. 



While I appreciate direct and powerful language and agree with the old adage "Actions speak louder than words," over-simplified, dubbed "straightforward", these types of directives provide effortless ways to solve problems. But, if one never challenges her own assumptions or thinks on her own, how will any other outcomes come into play? (Hey women! Don't think – don't expect change because it will never happen.) 

What about the joys that this way of thinking takes away from men? Men miss out on ego boosts and the reinforcement that they too are chosen about all others if women called to ask them out on a date. 

I do understand it is part of human nature to chase something illusive, and playing hard to get is not a new strategy for women. From my experience, I distinctly remember the dynamic that worked well for my husband and me when dating. Sometimes I gave him attention, sometimes I held back. As did he. Holding back offers opportunities for the other party to prove interest. Showing interest should not be a gendered opportunity. 


Think about the interviewing process for a job. Once one meets with a prospective employer, most suggest following up with a phone call that expresses interest in the job. In the dating arena, why is this expression only afforded to men? 


Isn't the message of HJNTITY empowered women must accept passivity? 

In the end, however, I do like the idea that there should be a cut off time to quit waiting because I too agree that if someone likes you, he/she will make it a point to let you know. Or in case of the job situation, if they didn't call, move on to the next job interview without making excuses. This, likewise, should not be gendered advice.