I read it a few years ago. It was pretty heteronormative, but at the time I chalked that up to the fact that it's a book written for women who intend to date men. I actually don't remember it being terrible, as these books go--it was very much a "Don't waste your time on men who don't want to be with you, because there are plenty who do" message.

I think i was given this book, though i completely share the original idea about all books like. I have an older sister who not only loves this book, but regards the gem Men Who Marry Bitches as her personal bible. These books, who conceal heteronormative and conservative ideas behind this shroud of 'empowerment!' or 'being independent is so sexy' are really upsetting to me. I hate the idea that somehow, being a strong and confident woman with my own interests is reduced to a ploy to lure a man. I believe that I am augmented by male partners, but that, in the end, being complete as a person is the most important thing, not only for myself but for my partner.

I am so glad you did this, thanks! I'm hoping you can answer one of my most nagging questions -- how the heck does a woman find a decent sex partner out there in the pool? Because I never was very good at it, though it seems like some women are having a good time.

I'm actually considering writing a novel in this vein, as well, and had wondered whether to do non-fiction or fiction. Since it appears you've got the non-fiction covered, you've made my decision easier. :) Now to get started on the research!

I have to say, I do think that being independent is sexy, but it's not about attracting a man. anyway. this book to me is 50-50. as was said above, it is useful to not make excuses for someone who doesn't care enough to treat you with the amount of attention that you want, or at least work with you about it. and feminist to think that women don't have to/shouldn't have to in order to have a relationship. that said, the book presents it as just a means to that end that "all" women want-a relationship. and I'd be more okay with the "our market is women confused by men" idea if they had a "women confused by other women should check out this, men confused by women should check out this(though those tend to be awful) etc" set of suggestions. you don't have to write all those books, but references aren't that hard.
as an aside, am I the only one kind of bothered by the whole-let's water down bitch to mean assertive, and tell all women to call themselves that meme? I mean, I can get behind not being afraid of being called a bitch. but really, how bout we present the novel idea that anyone who calls every woman who sticks up for herself/has opinions a bitch is wrong? is that so hard? to believe that being assertive doesn't make you a bitch? please tell me it isn't.

Okay, I read the book in high school along with some of my girlfriends. I loved it then - we thought it was brilliant. Of course, none of us had ever really dated. For a dating book I suppose it is not that bad (it's hard to knock a book about not caring so much or putting up with guys who can't be bothered to pick up a phone), but it is bad in the way that all dating books are: it doesn't leave a lot of room for extenuating circumstances. I spent a lot of years very suspicious of guys because of this book. My friends and I were miserable because we were never nervous about making the first move, but we didn't think we were "allowed" to do that. Sometimes guys are more nervous than we are. And sometimes calling first really is okay. None of that possibility exists within this book.

And I think the movie looks awful. I am so tired of women sitting around, literally WATCHING phones, in movies and on TV. Sure I may make an extra effort to have my phone charged if I expect a guy to call, but I do not know any women who sit around for days staring at a phone. Really? As if we don't have anything better to do! I think this is a total male fantasy - the idea that they are important enough that we put our lives on hold in the hopes that they will call soon.

I think that when you say 'heteronormativity,' you mean 'gender essentialism.'
It's definitely worthwhile to provide a perspective to compete with the inane "Men are like x and women are like y! It's so simple!" drivel that pervades relationship advice franchises.
I haven't read the books because they are for women who want to date men, and I am not one of those women. I assume that they are heteronormative, and would ignore me and my gayness entirely, but I don't fault them for that. Because seriously, gender essentialism doesn't provide a usable relationship framework when everyone involved is the same gender, so non-hetero relationships fall outside the scope of the book.

I like the idea of the book to help women understand that they don't need to keep making excuses about why he didn't call.

I read the book and several other articles similar to it. One thing I hated about that book and others that I have read is that it says he has to make the first move about whether you are an "official" couple or not. Ev en in Cosmo and Glamour I think it said to wait until several months in to see if you're "exclusive". Also, I've disliked similar books that treat men and women as two completely different species.

Others said that you don't push what you're looking for on the first date. I asked a guy out and I said at the first date I was looking for a long-term relationship that would hopefully turn into marriage. Guess what happened? 3 1/2 years together and we're getting married this March.

Note that the movie is set in Baltimore City, and the cast is uniformly white, with the exception of a few POC who play morale-boosting, wisdom-dispensing buddies.

You know, I was given this book (by my kid brother, ha ha) while I was going through a weird relationship thing. I read it and got really angry while reading it, but I wasn't sure how to articulate why.

The earlier commentors are right, there's nothing really wrong with the book from a heteronormative dating perspective. It's basically telling women to be more assertive and less clingy.

Good advice, right?

I think it's the way the information is presented. Greg and his co-author tend to beat you with the information, propose scenarios that are so polarized you know exactly what they're trying to say, and (possibly worst of all) they really encourage women to be rude and dismissive of men.

On the one hand I figure men can take it. But on the other, it's like the book is sermonizing you into "going Samantha" when maybe you don't want to date like a man. That seemed to be the underlying message of the book to me--women need to be less like stereo typical women when it comes to dating and start behaving more like stereotypical men.

And when you get right down to it, how screwed up is that?

Judging from the two-and-a-half minute preview, I can already tell that the movie is going to be one big stereotype-fest. I love how with movies like these, the main characters are almost always exclusively white, but in order to be politically correct, the writers feel pressured to add on a sidekick minority. In this case it looks like they decided to kill two (or three) birds with one stone by having the two minorities (the black man and the Asian man) be gay as well.

There's an inherent contradiction in the notion of being independent to get a man.

Now then, I seem to recall that the book was intended as satire, like Forrest Gump. It does look like the movie is playing it straight, like Forrest Gump, so I probably won't see it, like Forrest Gump.

The only really useful romantic advice you can give anyone (not just het women) is a) change yourself, b) lower your standards, or c) hold out for the right person/embrace being single (if you're going to raise an objection starting "but what about ...?" I suspect whomever you're about to name isn't picking up dating advice books). The third is certainly preferable to the first two; I have to give some credit to anyone who departs from the idea that if a man can't get a woman it's women's fault and if a woman can't get a man it's her fault.

Did anyone else throw up a little in their mouth upon watching that preview? This is one more reason why I refuse to watch mainstream movies.

If I could find a movie which is just the opposite...a bunch of men facing life without a significant other and being very upset about it, while extending all their energy on women of several races, ethnicities, and body shapes who are successful in their careers and don't faun over these men...and have broken biological clocks...I might watch that.

But wait! That movie is almost too close to another stereotype.

And I'm also mad because a Cure song is involved as well. Bah.

Which will be more stereotype-laden and mocking towards women: this, or Confessions of a Shopaholic?

I think the title sets the book and movie up to be really confusing for the target audience. "He's just not that into you." What a grammatical nightmare! I can barely say that sentence at a normal rate.

I never read this book because after seeing the author on Oprah I felt like I got the gist of it (If he isn't dating you or consistently pursuing you than he's not that into you.) I didn't see how someone could write a whole book around such a simple concept unless they were just giving examples. I like not making excuses for men but my problem with this author is that it he assumes that all men are the same and they are not. I have had several cases where guys were very "into me" and were too nervous to ask me out. In that case I helped matters out, both myself and through a friend. Plus, the author just had an arrogant "all men are like myself and I know everything about what women want" attitude that rubbed me the wrong way. Anyways, I would say the book that really needs written is "She's just not that into you". I am sick of guys not taking a hint and calling for months despite me not answering the phone. I think we have all met pushy or clueless guys who have no idea how to read body language or other absurdly obvious signals of disinterest.

I remember the first time I was told that a boy likes you if he hits you. I was in kindergarten.I was so pissed! I didnt think they knew what the hell they were talking about. I hope teachers/others arent still saying this to girls. Its especially nasty when youre a 'tomboy,' and a teacher tells you this. This ends up only causing confusion for girls and protecting patriarchal privilege.

I read the book. It's a cross between inane, amazingly obvious advice and huge jumps in logic. I have a good friend who found advice like, "he hasn't called, move on" really helpful, and I guess some people need to hear that. It's hard to believe though, that anyone needs to be told that if he's cheating on you or beating you, he's not the one.

Then there are tips in there like, "if you've been together more than a couple of years and he hasn't proposed, he's just not that into you." Because everyone knows that true love gets married in under 3 years.

Over all, I found it subtly sexist. No, there is no advice to deviously trick a man into proposing, but it talks to women like we are all half brain-dead vagrants looking for a warm pair of arms to hold us.

I said before here that the philosophy "He's just not that into you" is fantastic in itself - although it seems obvious, it's pretty common for my friends and I to spin in circles trying to figure guys out, and then it's such a release to just say, "It's not that complicated, he's just not that into you, moving along with life now."

I will note that I have not read the actual book, or plan on seeing the movie (like many of us here, chick flicks are NOT my thing, ESPECIALLY at $10 movie tickets).

I'll also add that I don't see it as a philosophy to get a man, but rather as a way to give yourself a break and have a healthier approach to dating and life in general. He's not that into you - use your brain power and energy catching up on your to-be-read booklist or having dinner with a friend you haven't seen lately instead!

1) What is "sexist rejection"? Can you contrast this with non-sexist rejection so I can have an idea what you mean by this?

2)I like how the author is called to task for basically gender boxing, meanwhile "men" is used in a general sense before referencing "constant asshole-like tendencies". Way to go. Generalities are only true when they are about the other, I suppose.

Reinforcement isn't the same as perception or belief. It's rewarding or encouraging a particular behavior.

So it is right to say he reinforces one behavior in women and a different one in men, even if those behaviors aren't inherent in being male or female.

My mom bought this book for me. I think she thought it was a joke.

It seems like solid advice, don't waste your time with dude's who don't like you.

But the tone of the thing is like, "Look you dumbass broad, he doesn't like you. HELLO! Are you listening?"

Geesh, can we have some compassion for the poor schmuck who just wants some affection.

I can really relate to alixana's opinion on this topic.

Being able to recognize when there are disproportionate amounts of energy and interest in a relationship is important for all people. Maybe the philosophy should be marketed as "that person just isn't that into you" in order to shift power away from men.

I've always found this a particularly sensible statement, alone and isolated... but perhaps not with all the anecdotal treatment of Behrendt/movie writers.

OK, I'm going along and agreeing, then I come to this: "men's constant asshole-like tendencies."

Gee, thanks for the gender stereotyping. Nice.

Part of me appreciates what the author of the book was trying to do. Women are indeed conditioned to be people-pleasers and believe that men's approval means more than anything. Greg Behrendt is addicted to privilege and won't actually recommend that women reject this paradigm completely, but he is saying that you shouldn't waste energy on men who don't love you whole-heartedly. It's actually good advice, as far as it goes. In our culture, pursuing a man who doesn't want you is just setting yourself up for humiliation---wish men got the same message that pursuing someone who doesn't want you is not well-advised.

But yeah. If you stop pursuing men who don't want you, it won't work for you unless you do it as part of a larger program of rejecting male domination, truly letting go of the belief that you are not an official member of the human race until a man chooses you. Women get desperate for male attention not because we're born saps, but because we realize that being part of a couple is what legitimizes you to the world. Behrendt accepts that premise, and therefore his book doesn't help at all, imo.

Greg Behrendt came to my college a few years ago, i didn't know who he was (other than a comedian - his stand up isn't bad) before going. My friend on the other hand had read his book, thought it was crap, and wanted to assault him with questions.

From what i know about the book from Greg's explanation, my friend explaining it, and from that sex and the city episode (i'm embarrassed to admit i remember), I think his idea would be a lot more effective if it wasn't gendered. Chasing after someone who isn't that into you is NOT just a girl thing. But in the end this book is just more generalized self help, so if that helps you then so be it.

I read this book ages ago. What bothered me most about was that it seems to have the opposite effect on women's self esteem. Too many little scenarios presented in the book were quickly reduced to 'Oh, hes just not that into you.' YOU asked HIM for his number?! (regardless of if he calls or not) 'Hes just not that into you.' YOU went up to HIM first!? and so on and so on. Basically it seemed to come down to, you were the one being assertive, its because he didn't care enough about you to do it first.

I read this to some of my guy friends who assured me this was not true and seemed to care more about my self esteem than Behrendt, who comes across as somewhat misogynistic.

I really have to disagree with all the people saying the book had a positive, "don't wait for him" kind of message. The message was more "Men don't like women who are the pursuers. Men are the natural pursuers. You should wait for us to chase you." Greg was also on Oprah once, and he said that if men are capable of running the world, why wouldn't we be capable of doing something as simple as picking up the phone and calling? That to me is not sensible or helpful, it sounds like he just wants to keep perpetuation patriarchal ideas about what a union between a man and woman should look like.

I think this reel was made in 1960 and they just simply picked it up, blew off the dust and tossed it into movie theatres in the 21st century.

So, because I am a little out of it when it comes to pop culture books, I had to look it up in Wikipedia. Best part of the entry?

"The book appears in Gilmore Girls episode "To Live and Let Diorama", when Lorelai Gilmore prepares the Dragon Fly Inn's library for her interview and states that all of the good books are gone, leaving her with 5 issues of He's Just Not That into You, which she hands an employee to dispose."

I love, and miss terribly, Gilmore Girls.

Like Medusa said, I don't think the message is totally positive. On one hand, it is good that it gets women away from defining themselves based on whether men like them or not, and that a rejection often says a lot more about him than it does about you. It is good that it encourages women not to put up with shitty behavior from guys. On the other hand, it also reinforces the patriarchal notions of "women shouldn't do the pursuing, men should." Aside from that, though, it treats all these situations like absolutes - like if he doesn't call you, he MUST not be interested. There's a lot of gray area though. Sometimes guys don't call because they're shy and it's just easier to wait for her to call. I personally hate calling strangers or people I've just met on the phone and try to get out of it if I can, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels that way. Other times, a guy doesn't necessarily realize you're flirting with him. Dropping your phone number to a member of the opposite sex, nowadays, does not automatically imply that you want a date; maybe you just want someone to call about the assignment for a class, or you want to be friends.
Plus, I've noticed a trend among my fellow Generation Y-ers where guys no longer feel the obligation to be the one that "asks" out (this is truer, of course, to people who grew up in the culture I did, where in most households both parents worked and had advanced degrees, and girls as well as boys were expected to do the same). Girls today ask guys out often enough that guys no longer feel like they have to be the one to do the job, and the fear of rejection is strong enough that they chicken out and wait for the girl to ask. At my high school, girls asked out guys far more often than the other way around. So it was easy to excuse guys who seemed interested but weren't courageous enough to make the first move.
I think this book, in essence, is

I read the book a while ago. My recollection is that in the opening chapters, the author said something to the effect of, "it's in a man's nature to pursue, to overcome challenges, to go for what they want, so if he isn't pursuing you, he doesn't really want you." So, the underlying premise of the book was, men are the hunters, men are aggressive creatures, men go for what they want, and all that stuff we hear over and over again. Even as a heterosexual woman who really, really wanted a boyfriend, I felt that this book wasn't for me -- I wasn't interested in a "men are from mars, women are from venus" dynamic in my relationship. I remember at the end of the book, the author said that there may be some guys out there who are too shy or too afraid to go for you, but would you really want such a weenie, and I thought to myself, yeah, if he were a nice, smart guy with great politics, I don't really care if he didn't "hunt me down."

I'm guilty for wanting to see it. It looks sort of cute and funny.(Sorry ladies!)

But contrary to the message of the book and movie, I was the pursuer in my current relationship of 2 1/2 years.
He was too shy and I am the total opposite, and we are very happy now in a feminist relationship.

I bet a shit-ton of women pursue their guys too. It's more common than the author apparently believes.

But there are people like my 26 year old sister, who absolutely would NOT pursue any guy. She is pretty young to be that traditional, but if she had NOT had this idea that 'guys aren't into you if they aren't constantly pursuing', then maybe she would have snagged herself a super shy, but hot nerd guy that definitely was into her, but she didn't think so because he wouldn't make the first move.

He's going to scare a lot of women into believing that they aren't good enough for all the guys out there who are too afraid to ask women out.

Its so annoying…and whats more disheartening is that…I want to see it! I want to see it because I want a damn “feel good” movie. Its sexist, racist, classist, homophobic bullshit…but I want to see that happy ending. And I aint going to find a Black chick flick that aint on the chitlin curcuit. I am ashamed but I just want to be honest right now. I’m going to see it, Im going to be pissed by it, but damnit..where else am I going to go? Point me to the theater thats showing the blockbusters that are representative of my life and the beautiful POC that flourish in it…nope, you cant direct me there so I guess Im going to take myself to this movie, with all my new white friends (im studying abroad and yes, i am the only black person) and im going to laugh myself silly all the while thinking…this aint me and the makers of the movie make it clear that all i am is an accessory never the outfit, a sidedish never the main course. I know. I know.

Like I said, I haven't read the book, but I think there is a vast difference between shyness and disinterest.

This books overall message is kind of crap, I think. I mean frankly, the only guys I've known who left absolutely no doubt in my mind as to whether they were interested, came across as a little creepy and controlling.

Maybe when you've been with someone for awhile you should be able to easily assess how into you they are. But when you're just starting off dating someone, I don't think it's that easy. I think books like this are very tempting because we WANT things to be easier. But, they usually aren't. I mean sure, there are people who fall for people very early on in their relationships. But for MANY of us it takes a long time, and for awhile we are ambivalent about the other person, even if we wind up really liking them after we get to know them better.

I've read the book and I think the basic premise is useful---if he ain't callin' etc. then he's not interested. Simple, but I think it's something we need to hear.

I think the book is wrong to say that men are persuers and that a girl can't ask a boy out...however, I think it would have been better to say that it's fine to ask a guy out, but just realize that, he might not be as interested as you are.

I think that's fair enough.

I also think the book also assumes that the girl reading the book is looking to get married which I find either to be helpful (if that's the case) or not.

I actually wrote a post about this because it really irked me and provoked a lot of questions:
http://community.feministing.com/2009/01/the-rules-and-such.html

and I look forward to your book! Dating as a feminist is very very hard.

There's a book that was written in response to "He's Just not that Into You" called "Be honest- you're not that into him either." It's interesting and written by a man at that.

I read much of it in one sitting at a bookstore. It is essentially a male columnist telling these women that their male love interests are passively losing interest in the relationship/fling/whatever. Much of the time, the men become less responsive, reliable, etc. The author/columnist, himself, admitted he's pulled the same type of passive tactics in dating relationships when he lost interest, but if he actually LIKED the woman he was dating at the time, he would be commonly COURTEOUS to her. (GOD FORBID!) lol

Seems to me like the book warns of and passively supports too many bullshit mind/relationship games. I usually feelit is best to be upfront and respectful, but what does an idealist know?

Additionally, why are the dating problems described in the book always a result of the woman being 'inferior' and not living up to an expectation? IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT GUY, HIMSELF, COULD HAVE ISSUES?