Why such hostility to getting married on a sailboat? I mean, it's not MY cup of tea, but, you know, whatever floats your boat.....

During the "heartwarming" scene in which Ginnifer Goodwin and that Apple computer guy finally get together, he says a bunch of stuff about how he was so hellbent on being in control of his life that he couldn't fall in love. *Insert commentary about patriarchy hurting men, too.*

I'm not sure I see what the patriarchy has to do with it: Needing to be in control seems to me like a pretty universal problem that maybe manifests itself differently in some men than some women to do socialization (ahem, eating disorders), but that in all its various manifestations undermines one's ability to have good relationships--of all sorts, not just romantic. Truly relating to another person is the most out-of-control thing anyone can do, because it requires you to accept that you cannot control them.

During the "heartwarming" scene in which Ginnifer Goodwin and that Apple computer guy finally get together, he says a bunch of stuff about how he was so hellbent on being in control of his life that he couldn't fall in love. *Insert commentary about patriarchy hurting men, too.*

Can others weigh in on how patriarchy forces men to have control of their lives, but removes the grasp of the ability to love someone?

just for the record, i have obsessed over a guy ONE time (when i was 16) and have been obsessed over/had clingy behavior directed toward me at least FOUR times that i can think of. women are not naturally clingy. men are not naturally clingy. it's just a matter of personality type. there are men with clingy, needy personalities. get over it, movie companies. it's life, deal with it and stop trying to make men look like the ones with the perpetual "upper hand". nope. not the way it works.

"Again, like Latoya, I thought they were going to have at least a few of the female characters end on a note of "who cares about dudes when you have your career and your girlfriends and your renovated house in a gentrifying neighborhood!" However, they really go out of their way to portray the women who are single at the end as either wet blankets or sluts who are basically unhappy with their single status"

I thought they did a pretty good job with the cheater's wife at the end. I was disappointed when he told her he'd slept with someone else and she blamed herself for not being sexually available enough. However I liked that she eventually did kick him out, throw his stuff downstairs, break his mirror, etc. And I liked that his mistress called him out for hiding her in the closet and left him. She also seemed fairly satisfied with her single status by the end of the movie as far as I can remember.

I'd rather get married on a sailboat than in a church!

I have not seen this movie, do not plan to, but your post does make me sad at the potential that was wasted. It sounds like it could have been so much deeper than it was, and that it took the easy 'out' by deciding to uphold ridiculous stereotypes.

Why did you go see and therefore support this movie?

I will admit to seeing this movie... you see, my boyfriend and I have a minor obsession with all things baltimore and felt we had to.

OK, moving past my shame, I will say I had the same reaction to the Jennifer Anniston/Ben Affleck relationship. My boyfriend and I were nudging and smiling throughout his entire speech as we are pretty close to their situation (as in never or not anytime soon getting married) and we were mortified that he "caved" at the end. It was like the goal of the movie was to invalidate his "silly" desire to have anything but a perfect, cookie-cutter heterosexual married life. And to reinforce that when Jennifer Anniston says she's ok with not getting married because she loves you (which we all know is ridiculous - women are only attracted to men who will give them big sparkly rings and save them from the horror of being single!), she doesn't or can't really mean it, so be a good boy and propose (with a diamond ring, as she is putting away your clothes).

wow, sorry for that rant. that whole relationship just really hit home for us, and not in a pleasant way. otherwise, i was glad "cheater" was dumped by both wife and mistress, but was left with the feeling that neither of them were as fulfilled as those who ended up in a relationship at the end.

lastly, i just wanted to note that this movie was quite obviously NOT filmed in baltimore. if the placement of Jennifer Anniston and Ben Affleck's apartment in relation to the Domino's Sugar sign was correct, they would have been floating in the middle of the harbor. oh, and there are no apartments that nice in Baltimore, and i can say that from experience : )

I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it as much as I expected to either. Conceptually, I thought it was a significant improvement on the book.

Mostly for the reasons you listed: Ben Affleck demonstrating that (gasp!) you could love someone without marrying them (even if, yes, he did cave in the end); Justin Long showing that men aren't the all powerful, decisive omniscient creatures Greg Behrendt portrays them to be in the book; and Kevin Connelly showing that it's not just women who get needy and obsessive about people they like.

A small step for humankind, but a not insubstantial one for HJNTIY.

I'm pretty sure the reason men come up with, or reward, movies that portray women as desperate and clingy is because they only wish. It makes them feel big, strong, desired and very much in demand. Only problem is, when they run into reality, they get mad because it isn't like all the crap that's been shoveled into their heads. Then they sometimes try and get even, by acting pissy and accusing their targets of thinking they're all that (aka you uppity woman you, for acting like a person with rights, like the right to reject me) because their sense of entitlement has been damaged. Now THAT is a reason to hate this kind of film. In a word: if religion is the opiate of the masses, then sex-on-demand-with-women-slaves is the opiate of manhood. And romance is supposed to be the opiate of womanhood - but it sure ain't workin' on me.

Next time, pay to see another movie and then sit in that one; that way, you won't contribute to its box office count :)

I barely even go to the movies anymore, and I stay far away from anything called a "romantic comedy." I'm also just sick of how women are portrayed in Hollywood. The upcoming "Confessions of a Shopoholic" is a perfect example. I want to see an example of a woman who is confident and intelligent, not clingy, ditzy, and fashion obsessed.

Ricky from My So Called Life is involved in this drek?!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

What's funny/sad is that my friend read the book and said it empowered her. She also saw the movie.

Obviously, I still have work to do in converting her.

Although all of the other plot lines were pretty ridiculous, I actually liked the Jennifer Aniston/Ben Affleck ending. I don't think he "caved"; rather, I think once he realized that the person he loved was willing to forego one huge thing that mattered to her in order to be with him (as Jen agrees to be together and not get married--I love her speech about how he's more of a husband to her than most husbands), then he, in turn, is willing to give her something she wants because he loves her. They BOTH realized that being together was more important than their respective opinions on marriage and were willing to compromise to make the other person happy (even if the sailboat was a little cheesy).

I’m SO glad someone finally wrote a post about this, as I couldn’t quite get over my anger enough to write my own. I went to see this movie on opening night with some friends (who all LOVED the book and then of course LOVED the movie) and I felt like the only one in the theater sitting there cringing and trying not to yell at the screen. Usually I can get into rom-coms, but this one left a sour taste in my mouth the entire time. I felt like all the women were portrayed as neurotic, emotional train wrecks who are just out to tie a man down and marry him (especially Ginnifer Goodwin’s character, it was like they took every nasty, “typical female dating” stereotype and threw it on her). Meanwhile, it gave the men an excuse to be jerks by lying to women and/or leading them on because the women just needed to learn that “that’s how men are” and “that’s how men show that they’re not into you,” so you need to adapt your behavior to them because men will always act this way. Oh, and of course, sometimes these men just aren’t that into you because you’re the one actually trying to pursue them (as someone said above, Justin Long’s character initially loses interest in Ginnifer’s because she kisses him).

I think part of the reason I hated this movie so much is because it’s based off of a “self-help” book. I haven’t read the book so I can’t compare the two very well, but it seemed like all of the relationship scenarios in the movie may have been based on examples from the book. It made me feel as though the movie was a continuation of the book, like the women in the audience should learn from these examples and these women’s mistakes. This was especially true with Justin’s character. If what I’ve heard/read about the book is true, it seems like he was pretty much quoting Greg Behrendt’s advice word-for-word (of course, later, his character does seem to have a change of heart, but he also makes a point of saying that he is the “exception to the rule”).

Another moment that made me cringe, and maybe it just happened to be the theater/crowd that I saw it with, but at the end, when they do the little follow-up interviews with the characters, several people shouted “slut” or “whore” when they talked to Scarlett Johansson’s character. Now I know you can make moral arguments about how what she did was wrong, but does that really warrant people calling her a slut? Especially since, to me, she was the only relatable, semi-normal woman in the movie and her interview was about how she was going off to India to find herself, which I feel is far more important than the movie’s message of trying to find a man. It just reiterated the fact that even if you only slightly transgress normal gender roles/stereotypes you’re dismissed as a slut, and the fact that not only did the audience pick up on that idea, but agreed with it made me really sad.

I disagree that feminists should not see bad Hollywood movies with the goal of critique.

Any feminist who has any sort of platform--whether it be as a movie critic for her or his local newspaper, as a blogger, or, most importantly, as a participant in informal conversations with family and friends who are NOT feminists--should see the movie and comment on it.

If we don't, how can we spread the good word of feminism/humanism to non-professing family and friends who ARE chatting about pop culture?

If I hadn't flipped the channel and stumbled across ABC's PRIVATE PRACTICE, seen some issues of note for humanist thought, and then kept watching the show, I wouldn't have been able to make points about the show to a woman at work who actually said "Hmm, I never thought about [that feminist perspective] before."

Pop culture is an important part of the culture of all countries and most societies, and feminists need to be "everyday critics" of it. We ignore pop culture to our own detriment and the detriment of our movement.

And along those lines,

My full analysis would be far too long to post here, but here are a few choice bits.

I saw the movie at the request of a good friend but I was very happy to oblige her, because I wanted to know what was being put out there for public consumption.

I had the singluar experience of despising almost every message and character arc in the film and yet enjoying the movie as well. I never thought I would say this, but, cop-out marriage notwithstanding, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston actually SAVED a movie for me.

Affleck was completely non-offensive, even likeable in his role (of course, I sympathize with people who don't want to get married), but they should have fleshed out more WHY he had such a strong aversion, to make explicit to marital-normative audiences that people don't need a reason not to get married. I was looking for him to respond to his male friend's question with sometihng like, "You know what? I think the fact that you're asking me that question is messed up. It's the principle of the matter. We have to get past this idea that society has to put its impramatur on a union before its valid." (Even a more pedestrian reason such as "my parents' divorce scarred me" would have taken him out of the bucket of "MEN JUST HATE MARRIAGE! It's in their natures as sperm-spreaders and hunters!" to which the audience likely relegated him.)

But my biggest issue was with the off-the-charts gender essentialism of the piece. Even my friend, who is NOT very consciously feminist-minded, said "These women are caricatures."

The movie begins with a social scientists' delight: a voice-over and playground scene essentially suggesting that SOCIALIZATION, not essential nature, is what's responsbile for women's behavior around and expectations of men. If the movie had remained true to this message, then what follows--a montage of women in non-Western societies all acting out the same Western-normative behaviors--could have been viewed as acceptable. After all, if gender behaviors are socialized, then they are socialized in each society around the world, too.

Then we enter shaky ground But the movie revokes its promise of anti-essentialism by showing each woman--to the last one--being obsessed with marriage/commitment, dating, and men...almost as if they are driven by an inner, essentially female force. Recall carefully the scene at the end when Scarlet Johansson's character turns down Conor's proposal. YES, she turns him down, but only because he's not the man of her choice. She says: "I've always dreampt of settling down with marriage and babies. It's always been my dream," and then rejects *this* man because she wants that unquestioned and agressively advocated heteronormative dream with some other man.

[Nothing wrong with having that dream individually; problem is that the movie and society tell us we *must* (ALL) want and have it to].

In light of this, the montage at the beginning is egregious. It suggests that women around the world are essentially, by nature, the same. It denies the roles of widely divergent societies in shaping women and men's roles in widely divergent ways. It gives us amusing but absurd vignettes in which Euro-American women, fashionable Japanese mall-goers, Black American women, and African women outside a village hut all replicate the same U.S.-centric, Euro-American construction of gender and courtship.

The audience is given to believe, in light of the entire movie's depiction of women, that (a) women's nature around the world is essential by dint of biology, and (b) that this essential nature follows exactly the pattern of mainstream, European-American society.

What an absurdity!

I'm so TIRED of the "he's just not that into you" phenomena. It's become a trite, dismissive, vaguely hostile way of summing up any and every problem between hetereo singles. I think it is the dismissiveness that irks me, and also the assumption that the mixed signals one is getting from a man are not his fault, but YOUR fault, that you are so DUMB that you can't see that this guy is "JNTIY". Who is this guy, Behrendt? And what makes him such an expert on relationships???He's just some chump who got lucky with a stupid catch phrase, as far as I can tell. I'm tired of talking to friends about painful disappointments or romantic situations and having them utter the dread phrase. I read that stupid book and I have to say, it wasn't all that helpful with it's breezy, know-it-all attitude. I'd also like to say, that I was in a SEVEN YEAR relationship with someone that at first (if the phrase had been around) people insisted was not someone I should be pursuing. I'm sure Behrendt would have shouted "he's just not that into you!" , but I'm glad I followed my heart and my brain (and let's face it my gonads), because I cherish the memories of that relationship. (the person passed away three years ago). I think women need to listen to THEMSELVES, first and foremost, not well meaning chumps who think they know it all. Even well meaning friends don't know what is best for you, only you do. The "HJNTIY" phenomena assumes that everyone knows better than the woman herself. That is perhaps what may be so pernicious about it. I think women should follow their guts. They can hash it out with friends and loved ones, even read that crappy book if they must, but ultimately, one should go with their own passionate gut feelings. Then again, I am not looking to breed and I don't mind "short term" situations. I've had plenty of relationships that were clearly not going to be "until death do us part) (and one that was!) and they have been satisfying. (which is not to say that there hasn't been heartbreak) Anyway, the real problem is as some of these posters have said, that women's desires are perceived as monolithic and that we are all exactly the same. Hardly. Mr. Berendt's ideas about womanhood smack of condescending paternalism.

I watched the movie and I think that, like what most of you have said, there's a lot of sexism and patriarchy ideology conveyed throughout. Why haven't they provided a variety of scenarios from real life? etc... but you know what, I did not come out this movie empty handed, and it was not a total waste of my time. Let's face it, we create a world of ideas and imagery -as women- that don't really apply or exist in the real world and we build on that... watching the movie was an eye opener to me. I never thought of some of the situations I've personality been through the way they were presented to me in this movie. And I just find myself, now, being more honest to myself and to others. Even after watching the movie, I still have hard time to tell myself "he is not interested, move on" as Alex -the bartender was telling Giggi because we are not used to hearing the truth. women find excuses to the most inexcusable situation because that's what we do best.
As far as the whole men are the ones in "control", I think for most of the time it is the case unfortunately. I think it shouldn't be this way but it is. Patriarchal society has establish the fundamental rule of engagement "men hunt, women nest" and this is so unfair. We must agree to the fact that a woman has to "like" the person as well. But if she's the initiating, or doing the hunting...it comes out so wrong. She becomes a threat...a freak...obsessed etc... that's so not right.

I agree with most of what has been said here but there's something that really irked me and hasn't been mentioned. That scene of about 5 seconds where the women in 'Africa' (yes, the country Africa) are talking about a guy who lost someone's hut number/got eaten by a lion. It's so reassuring to know that today we still cannot view Africa as a continent comprised of different nations with diverse populations. People, not caricatures. I felt that moment was overtly racist and really quite shocking. But it wasn't HJNTIY's fault, this is a common belief in the developed world, and it reminds me a lot of the colonialst/imperialist mentality. We still do not view 'Africa' as a place where real individuals live. In the 19th century the colonialist perspective painted Africans as savages, yet what has really changed?

I thought they did a pretty good job with the cheater's wife at the end. I was disappointed when he told her he'd slept with someone else and she blamed herself for not being sexually available enough. However I liked that she eventually did kick him out, throw his stuff downstairs, break his mirror, etc. And I liked that his mistress called him out for hiding her in the closet and left him. She also seemed fairly satisfied with her single status by the end of the movie as far as I can remember.