I read. A lot. (I don't really do much WORK at work, so I just read the whole time waiting for something to happen) If anyone ever tells me a book is good, or if it seems interesting, or if it's some giant pop phenom (like this book was) I get it from the library and I read it. FYI, you can read this book in about 3 hours starts to finish, even less time if you filter out all the filler, which is what most of it is. Many girls use this book as a blueprint, so I figure why not read the blueprint so many girls are using?
Have any of you guys here read this thing? It's hilarious. The basic premise is actually decent advice for women. Basically, if a guy isn't treating you right or not committing as much as you need, instead of spending all your mental energy trying to get in his head and figure out why, just dump him and move on. It's similair to the whole nexting thing we do here.
The book gets in trouble because, well, there's not enough to the idea to fill an entire book. So he reaches a lot. The type of guy he's telling these women to hold out for simply doesn't exist (furthermore, isn't necessarily the type of man every woman on earth would be happy with), and the men he warns them against are straw man scenarios (A straw man scenario is when you build up an idea in such a way that no one would ever hold it to be true, and then knock that idea down. It accomplishes nothing. Like saying, "some people might say that it's ok to kill a homeless man because homeless people are worthless, but I think that's wrong." That's a straw man argument because you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would honestly say that killing homeless is ok.) He uses lots of "real life" scenarios to prove his point, but many of them are just pure *******s so using them as examples doesn't really do anything. Like saying, "if he's married to another woman he won't leave because they have children, he just isn't that into you" doesn't really get anything done, because if a woman is dating a man like that and can't see that it's a bad idea, no book in the world is going to help her.
The biggest problem with the book is, taken as a whole, you could almost infer "If he isn't willing to marry you after the first night he's met you, he's just not that into you." It becomes this giant catch all, and is too narrow sighted to do much good with a lot of reasonable scenarios. Basically, it doesn't allow for men to be real people. Many of the "real life" scenarios in the book are letters written from the same woman who is dating a douche who doesn't seem to care all too much for her. He keeps her around because he doesn't want to be alone, and she'll put up with all his crap and worship him the whole time. The author uses this one douche to prove many of his thinner points.
What I disliked the most about his conception of what kinds of guys "Just aren't that into you" doesn't allow any man to not know exactly how he feels about every thing all the time (and let's be honest, most men don't have the emotional training to always know how they feel. We're taught at young ages to learn to tune out emotions.) He doesn't allow a guy to both be in love with his girlfriend, and not be ready to get married.
By the end, it seems like he's taken some decent advice, and blown it so out of proportion as to be useless.
Did anyone else read it? What did you think?
Have any of you guys here read this thing? It's hilarious. The basic premise is actually decent advice for women. Basically, if a guy isn't treating you right or not committing as much as you need, instead of spending all your mental energy trying to get in his head and figure out why, just dump him and move on. It's similair to the whole nexting thing we do here.
The book gets in trouble because, well, there's not enough to the idea to fill an entire book. So he reaches a lot. The type of guy he's telling these women to hold out for simply doesn't exist (furthermore, isn't necessarily the type of man every woman on earth would be happy with), and the men he warns them against are straw man scenarios (A straw man scenario is when you build up an idea in such a way that no one would ever hold it to be true, and then knock that idea down. It accomplishes nothing. Like saying, "some people might say that it's ok to kill a homeless man because homeless people are worthless, but I think that's wrong." That's a straw man argument because you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would honestly say that killing homeless is ok.) He uses lots of "real life" scenarios to prove his point, but many of them are just pure *******s so using them as examples doesn't really do anything. Like saying, "if he's married to another woman he won't leave because they have children, he just isn't that into you" doesn't really get anything done, because if a woman is dating a man like that and can't see that it's a bad idea, no book in the world is going to help her.
The biggest problem with the book is, taken as a whole, you could almost infer "If he isn't willing to marry you after the first night he's met you, he's just not that into you." It becomes this giant catch all, and is too narrow sighted to do much good with a lot of reasonable scenarios. Basically, it doesn't allow for men to be real people. Many of the "real life" scenarios in the book are letters written from the same woman who is dating a douche who doesn't seem to care all too much for her. He keeps her around because he doesn't want to be alone, and she'll put up with all his crap and worship him the whole time. The author uses this one douche to prove many of his thinner points.
What I disliked the most about his conception of what kinds of guys "Just aren't that into you" doesn't allow any man to not know exactly how he feels about every thing all the time (and let's be honest, most men don't have the emotional training to always know how they feel. We're taught at young ages to learn to tune out emotions.) He doesn't allow a guy to both be in love with his girlfriend, and not be ready to get married.
By the end, it seems like he's taken some decent advice, and blown it so out of proportion as to be useless.
Did anyone else read it? What did you think?