So I was reading the book "He's Just Not That Into You" by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo. Not that I am in the dating scene and thank God I am SO out of that hell hole, but my friend was talking to me about it, and I've seen the movie, (and watched the movie again while I was reading the book :). The entire book can be boiled down to one point: If a guy is not calling you, he's not interested in you. And the secondary message is: Never attempt to call, and move on.
Okay, as a female who was once in the dating scene, I gave the author (mostly Greg's male point of view) lots of credit for pointing out all the signs when a guy is not interested and all the excuses women come up with to explain the men's seemingly complex behaviors. I mean, wow, I have at some point in my life came up with most of those excuses myself. It would have been helpful to have read the book back then. That said, I strongly dislike his point that a woman should never initiate the call.
Sure, if a man is obviously not interested, there is no point in calling. I get that. But why do I get the feeling that men are encouraged to do the opposite? (Granted, the book is called He's Just Not That into You, not She's Just Not That Into You.) Haven't we all seen those stupid romance movies where a guy will persistently pursue a woman who's not interested and get the girl in the end? Why is that kind of behavior from a man considered as romantic??
Regardless, my point is not that women should all turn into stalkers. My point is: before there are signs and while you are still the murky area of perhaps and maybes, why can't a woman call? Sure, I get it that if he's interested, he'll call; if he doesn't call, he's not interested. Okay, re-read that last sentence and tell me it's not as sexist as Cinderella. Yes, the Cinderella; the story, not the character. Just take a moment and think: the prince is of the right age to wed. What did he do? Collected all the fair maidens in his kingdom, and possibly the next few over, so he can have his pick. And what did he base his decision on? Her LOOKS, and looks alone ... okay, maybe her hot bod too (and keep in mind that this female is to become the Queen of his kingdom. Ugh.) If that does not objectify women, I don't know what does. Telling a woman to just wait for the man to call is just the modern day version of it. There is a difference between "you don't need to call" versus "you shall not call, no matter what." Holy cow, are we still in the 1960's?
Is it really that horrible for a woman to be assertive, knows what she wants, and aggressively goes after it just like her male counterparts (and also take rejections just like her male counterparts)? Have I done that in the past? Yes. Did it work? No. (I didn't say Greg was wrong.) Will I do it again if I ever find myself in that situation again? Hells, yes. Frankly, if the guy can't handle someone aggressive and forthcoming, he's probably the right person for me anyway. Let that be the litmus test.
I sure hope that that is just the retrosexual Gen X males' unspoken standards/expectations/rules. I've polled a few of my Gen X male friends. They didn't seem too bothered by women who'd take the initiative and make the first call. Now, that's progress. (Hmmm, does that mean I'll have to look for someone Gen Y if I ever look again? That'd really make me a cougar. =D)