Am I just not that into 'He's Just Not That Into You"?

My best friend has been encouraging me for some time now to read He's Just Not That Into You. I'll admit it, I have avoided the book like the plague. I have avoided it because I assume it will tell me the painful truth--that he's just not that into me. Finally, today I decided to swallow my pride and check the book out. If he's not that into me then cool. Whatevs. I can handle it. So I read a few passages and have a few thoughts. Mind you, I have read very little of the book, so my opinions might be biased. Here are a few thoughts:

(1) Is it possible that I really sound as stupid as those women who write letters to Greg? Is my judgement that clouded?

(2) Contrary to my best friend's belief, I understand the concept of 'he's just not that into you,' and I got it the first time she explained it to me. Yet it is SO different to read passages from the book, even more so to read them aloud.

(3) The book is comforting in a sense because it offers women a simpler excuse (true or not) for why men are elusive, never call back, don't ask women out, etc. And yet it's painful. It's painful because rejection is painful and if 'he's just not that into you' then he is rejecting you. Duh.

(4) It's also painful because it offers no real answers. It's like after reading some passages I want to call up the authors and say, "no shit he's not that into me but that's not the fucking problem." The fucking problem is that relationships are not as simple as the woman not being able to decipher all 'man-speak' into 'he's just not that into me.' Yeah, it's great to know that all 'male vagueness' can be translated into "he's just not that into me," but I am not so sure that this is some big revelation to women. We are not fucking idiots.

(5) The problem is why should I have to put up with vague excuses (if men give excuses at all) as to why they are not into me. The problem is why am I, as a women, held to a different standard? Why must I be socially expected to spell things out while the man doesn't have to (because there are wonderful books out to help women deal with their inability to understand the simplicity of men).

(6) The problem is, why must I (according to the authors) sit and wait for a guy to be into me? The problem is that the book seems to encourage the traditional gender stereotypes of men as legitimate agents in the world and women as passive beings. The authors of He's Just Not That Into You encourage their readers to forget about the dude who isn't into you (good advice) and go find some dude who is (good advice). However, this good advice contradicts the premise of "he's just not that into you," namely that if he is into you he will let you know. Namely, that women shouldn't have to/get to do anything because if it's the right guy for her, he will let her know. I have one thing to say to that--What the fuck? Dude, and what if the women isn't looking for Mr. Right? What if she just wants to go on dates? Have a good time? Be an occasional dater? Greg, here's something maybe you don't understand about women--we don't loathe asking men out! We enjoy being active parts of our dating experiences! Maybe we rationalize for men 'not being into us' because we haven't been encouraged to be more active in our dating lives.

(7) There's one passage where a women writes about a guy who gave her his number and said, "Call me." She was into the move because she thought the dude was giving her control. He's not giving you control, says Greg. He's just making you do the 'heavy lifting.'

Partly, I agree. I mean, "call me" is the safe answer, it's non commital, it's the cop-out. Example: if she's not into him, he avoids the pain of finding it out in a more intimate or personal setting, i.e. if she's not that into him them she won't call him. Example: if she's not into him and doesn't call him, he essentailly avoids rejection. All he did was hand out his number; he never said "I like you, here's my number, call me." All this, according to the authors, translates into 'he's not that into you,' and partly I agree that this is the most likely senario.

But, partly, I disagree.
(a) What if it is lame and a cop-out, but the dude just has no game? What if he is super shy? Ok, so maybe I personally don't want to date a guy who is shy and cops-out like that, but does that mean I think he should get written off as a potential date forever and for everyone? No.
(b) Guys and gals are not (usually) born with game, it is a skill that takes some time and expereince to hone. The book seems to indirectly place value judegements on those who still don't have any game, in an effort to help women 'deal with' rejection.
(c) The fact that the dude is making the women do the "heavy-lifting" is an inadequate reason for his action to be wrong. In other words, it is not that a women 'doing heavy-lifting' or (as I like to put it) 'actively participating' in her dating expereince is undesired; what is undesired is the male vagueness. Unfortunatley, the authors do a poor job at distinguishing between the two.

(8) The problem is NOT that the authors give unsound advice in general. On the contrary; the advice the book gives in general is rad, i.e. don't chase after someone who isn't into you, don't hold onto something that isn't there, learn to accept rejection, don't make mountains out of mole hills, etc. However, the problem is that the advice also seems to encourage jadedness and discourage understanding. There have been many a time when I haven't been as spectacular as I wanted with men I liked; when I needed encouragement to speak about my feelings; when I was too shy to make a move; when I wasn't on top of my game; when I talked too much; when I had lower than normal self esteem; when I was depressed; etc. etc. There have been just as many times that I have been thankful that the dude didn't completely blow me off because of one or two slip ups; because I am not perfect; because I needed understanding. Everybody needs some understanding at some point in their life.

Personally, I am not that great at returning phone calls. I need my friends and family to understand this, and understand that I still love them. Mostly, they do and I love them for it.

(9) The problem with the book is that it is appears to be too black and white (which is probably why it is so popular) and doesn't leave enough room for grey area. I am not encouraging anyone to rationalize for anyone; to make up excuses instead of facing rejection. All I am saying is that life is not black and white. Ethics are not black and white. People are not black and white. So why should relationships be?