in fact, it sounds like what you are grieving (even in your dream) is not the loss of the relationship even, but the hurt from the fact that he really didn't want you the way you wanted him to want you. It's ego-crushing. But truly, it's not about you. It's about him.
OK, no - it's just not as simple as "he didn't really want me the way I wanted him to want me." He absolutely *did* want me in that way before we started not getting along. If I had acted like a Rules Girl from early on I have no doubt he would continue wanting me. Rather, he didn't want the relationship because I was difficult and we fought a lot. For my part, I didn't act like a Rules Girl because I was insecure and because I'm pretty sure I wanted him to be someone else. At the end, he did not have the requisite feelings for me, true - that was more or less mutual - but his feelings turned south because the relationship was messy. I have absolutely no doubt of this and I doubt he would dispute it either. He had issues and I had issues, our issues were incompatible and yes, we may have been as well.
Even though "he's just not that into you" is maybe not what PRG meant when she made this comment, her sentiment provides a good illustration for why I really can't stand that trendy phrase. (Ironically, I think my view on this comes through in the movie 'He's Just Not That Into You.')
Oversimplifying or circularly defining the reason why something didn't work out is no more useful than clinging to false excuses that avoid any kind of harsh truth. Both are equally cop-outs, and both absolve women of any introspection or responsibility for their own actions that may have contributed to problems in the relationship. It is simply not the case that the only reason that things don't work out is because the man is not "that into" the woman, and that there is no such thing as commitment-phobia, emotional unavailability, too much drama, or bad timing.
I'm not sure why the same women who treat politics and music and sports and business and house-buying at a nuanced level of discourse must use sound bytes to post-mortem about men. "He's just not that into you" accuses these often-bandied-about "excuses" of overcomplicating a simple reality to salvage our egos, but I think both extremes are in fact oversimplifying. I find frankly insulting the notion that any discussion of factors contributing to romance's demise is either (i) a result of the man's base lack of desire; or (ii) made-up bullshit. Slightly less offensive to my sensibilities but still an oversimplified sound byte is "you just weren't right for each other." Such simplistic views of the world are untenable in the context of a living relationship, so why do we as women suddenly find it empowering to embrace them to wave off a dead one?
In my particular case (maybe it's my ego that's making me say this) I do not think my sadness post-breakup or my wistful reaction to seeing the ex again had anything to do with ego. By the time I saw him again, my ego was just fine. And, as PRG pointed out, I'm even better now that I've seen him. I'm not nervous about running into him. I actually don't think about him much at all.
No, I personally get upset post-relationship, as always, because I have been a codependent relationship addict my entire life. I had a terrible pattern of wanting back and sometimes pursuing exes whenever I don't happen to be receiving male adulation from elsewhere.
If I were to ignore this truth, and simply chalk the relationship failures up to "he's just not that into me" (or in the case of relationships I ended, "I'm just not that into him,") I would never have had the wherewithal to fix a problem that has undermined my confidence, and likely diseased all of my relationships.
I maintain my position that Rules Girls don't need "he's just not that into you." That concept, as far as it goes, is present in an appropriately understated way in the Rules, e.g., "He'll either love you or he won't"; relationships are doomed if women initiate them, and so on. That's all well and good, and I am really on board with the whole, let's weed out guys who aren't that into me by making them put in effort up front However, attributing greater significance to it than that unnecessarily ties a specific reason to something that might simply lack a reason; additionally/alternatively, it causes us to ignore real reasons that might benefit us to explore.
To be clear, I have no problem with the notion that some guys aren't that into me - that is of course true, and the weeder function of the Rules is one of my absolute favorites.
Before my blog-experiment is over, I will have to actually read this book just so I can support my point of view with my own firsthand interpretation as opposed to my many friends' interpretations. And hey, girls, if this helps you, great. Just don't be surprised if I continue to roll my eyes when you trot it out.
Well let's start with, perhaps my little psycho-analysis was wrong. (I don't think so from what I know, but I am willing to consider the possibility.)
ReplyDeleteThat said,
Although I understand what you said about doing things that eventually may have completely undermined the relationship with your ex, and after clarifying that I also *very highly value introspection on what my part in the demise of any relationship is* so that I can try not to repeat it, I still think sometimes we have a tendency to confuse feelings created by the loss of a dream ("what could have been") with feelings about the loss of "what actually was". So we look wistfully back on a relationship with blinders on, or blame ourselves (or them) in order not to look at the real underlying problems that existed. It's nice to look lovingly on past experiences, but let's face it... if the relationship was that good, you'd still be together. And I still think this is what you were processing the other night.
Why we do this? I think it's mostly to protect ourselves from feeling stupid or naive if we were to truly look back at the reality of the situation and what others around us probably had been seeing for a while before the demise of the relationship.
In your case with your ex... You acted badly. Agreed! And I'm not justifying that, but what caused you to react so strongly in such a negative way? Things weren't matching up between your needs and his needs. Period. True, you didn't handle it well, but that was a symptom, not the root problem, which I would guess was incompatibility and expectations. So go ahead and blame yourself for turning him into "being not that into you", but there's a whole lot more to it.
Speaking of which, I didn't actually reference HJNTIY in the quote you pulled and wasn't trying to imply it either. There are lots of things that ruin relationships, obviously. And in fact, I think HJNTIY is more helpful when looking at stalled relationships (when everyone is behaving appropriately and things seem OK but the relationship loses traction) and/or as a weeding philosophy. I don't look at it as being intended to be used as a post-break-up soother so that we don't have to take responsibility for our part, which is how you mostly reference it. It's more intended to help you stop tricking yourself into making excuses for bad behavior and to know when something has met it's full-potential and probably isn't going to go any further so that you can understand when it's time to NEXT him if the relationship stops progressing inexplicably--basically a helpful extension to emotionally assist you in implementing the rules without all this worry about how he's going to view you not texting him back, etc. Read it.
- A Practicing Rules Girl
Hmm... I mean, I just don't think I reacted that strongly to seeing him (if my entry indicates otherwise, it is likely due to overdramatization for literary effect).
ReplyDeleteOr are you talking about how I reacted to the breakup itself? If so, your psychoanalysis is wrong there (if your psychoanalysis is that I reacted so negatively because he didn't want me the way I wanted him to want me). I had wanted out of that relationship for months, but I was addicted to being in *a relationship.* My reaction was of one being cut off from a drug cold turkey. We won't get into my divorce, my first high school relationship, or my traumatic college breakup, but all are very similar addict-type situations.
The HJNTIY mentality is so frustrating because it is at once overly simplistic, trivializing of serious emotions, and *impossible to refute* because its disciples are so blindly adherent that they enjoy pigeonholing every human situation into it. The HJNTIY response to what I just said is "well, of course you wanted out of the relationship, BECAUSE HE JUST WASN'T THAT INTO YOU." "He didn't want the drama because he just wasn't that into you." Come ON. I find that something that purports to explain everything usually turns out to explain nothing in the end. But even if there is a grain of truth in it, the situation nearly always amounts to more than that. Why would you pick *that* grain, out of the many that exist, to assess a long-term relationship?
I argued about this again yesterday with another of my friends who phrased it as "most relationships end because one person cares less about the other." I don't even know where to start with this one. Some people may believe things are that simple, but I do not, especially when two people have been together for a long time. If one person cared less about the other in my relationship, I honestly don't know who it was. In our case, caring for each other was exactly what kept us together for so long despite not really *liking* each other that much.
There are many situations where there are a lot of feelings but also a lot of drama, and then both parties get tired of the drama and start feeling exhausted and not right. (I am not talking about my own relationship here, but my best friend's - they got back together and broke up nearly a dozen times before finally calling it quits over e-mail.) I don't think "he's just not that into you" has any place in explaining what went wrong there. Too many sparks can cause too big of a fire. By trying to stretch this and other situations into a simple lack of interest, we do ourselves and our relationships injustice.
Anyway, I posted "as if" because it was connected to my Rules activity, but this blog is NOT intended to be a referendum on that relationship. Quite the opposite. I have done my introspection on that - I believe said introspection to be honest - and I'm leaving it in the past where it belongs. I expect that this will be my last entry where I reference him at all.
PS PRG, I should note that you're not wrong that what I was "grieving" was what I hoped the relationship was rather than what it actually was. I intended to convey as much through my Haman/Mordechai metaphor. I just don't think that's the same thing as saying that I wanted him to *want* me more. I think that indicates an unfair imbalance that didn't exist. The imbalance was my relationship addiction versus his visceral aversion to any conflict whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteI think both of those traits about us were flaws, and flaws that were pretty frigging incompatible. One thing that we sort of agreed upon in the end (probably the only thing) was that we both loved each other despite our flaws and not for them. I couldn't see the good qualities in his flaws and he couldn't see the good qualities in mine. It's inaccurate to frame the relationship and its demise in terms of him and his wants, when it was really about both of us. Regardless of who ultimately pulled the trigger.
OK, done with that. I don't really get much out of thinking/talking about this particular relationship anymore, although I may explore the whole "relationship addiction" thing later, since that - more than the ex - is tied into this experiment. :)
"Oversimplifying or circularly defining the reason why something didn't work out is no more useful than clinging to false excuses that avoid any kind of harsh truth."
ReplyDeleteIt can be -- when a simple reason is the truth. And sometimes it is.
"Both are equally cop-outs, and both absolve women of any introspection or responsibility for their own actions that may have contributed to problems in the relationship."
Sometimes there really isn't any introspection to be done. Sometimes a dude just doesn't like you enough. Not always, but sometimes.
"It is simply not the case that the only reason that things don't work out is because the man is not "that into" the woman, and that there is no such thing as commitment-phobia, emotional unavailability, too much drama, or bad timing."
Commitment-phobia and bad timing *are* JNTIY. Yes, he's JNTIY *because* of his commitment-phobia or bad timing, but that doesn't make it any less JNTIY. Because neither of those things is the chick's fault.
"I have been a codependent relationship addict my entire life. I had a terrible pattern of wanting back and sometimes pursuing exes whenever I don't happen to be receiving male adulation from elsewhere.
If I were to ignore this truth, and simply chalk the relationship failures up to "he's just not that into me" (or in the case of relationships I ended, "I'm just not that into him,") I would never have had the wherewithal to fix a problem that has undermined my confidence, and likely diseased all of my relationships."
Fine, but that's you. So JNTIY wasn't the truth for you. That doesn't mean it's not true for others sometimes.
I really think you should read the book. The authors don't present JNTIY as the answer for all relationship failures. They provide 10 situations and describe them as JNTIY. Now it's true that these situations aren't always JNTIY in real life. But so what? The book just gives you food for thought and the ability to identify JNTIY when it's happening. I don't think anyone's saying JNTIY is always the explanation.
Yeah, I will read the book eventually. And your view of it seems more measured than what I've heard. I just don't like hearing it thrown around all the damn time for every damn situation. I hate sound bytes to describe relationships in general. I find they trivialize human emotion.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with HJNTIY for guys dropping off the map at the beginning. I think that's probably true. But once things get more complicated, I would say it's probably the exception.
I also take issue with the proposition touted by HJNTIY fans that "there's no such thing as commitment phobia or emotional unavailability when it's the right girl." I think that is total and complete bullshit. There are guys who do this, then come to their senses and regret it forever. Hasn't anyone heard of "the one that got away"?
I had a male friend recently who discussed his girl problems with me. Basically the girl broke up with him because she thought he just wasn't that into her (not using the terminology, but that was the gist). She explained this to my friend using several pieces of evidence. My friend's reaction was to object and to defend the actions she described - basically "that doesn't mean anything." I told him that was the wrong approach. I said that he should instead say "okay, you're right, those actions weren't cool, but I am ready now and you won't see that from me anymore."
Was my friend just not that into the girl before? I think that's probably an argument of semantics. Some would say he wasn't that into her, but is now (as Anonymous just did); I would say that he wasn't ready to commit and had some practical reservations about the relationship. Funnily, I was the one telling my friend that his practical reservations wouldn't matter if he was really that into her - I think that's probably true on some level, but come on. It's not good to just blindly throw everything away for love, even if you are "that into" someone.
In short, I don't think emotions should be defined solely in terms of actions. That's a dangerous game, and has not held true in my own life.
"It's not good to just blindly throw everything away for love, even if you are "that into" someone. "
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with this, especially as you get older and have a lot more responsibilities. I was in a similar situation as your friend once so I can see his perspective. Just because you don't dismantle your life instantaneously for a girl doesn't mean you don't love her and want to be in a committed relationship. Sometimes the situation is complex enough that you need to work out a lot of external factors first. What if you're a single parent and have to worry about your own children and their future, or you have an extremely important job and a career you want to develop that's highly dependent on location, or a sick relative you must care for? Most of us as we age aren't in the position to drop everything without serious contemplation.
In contrast, a good friend of mine is in love with a girl he met on the internet who lives about 2,000 miles away from him, and he's told me he'd move out to her city without a moment's hesitation and completely leave his old life behind, but the difference is he has very little responsibility and, besides a few friends, wouldn't really be leaving anything meaningful. I may have done the same in my late teens and early 20's but then I was still basically a child.
I just want to point out that it is fascinating to me that you are consistently using the word "bytes" (groupings of eight bits) instead of "bites" (a small piece of something).
ReplyDelete-- BR