In honour of the announcement of the engagement of Seraphic Single, a Catholic writer in Canada (though we are sadly soon to lose her), I have made the effort to acquire a copy of The Rules, read them, and shall review them here for all the girls reading. Bear with me, gentlemen; I will post something philosophical within a couple of days.
First of all, for all those who have never heard of The Rules, the book advertizes them as “Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right.” I think The Rules can be summarized in a single sentence: don’t make yourself vulnerable. This doesn’t just mean the “don’t go to an unknown place with a stranger,” but don’t make yourself emotionally dependent on someone who has not committed to a relationship. Even within relationships, there are levels of ‘dependableness,’ and one ought not anticipate them by demanding more than has been offered. I think most of the particular instances of The Rules have a basis in common sense: Girls, don’t ask guys out, or you will never know if they were really interested in you and you set an awkward precedent for the rest of your relationship; don’t accept last-minute invitations, or you will be considered a last resort; make yourself hard-to-get, and men will try to get you. It reminds me of one of G.K. Chesterton’s Father Brown stories, The Queer Feet, in which he pointed out the phenomenon of the clique. “It was a thing which paid not by attracting people, but actually by turning people away.” Maybe true.
Some of the positive aspects of the book are its recognition of women’s natural hopes for a faithful, committed marriage and children. It points out how many women have become very successful in the eyes of the feminist, with careers and fortune, though they remain unhappy and unsatisfied. Again, it points out the importance of femininity and the fact that men and women are very different. Finally – and this is a very important point – it states that men are willing to do anything for the women they love. So many women today have been mislead into believing that a man’s love is something they have to earn, and they end up ruining their lives for someone who does not and cannot appreciate it. Having the confidence that there are men who will make the effort of planning a date just to be able to spend time with a woman is invaluable, and may save some women from throwing themselves away.
On the negative side, there are definitely some shortcomings in the morality. Sadly, even in the chapter for highschool aged girls, it doesn’t absolutely discourage sexual activity. The eventual goal of the “Rules Girl,” too, seems somewhat self-centered: “Love only those who love you.” While they maintain throughout the book that The Rules are only to make others happy, the ultimate aim is to be better loved by them. This is something of a vicious circle, of course, since it is difficult to love others unconditionally if they do not already love you, but the book leans a little in the direction of popularity-seeking rather than the end of having someone to love forever. Again, I think this wouldn’t necessarily work for all men. I have friends who have been discouraged after calling a girl a couple times on short notice to invite her to group events, without ever considering that planning a formal date for the next weekend might have greater success. Perhaps I should lend these young men the book… Finally – and this I found rather disturbing – the book seems to assume that most women are emotionally disturbed and damaged, and that many undergo therapy. If this is indeed accurate, and not a ploy to make non-therapy-seeking women feel better about themselves, it is reflecting a very disappointing state of affairs in our world today.
On the whole, I would summarize by repeating the words of Augustine: love, and then do what you will. That includes trying to understand men, not smothering them, and allowing them the fun of pursuit. However, I make no claim to be an expert; Seraphic definitely demonstrates success, though, and she defends The Rules eloquently.
As a guy who hates the rules, without ever having read them, I have a hard time saying (still) exactly why.
I like the traditional ideals of femininity. I like the idea of a lady playing “hard to get”. I like the idea that a Woman should deal with all matters of courtship in a manner which is good-natured and self-aware, and that a woman ought to expect a man to pursue her.
I think my dislike is based on three general principles; (1) As you also mentioned, there is this naieve idea that the authors have that chastity is not the foundation of all healthy relationships between men and women, when in fact it is precisely the point. You may as well write a book about surgery and leave off any mention of the danger of infections, as write a book on courtship that leaves aside chastity, or presumes that the modern idea of sleeping with him “if he loves you” is okay.
(2) I think several of the book’s practices are pedantic. If I asked a woman last minute to go to a lecture on Theology, it would annoy me to no end if she had to ask herself, “is this a date, and if so, did he ask me a sufficient number of days in advance, and can I go with him then, without breaking the rules?”. I believe a woman could easily remove herself from the running, for a perfectly decent “hypothetical good man”, merely by being punctilious over the various absurdities the book proposes, the book saddles both her, and her would-be boyfriend with a bunch of make-work.
(3) Some irrational part of me just hates the book, and finds anyone who would live her life by them irreduceably dense, silly, fatuous and absurd. I can’t quite explain it, otherwise. My girlfriend also hates the book, for intuitive reasons she can’t quite explain. She is a traditional old-fashioned morally upright, thoroughly Catholic, and I love her deeply. We have done very well finding each other, and she has found absolutely no need of “The Rules”. Several parts of our relationship are in fact in direct violation of said rules, and her success flies in the face of everything the book speaks of. For her, no rules were necessary, and would have got in our way immensely. Only chastity, and all the other virtues. Less rules, more virtues, ladies, if you please.
Your mileage may vary.
Warren
— Warren · Nov 20, 04:37 PM · #
Girlfriend? I thought you were a Franciscan. Third order?
I sympathize with your hatred of “The Rules,” though. While I like to make up my own arbitrary rules, I don’t really like to follow others’ rules; I think most situations are really exceptional rather than normal, and that one can’t apply rules universally. I definitely do not intend to live by “The Rules,” though some of them did explain things I hadn’t thought of before.
I agree that the virtues are all that are necessary. Actually, I think I would posit that what “The Rules” does wrong is over-emphasize and rigidify such virtues as prudence while disregarding such virtues as chastity.
But out of curiosity, what in your relationship with your girlfriend “flies in the face of everything the book speaks of”?
— Catherine · Nov 23, 02:10 PM · #
Secular Franciscans (third order) are lay people.
Warren
— warren · Nov 24, 11:33 AM · #
Makes sense. Sorry, I didn’t mean to be nosy. (Dagnabit, must be the American influence on me already…)
— Catherine · Nov 24, 02:09 PM · #
American influence, eh?
So, another great book (which is part captivating and part loathsome) is Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” The discussion here made me think of that book, which at one time I thought was incredible. Now I realize it was indeed a worthwhile read, but that its principles are really not so ‘virtuous’ as they once seemed. Have you read it?
— Andrew Haines · Nov 25, 09:51 AM · #
No apology needed! I greatly enjoy this kind of conversation.
Warren
— warren · Nov 25, 10:34 AM · #
Oh yes, I remember Carnegie’s book. The last chapter kind of freaked me out.
I think it’s hard to get a proper balance in such books: most people read them for selfish reasons (“I want more friends”) though the real way to get more friends is to be unselfish. So, they tend to teach charity for uncharitable reasons, if that makes sense.
— Catherine · Nov 25, 01:46 PM · #
if I may comment, I also like & dislike “The Rules” from the synopsis given.
From my youth, I encountered a similar set of “Rules” for guys, which I unfortunately and foolishly tried to model my romantic expectations by. Same kind of deal as warren’s problem with the book – tossing Chastity aside. – “legalism” – i.e. “3rd date, no kiss? go somewhere else” <- blind obedience of such rules may in fact be counter productive, especially when these rules are in fact not how you would act. The author’s rationale – “if you were you, she wouldn’t like you, so be like me.”
there were good things too, creative date ideas, working with your confidence to ask someone out, but my main problem is this – I am now a hard skeptic about ANY sort of self-help book, perhaps nearing that fine like from being skeptical to just arrogant.
Some of these lessons ought to have been taught by parents – Fathers teach your boys how to get a date, relate to girls, and how to treat a lady, and Mothers, teach your girls how to respond to guys and relate to them. Now with the increasing lack of role models, this can no longer be expected – and perhaps some will learn these lessons from books.
I don’t have a solution, but these books are not a total solution. Read with some caution
— Raphael · Nov 26, 04:13 PM · #
Ha – I like your point, Raphael, about such books’ implicit statement – “if you were you, she wouldn’t like you, so be like me.” I think a lot of self-help books, especially the more celebrity-driven, use exactly that premise to sell.
— Catherine · Dec 1, 03:36 PM · #