Andrea’s review of Burn the Haystack: Decode Dating, Torch the Duds, and Make Room for Men Who Matter ― A Guide to Modern Dating > Likes and Comments
50 likes · Like
Cali wrote: "I was looking forward to reading all the comments and see there are none. Well let me chime in.
I have no desire to read this book. I am a feminist who loves women. I’m also a feminist who loves ..."
I feel the same way about the "don't" list. And Jennie says she also feels that way, but only for men's profiles; on a woman's profile, it's an effective "bitchy" way of weeding out "duds." But I think it's more likely that it works the same way for both -- signaling that you're a difficult person so that the only ones who message and initiate something are either a) predators looking for someone vulnerable or b) extremely agreeable people who don't see the red flags.
The whole book drove me nuts. Even moreso than her combination of misandry and misogyny, the absolute lack of curiousity about any field of knowledge other than her own, and her refusal to take any critique seriously, I honestly think women are going to be hurt or killed. Abusers fake it to earn trust and make women vulnerable by being as nice and trustworthy as they need to be, by saying the things they need to say, until they think they've got you -- and her method specifically will not only fail to identify these men but will label them as "needles" and make women more vulnerable.
This is a great, thoughtful review. Thank you!
Emily wrote: "This is a great, thoughtful review. Thank you!"
Thank you!
Well said, Andrea! I couldn’t agree more !
Mirentxu wrote: "Well said, Andrea! I couldn’t agree more !"
Thank you. :)
So solid. I personally liked a lot of the points and insights in the book, even as I mentally worked around my similar reaction to pretty much every point you raise. Thank you for saying it so well. The inherent misogyny, misandry, the double standards, the extreme of 'slicing' being adequate. Sure, use the tools to evaluate, but consider the possibility that the poster is a clueless writer? Sure, for the author, who makes her living with language, that might be a critical trait. But what about for a plumber, or someone who's favorite activity is gardening? Are the first written words really the critical filter?
Thank you also for calling out the reality on abusive relationships. Before publishing a book on this level, SOMEone really needed to have a psychologist review - and advise - the author on what NOT to say. That is, FACT CHECK the statements.
Also, great catch on the pre-filtered content and numbers on the 'movement'. 270,000 'members' and 1,000 comments yields a 0.04% response. That's 1 comment for every 270 'readers'. Hardly a tsunami.
Please come find me if you want to start a 'movement' :).
Squirrel wrote: "So solid. I personally liked a lot of the points and insights in the book, even as I mentally worked around my similar reaction to pretty much every point you raise. Thank you for saying it so well..."
Thank you!
I don't get the sense that Jennie supports any kind of fact checking of her work. People tell her when they think she's wrong, and instead of addressing the issue raised in any kind of rigourous way, she says either that they didn't read it all, didn't understand it, or have internalized misogyny. If people ask her for evidence, she says she's not qualified, but she's pretty free tossing around 'evidence' when she thinks it supports her. She's got bulletproof armour against any kind of constructive feedback.
It would be nice if the publisher had enforced any kind of quality control on the information, though.
I'd be happy to participate in any movement that effectively addresses the ways single women are still penalized by society. That would go a lot further to making relationships safer for straight women, IMO.
Totally agree! You pointed out a lot of the same issues I had with it. The hypocrisy was off the charts.
J.H. wrote: "Totally agree! You pointed out a lot of the same issues I had with it. The hypocrisy was off the charts."
Agreed. Just full of double standards.
I came across the “busy woman” example and immediately thought, “oh good, she’s providing an example of what women shouldn’t do in their profiles, too” and then listened to the double standard talk. It immediately pissed me off.
I was actually listening to this with my 15 yo granddaughter because I wanted her to learn how to read/learn the underlying stuff. I am 53 and have been married and divorced twice and I had no idea how covertly abused I was and it’s not what I want for my kids or grands (obviously). Luckily, she got real bored with it and I only had the audiobook borrowed from the library, for a couple more days…so, I just listened to the rest without her…I’m glad I did.
Because I don’t catch on to things as quickly as others do, I really appreciated a lot of the rhetoric lessons.
Anyway, thanks for this review, I’m so glad I wasn’t the only person who caught that.
Heidi wrote: "I came across the “busy woman” example and immediately thought, “oh good, she’s providing an example of what women shouldn’t do in their profiles, too” and then listened to the double standard talk..."
I hear you. That is basically the same thing that brought me to this book -- a couple of prior abusive relationships and wanting to keep myself safe. (I'm 51; we're not far off there.)
I think what makes me see this more negatively is that I was reading and watching at the same time a bunch of work from experts who work directly with abusive men, and so much of what they were saying was the opposite of what Jennie recommends. The actual experts (the ones with psychology degrees who have run programs working with abusers for decades and who know how they think) go to great lengths to stress that a) they're excellent at making great first impressions, b) the first few months to a year will be the best early relationship you've ever had; they'll feel like a soulmate, most likely, c) the women (and men) who get into these relationships, particularly more than once, tend to be very agreeable, conscientious, optimistic, kind and forgiving, and these are strengths exploited by predatory people.
And then it's not even just that Jennie doesn't know any of this and hasn't bothered to try to find out, it's that when people criticize her work based on these issues -- that the success stories are much too short etc. -- she dismisses it. I think her method leaves the door wide open for abusers. That's my big problem with it. Because you can become the best ever at recognizing the red flags and all the patterns and it just won't help, according to the research; abusive men (and women when it's the other way) work very hard to appear kind, trustworthy and reliable in the beginning, and their targets tend to be kind-hearted people who want to see the best in people, so that overlooking red flags is not a lack of skill or knowledge or boundaries, etc. It's an inherent predisposition that is very hard to counteract.
And then the experts say that really the only thing you can do if that's you is to understand that predisposition and the vulnerability it places you in and give yourself a lot of time to get to know someone very well (years, not months) before taking any steps that you would find it hard to untake.
Which certainly describes my own experience. I don't know about you.
Anyway, if that sounds interesting to you (or to anyone else reading through the comment thread), I'd recommend:
Women Who Love Psychopaths I know the title is terrible but it's based on solid work
Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men
How He Gets Into Her Head: The Mind of the Male Intimate Abuser
These were genuinely helpful for me. I've also found the work of Eve from the Healthy Relationship Company on youtube and IG very helpful. I am not a paying client or customer of hers so this is just the free stuff I'm referring to.
But one thing they all emphasize is that the problem is not women with bad red flag detection skills or poor filters "choosing" abusers, but abusers choosing women who are kind, generous, forgiving, and give others the benefit of the doubt, and then working very hard to seem like the men those women want.
That might not be helpful or wanted for you, but either way, I hope you have a future as wonderful as the ones you want for your children and grandchildren.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Cali wrote: "I was looking forward to reading all the comments and see there are none. Well let me chime in. I have no desire to read this book. I am a feminist who loves women. I’m also a feminist who loves ..."
I feel the same way about the "don't" list. And Jennie says she also feels that way, but only for men's profiles; on a woman's profile, it's an effective "bitchy" way of weeding out "duds." But I think it's more likely that it works the same way for both -- signaling that you're a difficult person so that the only ones who message and initiate something are either a) predators looking for someone vulnerable or b) extremely agreeable people who don't see the red flags.
The whole book drove me nuts. Even moreso than her combination of misandry and misogyny, the absolute lack of curiousity about any field of knowledge other than her own, and her refusal to take any critique seriously, I honestly think women are going to be hurt or killed. Abusers fake it to earn trust and make women vulnerable by being as nice and trustworthy as they need to be, by saying the things they need to say, until they think they've got you -- and her method specifically will not only fail to identify these men but will label them as "needles" and make women more vulnerable.
This is a great, thoughtful review. Thank you!
Emily wrote: "This is a great, thoughtful review. Thank you!"Thank you!
Well said, Andrea! I couldn’t agree more !
Mirentxu wrote: "Well said, Andrea! I couldn’t agree more !"Thank you. :)
So solid. I personally liked a lot of the points and insights in the book, even as I mentally worked around my similar reaction to pretty much every point you raise. Thank you for saying it so well. The inherent misogyny, misandry, the double standards, the extreme of 'slicing' being adequate. Sure, use the tools to evaluate, but consider the possibility that the poster is a clueless writer? Sure, for the author, who makes her living with language, that might be a critical trait. But what about for a plumber, or someone who's favorite activity is gardening? Are the first written words really the critical filter?Thank you also for calling out the reality on abusive relationships. Before publishing a book on this level, SOMEone really needed to have a psychologist review - and advise - the author on what NOT to say. That is, FACT CHECK the statements.
Also, great catch on the pre-filtered content and numbers on the 'movement'. 270,000 'members' and 1,000 comments yields a 0.04% response. That's 1 comment for every 270 'readers'. Hardly a tsunami.
Please come find me if you want to start a 'movement' :).
Squirrel wrote: "So solid. I personally liked a lot of the points and insights in the book, even as I mentally worked around my similar reaction to pretty much every point you raise. Thank you for saying it so well..."Thank you!
I don't get the sense that Jennie supports any kind of fact checking of her work. People tell her when they think she's wrong, and instead of addressing the issue raised in any kind of rigourous way, she says either that they didn't read it all, didn't understand it, or have internalized misogyny. If people ask her for evidence, she says she's not qualified, but she's pretty free tossing around 'evidence' when she thinks it supports her. She's got bulletproof armour against any kind of constructive feedback.
It would be nice if the publisher had enforced any kind of quality control on the information, though.
I'd be happy to participate in any movement that effectively addresses the ways single women are still penalized by society. That would go a lot further to making relationships safer for straight women, IMO.
Totally agree! You pointed out a lot of the same issues I had with it. The hypocrisy was off the charts.
J.H. wrote: "Totally agree! You pointed out a lot of the same issues I had with it. The hypocrisy was off the charts."Agreed. Just full of double standards.
I came across the “busy woman” example and immediately thought, “oh good, she’s providing an example of what women shouldn’t do in their profiles, too” and then listened to the double standard talk. It immediately pissed me off. I was actually listening to this with my 15 yo granddaughter because I wanted her to learn how to read/learn the underlying stuff. I am 53 and have been married and divorced twice and I had no idea how covertly abused I was and it’s not what I want for my kids or grands (obviously). Luckily, she got real bored with it and I only had the audiobook borrowed from the library, for a couple more days…so, I just listened to the rest without her…I’m glad I did.
Because I don’t catch on to things as quickly as others do, I really appreciated a lot of the rhetoric lessons.
Anyway, thanks for this review, I’m so glad I wasn’t the only person who caught that.
Heidi wrote: "I came across the “busy woman” example and immediately thought, “oh good, she’s providing an example of what women shouldn’t do in their profiles, too” and then listened to the double standard talk..."I hear you. That is basically the same thing that brought me to this book -- a couple of prior abusive relationships and wanting to keep myself safe. (I'm 51; we're not far off there.)
I think what makes me see this more negatively is that I was reading and watching at the same time a bunch of work from experts who work directly with abusive men, and so much of what they were saying was the opposite of what Jennie recommends. The actual experts (the ones with psychology degrees who have run programs working with abusers for decades and who know how they think) go to great lengths to stress that a) they're excellent at making great first impressions, b) the first few months to a year will be the best early relationship you've ever had; they'll feel like a soulmate, most likely, c) the women (and men) who get into these relationships, particularly more than once, tend to be very agreeable, conscientious, optimistic, kind and forgiving, and these are strengths exploited by predatory people.
And then it's not even just that Jennie doesn't know any of this and hasn't bothered to try to find out, it's that when people criticize her work based on these issues -- that the success stories are much too short etc. -- she dismisses it. I think her method leaves the door wide open for abusers. That's my big problem with it. Because you can become the best ever at recognizing the red flags and all the patterns and it just won't help, according to the research; abusive men (and women when it's the other way) work very hard to appear kind, trustworthy and reliable in the beginning, and their targets tend to be kind-hearted people who want to see the best in people, so that overlooking red flags is not a lack of skill or knowledge or boundaries, etc. It's an inherent predisposition that is very hard to counteract.
And then the experts say that really the only thing you can do if that's you is to understand that predisposition and the vulnerability it places you in and give yourself a lot of time to get to know someone very well (years, not months) before taking any steps that you would find it hard to untake.
Which certainly describes my own experience. I don't know about you.
Anyway, if that sounds interesting to you (or to anyone else reading through the comment thread), I'd recommend:
Women Who Love Psychopaths I know the title is terrible but it's based on solid work
Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men
How He Gets Into Her Head: The Mind of the Male Intimate Abuser
These were genuinely helpful for me. I've also found the work of Eve from the Healthy Relationship Company on youtube and IG very helpful. I am not a paying client or customer of hers so this is just the free stuff I'm referring to.
But one thing they all emphasize is that the problem is not women with bad red flag detection skills or poor filters "choosing" abusers, but abusers choosing women who are kind, generous, forgiving, and give others the benefit of the doubt, and then working very hard to seem like the men those women want.
That might not be helpful or wanted for you, but either way, I hope you have a future as wonderful as the ones you want for your children and grandchildren.
I have no desire to read this book. I am a feminist who loves women. I’m also a feminist who loves men. There are good and bad apples.
I’m not blinded to the misogyny in our world; I’ve fallen victim to it all my life. I’ve also had some of the most defining moments touched by good, loving men.
If I had a DON’T list on my dating profile, my last partner would have undoubtedly not messaged me. He was a sweet soul drawn to my love of octopuses and Adam’s apples. I was drawn to his silliness and generosity, despite not having a pronounced Adam’s apple.
If I see DON’Ts on a man’s profile it tells me a few things: he’s jaded, stuck in a negativity loop, and rather than excited about meeting someone he’s dreading all the weeding out he’ll have to do. And I get it, much of dating entails weeding out. But I want to smile when I read a profile, not be presented with a list of things I shouldn’t be right off the bat.
Another thing about lists from men: I often wonder how much of these dysfunctional women they’re attracting is through unconscious traits he’s putting out into the ether. If it’s a repeating pattern, who is the common denominator? And the same can be said for women. I used to be one.
That’s it, I loved your review so much. I think we’d likely get along over coffee. Thank you!