In my opinion, criticisms of this book rarely delve deeply into the worldview upon which it is built. Why does Fein present marriage as an inherently valuable goal, as if life was a sports game with a simple outcome?

If the goal of The Rules is "Marriage, in the shortest time possible, to a man you love, who loves you even more than you love him" under these guidelines, then the relationship simply cannot be one of intellectual/physical closeness or lifestyle similarities, because the "Rules" force a woman to maintain too much distance to ascertain these crucial areas of compatibility.

What is left, then, is a marriage based on procreation and/or financial dependence, and on Rules terms both are gravely dangerous to a woman's long-term stability. Under the Rules, a woman simply cannot know a man when he is not on his best behavior, "on stage" so-to-speak. Will he be a good, kind parenting partner? Does he love your body unconditionally, or is he squeamish and likely to grow distant with age? Who knows! Furthermore, men (and women) die, leave and/or change, so it's disastrous to live a life based on snagging a good provider.

No one should be a doormat in a relationship, of course, but playing games that rule out men who don't like the chase automatically rules out many of the personality types best suited to long-term partnership. People who love to pursue won't change, but the quarry probably will.

I've always been amused by the assumption that women have to pretend to be busy not to take a date offered a few days in advance. Fein needs a career other than defending a dreadful paradigm on morning talk shows-- then she might actually BE too busy to go out on a Friday night.