Laura: Okay, Sophia. You've read the book. Give me your five-word review. Sophia: Stop blaming yourself for everything. Laura: Ooh, concise. Mine is: Your singleness isn't a flaw. Sophia: I like that. It feels like a giant, collective exhale. And that exhale is exactly what Sara Eckel delivers in her book, It's Not You: 27 (Wrong) Reasons You're Single. Laura: It really is. What's so compelling is that Eckel isn't a guru; she's a seasoned journalist who wrote for places like The New York Times. She approaches this not with platitudes, but with research, interviews, and a healthy dose of skepticism born from her own long journey of being single. Sophia: Right, it grew out of her 'Modern Love' column, which went viral. You can feel that authenticity. It’s not a theoretical exercise; she lived it. And it seems to have struck a chord, because the book is highly rated by readers, even if it challenges so much of what we’re told. Laura: It absolutely does. And that gets to the heart of the first big myth we need to tear down: this idea that if you're single, you must be broken and in need of fixing.

Sophia: Oh, that’s the monster myth, isn't it? It’s the foundation for all the others. The idea that you have "issues" you need to resolve before you're "ready" for a relationship. Laura: Exactly. Eckel starts the book with her own very personal story about this. After a big breakup and quitting her job, she felt completely lost. So she launched herself into what she calls a self-improvement journey. She took acting lessons to be more confident, taught writing to disadvantaged kids to be more noble, adopted a dog to seem more nurturing, did yoga constantly... Sophia: Wow, she was really building the perfect "lovable person" resume. It’s the classic self-improvement as a partner-attraction strategy. We’ve all been there, trying to level up in the hopes that it makes us more desirable. Laura: She was! But here’s the kicker: after years of this, her love life was still completely stagnant. She was doing all the "right" things, becoming this theoretically perfect person, and yet... nothing. Her friend even told her, "You’re not going to find anyone until you get right with yourself." Sophia: Ugh, that line is a dagger. It’s so well-intentioned but so dismissive. But hold on, isn't self-improvement a good thing? Where does Eckel draw the line between healthy personal growth and this toxic "fix yourself" narrative? Laura: That is the perfect question, and Eckel provides a brilliant answer by bringing in hard science. She cites the work of John Gottman, the legendary marriage researcher. Gottman can predict with over 90% accuracy which couples will divorce, and you'd think it's because one person has unresolved "issues." Sophia: Yeah, you’d assume the people who stay together are the ones who are the most psychologically healthy. Laura: But that's not what he found. Gottman's research shows that "run-of-the-mill neuroses" have almost no connection to whether people fall in love or stay in love. We all have our crazy buttons, our anxieties, our quirks. The key to a happy marriage, he says, isn't having a "normal" personality. It's finding someone with whom you mesh. Sophia: That is such a paradigm shift. It’s not about eliminating your flaws; it’s about finding someone whose brand of weird is compatible with your brand of weird. Laura: Precisely. And this connects to another myth the book tackles: the idea that you have low self-esteem. We’re told, "You can't love another until you love yourself." But Eckel brings in research from Kristin Neff, who argues that self-compassion is far more important than self-esteem. Sophia: What’s the difference, exactly? They sound similar. Laura: Self-esteem is often conditional. It's high when you succeed and fragile when you fail. If a date doesn't call you back, your self-esteem plummets. Self-compassion, on the other hand, is about treating yourself with the same kindness you'd offer a friend, especially when you're struggling. It's acknowledging the pain—"Wow, that rejection really hurts"—without adding a layer of judgment like, "I'm a loser because he didn't call." Sophia: That’s a powerful distinction. It’s the difference between judging yourself and comforting yourself. Laura: Exactly. Eckel shares the story of a woman named Marcella, who was single for nine years and convinced she was a "colossal fuckup" with low self-esteem. She spent a fortune on therapy and makeup artists trying to fix herself. And yet, she eventually met her husband on a biking trip. He has low self-esteem too, and they think the world of each other. They meshed. Her "issues" didn't stop her from finding love. Sophia: So the book’s first major takeaway is that the relentless quest to "fix" yourself is a trap. The real work is accepting your flawed, but lovable, self and looking for compatibility, not perfection. Laura: You've got it. Eckel’s ultimate question is a powerful one: What if your only "issue" is the belief that you have them? What if you’re just a basically lovable human who hasn’t met your person yet?

Sophia: Okay, so the internal pressure to 'fix' yourself is one trap. But what about the external messages? The ones that say you're 'too' something... like too successful, too independent, too intimidating. Laura: Ah yes, the backlash against the 'too much' woman. This is the second major category of myths the book absolutely demolishes. It’s the idea that female success and independence are liabilities in the dating world. Sophia: We’ve all heard it. That smart, ambitious women are doomed to be single because they scare men away. Laura: It's a narrative that is incredibly persistent, but also, as Eckel shows, statistically false. She brings up the famous phrase, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." We associate it with this idea of radical, man-hating feminism. Sophia: Right, like it’s a declaration of war on relationships. Laura: But the origin is hilarious! In 1970, an Australian student named Irina Dunn just scribbled it on a bathroom wall as a cheeky joke. It was a playful expression of independence, but it got co-opted and twisted into this narrative that feminism makes women unlovable. Sophia: That’s incredible. A piece of bathroom graffiti became a cultural weapon. So what does the actual data say? Laura: The data flips the narrative on its head. Eckel cites research showing that women with college degrees and higher incomes are more likely to be married and significantly less likely to get divorced. The older a woman is when she marries, the lower her risk of divorce. So, the very things women are told will ruin their chances—education, career, waiting longer—are actually correlated with more stable, lasting partnerships. Sophia: But the 'intimidating' woman stereotype is so persistent! We've all heard it. A friend of mine was literally told by a guy that she was "a lot to handle" because she had a strong opinion about a political issue on their first date. Why does this myth stick around if the data says it's wrong? Laura: Eckel argues it’s a PR problem. Society has changed so fast that our cultural stories haven't caught up to the reality. We still have these lingering, outdated scripts about gender roles. And the book includes a perfect story to illustrate the absurdity of it all. It’s about a woman named Suzanne. Sophia: Let’s hear it. Laura: Suzanne is a successful PR executive, and her male friends kept telling her she was 'too intimidating' and needed to seem more 'vulnerable.' She had no idea what that even meant. So, as an experiment, she went bowling with her boyfriend and intentionally acted helpless. She asked for his advice on which ball to use, feigned incompetence... Sophia: Oh no. I’m cringing already. What happened? Laura: Her boyfriend, Keith, loved it. He got to be the expert, the strong man. Later, one of her female friends even commented, "Keith is so good for you, you seem so much more vulnerable with him!" But Suzanne realized she couldn't keep up the act. It was exhausting and inauthentic. She eventually married a man who was confident enough to let her be her competent, successful self. Sophia: That story is everything. It shows that playing a role to soothe a fragile ego only weeds out the partners you wouldn't want anyway—the ones who aren't looking for an equal. Laura: Exactly. And that's the core message for this whole category of myths. Whether you're told you're "too liberated," "too intimidating," or even "too selfish"—which is another one she debunks by showing singles are often more connected to friends and community—it's all part of the same outdated story. A story that punishes women for having agency.

Sophia: So when you put it all together, it seems like the 27 'wrong reasons' are really just two big lies: the lie that you're not enough, and the lie that you're too much. Laura: Exactly. And Eckel's ultimate point, which is beautifully grounded in her study of Buddhist philosophy, is to stop the diagnosis. Stop trying to figure out "why" you're single as if it's a disease with a single cause. The real work isn't about fixing your flaws. It’s about hosing down what she calls the 'muck and shit' of these societal messages to reconnect with your own inherent goodness. Sophia: I love that phrase, 'hosing down the muck.' It’s not about self-eradication, it’s about self-excavation. Peeling back the layers of judgment to get to the person who was there all along. Laura: Yes! The book is ultimately a permission slip. A permission slip to stop the endless self-analysis, to trust your own instincts, and to believe you are perfectly lovable, exactly as you are. It reframes singleness not as a waiting room for real life, but as a valid, and often strengthening, part of life itself. Sophia: It’s a powerful and, frankly, radical message in a world that profits from our insecurity. It’s not just self-help; it feels more like a social critique. Laura: It is. And it leaves you with a sense of peace. The real takeaway isn't a 10-step plan to find a partner. It’s the quiet confidence that comes from knowing that your life, right now, is whole and complete. Sophia: That’s such a hopeful way to look at it. It makes me wonder, what's one 'wrong reason' you've told yourself, or that someone else has told you, that you can just decide to let go of today? Laura: That’s the question, isn't it? We'd genuinely love to hear your thoughts on this. Find us on our socials and share the story. It's a conversation that so many of us need to have. Sophia: Absolutely. It’s time to change the narrative. Laura: This is Aibrary, signing off.