What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tragedy of Heterosexuality
Winner, 2021 PROSE Award in the Cultural Anthropology & Sociology Category
Finalist, 2021 Lambda Literary Award in LGBTQ Studies
A troubling account of heterosexual desire in the era of #MeToo
Heterosexuality is in crisis. Reports of sexual harassment, misconduct, and rape saturate the news in the era of #MeToo. Straight men and women spend thousands of dollars every day on relationship coaches, seduction boot camps, and couple’s therapy in a search for happiness.
In The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, Jane Ward smartly explores what, exactly, is wrong with heterosexuality in the twenty-first century, and what straight people can do to fix it for good. She shows how straight women, and to a lesser extent straight men, have tried to mend a fraught patriarchal system in which intimacy, sexual fulfillment, and mutual respect are expected to coexist alongside enduring forms of inequality, alienation, and violence in straight relationships.
Ward also takes an intriguing look at the multi-billion-dollar self-help industry, which markets goods and services to help heterosexual couples without addressing the root of their problems. Ultimately, she encourages straight men and women to take a page out of queer culture, reminding them “about the human capacity to desire, fuck, and show respect at the same time.”
Finalist, 2021 Lambda Literary Award in LGBTQ Studies
A troubling account of heterosexual desire in the era of #MeToo
Heterosexuality is in crisis. Reports of sexual harassment, misconduct, and rape saturate the news in the era of #MeToo. Straight men and women spend thousands of dollars every day on relationship coaches, seduction boot camps, and couple’s therapy in a search for happiness.
In The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, Jane Ward smartly explores what, exactly, is wrong with heterosexuality in the twenty-first century, and what straight people can do to fix it for good. She shows how straight women, and to a lesser extent straight men, have tried to mend a fraught patriarchal system in which intimacy, sexual fulfillment, and mutual respect are expected to coexist alongside enduring forms of inequality, alienation, and violence in straight relationships.
Ward also takes an intriguing look at the multi-billion-dollar self-help industry, which markets goods and services to help heterosexual couples without addressing the root of their problems. Ultimately, she encourages straight men and women to take a page out of queer culture, reminding them “about the human capacity to desire, fuck, and show respect at the same time.”
216 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2020
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews
June 29, 2022
Real Rating: 3.5* of five, rounded up because the argument is too important to leave in the ~meh~ pile
I RECEIVED A DRC FROM THE PUBLISHER VIA EDELWEISS+. THANK YOU.
My Review: I grew up in a wealthy white suburban area, with parents whose last child I was. They had long since ended the honeymoon phase of marriage; they had two daughters they each pretty thoroughly disliked at least one of; their feelings about each other were still in flux. Along I came; everything changed in their middle-aged world and my sisters' teens. Absolutely no one came out of that pressure cooker unmangled.
I am, in other words, very much in sympathy with the author's thesis that heterosexuals aren't happier than we are.
The author puts the blame for the unhappiness squarely on men and their misogyny. The institutions men have built are designed to reinforce straight white male supremacy. Gay men, too, if white, participate in the male-designed system of woman-degrading misogyny. To their detriment, of course; to all male beings' detriment.
As far as it goes, this is pretty inarguably like the world one sees outside one's doors and windows, so am I going to beef with that? Hm. I'm not sure it counts as a beef, but allow me to assure you, Author Ward, that women whether heterosexual, bisexual, or lesbian, or any combination thereof, are perfectly capable of being horribly racist, sexist, and abusive. Allow me to tell you about my mother's incestuous sexual abuse of my ephebe self; her phony "christian conversion" that enabled her to use a whole new vocabulary of hateful, denigrating, destructive invective aimed at making sure I was eternally off-balance and unsure of my male self's worth...the aforementioned sisters and their litany of belittling and insulting characterizations of me...so, yeah, about those awful and abusive men: they had mothers whose actions were, if examined carefully, pretty awful. Was that solely and entirely the mothers' response to patriarchy and heteronormativity? I beg to differ. Some people are just not very nice and should be not be encouraged to spread that by having children!
Yet now our QUILTBAG brethren and sistern are falling over themselves to get married and have kids! We're equal, we can do the same things straight people do! And here, Author Ward, you and I agree: Shouldn't we be liberating our straight family from this structure designed to control and contain women, not rushing into it for ourselves? Isn't that a better project all the way around? Allow people to design their own lives, and stay away from prescribed identities like "husband" or "wife" or "parent" if those aren't appealing.
Suddenly the blind panic of the red-meat right to clamp down on abortion first, then come after the rest of the bodily and spiritual autonomy that so threatens their control, makes all the sense in the world. Heterosexuality is, from a QUILTBAG person's perspective, a terrible tragedy indeed. It's conflated with heteronormativity. Demoting "heterosexuality" to a sexual behavior is a darn good project. I myownself have engaged in heterosexuality (didn't much like it). In heteronormativity, even, and I REALLY didn't like that. Stopped it a long time ago.
So Author Ward, standing outside the institution and hollering at the guards, is onto a winner for all of me. She wouldn't be if she hadn't decoupled "heterosexuality" to the straight version of "homosexuality"...that simply describes what sexual behaviors one engages in. Now the problem, the enemy, is identified as "heteronormativity" or the cultural monolith of patriarchal abuse and control. The inmates in the institution need freeing! They need it badly and now. This moment in history is an inflection point. We can see that because every single facet of the progressive social and economic agendas are being fought by the social-control freaks using every tool and trick the centuries of their ruthlessly enforced dominance have given them. Because they know that, given freedom to choose, people aren't going to choose their way in majority numbers.
Racists fear being made into a minority...why? Heteronormatives fear living in a world with people who love in different ways...why? Because they fear the repression they're nakedly, openly enacting against us. "Sucks to be you" is their silent, though getting less and less so, taunt.
So there's value in this exercise for me, a cis white American male, a scion of almost godlike privilege.
The problems with a lesbian-only critique of straightness are clear, including a lack of critical straight participants in this exercise and the exclusion of all Y-chromosome bearers. I refuse to believe not one male has ever made a critique of heteronormative culture that is valid, that does not wholly or partially exemplify the misogynistic mode of control. But there's another beam in the author's eye: TERFs like Adrienne Rich and Cherie Moraga. Of all the marginalized groups that need a voice in this chorus, the trans community is top of my list...not one word. I'm poking at the author's lack of inclusiveness because inclusion is what the author's demanding. But only for XXwomen...? I thought biological determinism was among the patriarchy's tools of control....
So I don't think the read is perfect. I do think it enlightened me and brought thoughts to the surface of my mind that I really enjoy having there. Yes, we need to educate our heteronormative society's mainstream about the costs to them all of the horrible system that's in place. But let's stop excluding people as part of that, and Author Ward's presentation of trenchant and valuable arguments does that regrettable thing.
I RECEIVED A DRC FROM THE PUBLISHER VIA EDELWEISS+. THANK YOU.
My Review: I grew up in a wealthy white suburban area, with parents whose last child I was. They had long since ended the honeymoon phase of marriage; they had two daughters they each pretty thoroughly disliked at least one of; their feelings about each other were still in flux. Along I came; everything changed in their middle-aged world and my sisters' teens. Absolutely no one came out of that pressure cooker unmangled.
I am, in other words, very much in sympathy with the author's thesis that heterosexuals aren't happier than we are.
The author puts the blame for the unhappiness squarely on men and their misogyny. The institutions men have built are designed to reinforce straight white male supremacy. Gay men, too, if white, participate in the male-designed system of woman-degrading misogyny. To their detriment, of course; to all male beings' detriment.
As far as it goes, this is pretty inarguably like the world one sees outside one's doors and windows, so am I going to beef with that? Hm. I'm not sure it counts as a beef, but allow me to assure you, Author Ward, that women whether heterosexual, bisexual, or lesbian, or any combination thereof, are perfectly capable of being horribly racist, sexist, and abusive. Allow me to tell you about my mother's incestuous sexual abuse of my ephebe self; her phony "christian conversion" that enabled her to use a whole new vocabulary of hateful, denigrating, destructive invective aimed at making sure I was eternally off-balance and unsure of my male self's worth...the aforementioned sisters and their litany of belittling and insulting characterizations of me...so, yeah, about those awful and abusive men: they had mothers whose actions were, if examined carefully, pretty awful. Was that solely and entirely the mothers' response to patriarchy and heteronormativity? I beg to differ. Some people are just not very nice and should be not be encouraged to spread that by having children!
Yet now our QUILTBAG brethren and sistern are falling over themselves to get married and have kids! We're equal, we can do the same things straight people do! And here, Author Ward, you and I agree: Shouldn't we be liberating our straight family from this structure designed to control and contain women, not rushing into it for ourselves? Isn't that a better project all the way around? Allow people to design their own lives, and stay away from prescribed identities like "husband" or "wife" or "parent" if those aren't appealing.
Suddenly the blind panic of the red-meat right to clamp down on abortion first, then come after the rest of the bodily and spiritual autonomy that so threatens their control, makes all the sense in the world. Heterosexuality is, from a QUILTBAG person's perspective, a terrible tragedy indeed. It's conflated with heteronormativity. Demoting "heterosexuality" to a sexual behavior is a darn good project. I myownself have engaged in heterosexuality (didn't much like it). In heteronormativity, even, and I REALLY didn't like that. Stopped it a long time ago.
So Author Ward, standing outside the institution and hollering at the guards, is onto a winner for all of me. She wouldn't be if she hadn't decoupled "heterosexuality" to the straight version of "homosexuality"...that simply describes what sexual behaviors one engages in. Now the problem, the enemy, is identified as "heteronormativity" or the cultural monolith of patriarchal abuse and control. The inmates in the institution need freeing! They need it badly and now. This moment in history is an inflection point. We can see that because every single facet of the progressive social and economic agendas are being fought by the social-control freaks using every tool and trick the centuries of their ruthlessly enforced dominance have given them. Because they know that, given freedom to choose, people aren't going to choose their way in majority numbers.
Racists fear being made into a minority...why? Heteronormatives fear living in a world with people who love in different ways...why? Because they fear the repression they're nakedly, openly enacting against us. "Sucks to be you" is their silent, though getting less and less so, taunt.
So there's value in this exercise for me, a cis white American male, a scion of almost godlike privilege.
The problems with a lesbian-only critique of straightness are clear, including a lack of critical straight participants in this exercise and the exclusion of all Y-chromosome bearers. I refuse to believe not one male has ever made a critique of heteronormative culture that is valid, that does not wholly or partially exemplify the misogynistic mode of control. But there's another beam in the author's eye: TERFs like Adrienne Rich and Cherie Moraga. Of all the marginalized groups that need a voice in this chorus, the trans community is top of my list...not one word. I'm poking at the author's lack of inclusiveness because inclusion is what the author's demanding. But only for XXwomen...? I thought biological determinism was among the patriarchy's tools of control....
So I don't think the read is perfect. I do think it enlightened me and brought thoughts to the surface of my mind that I really enjoy having there. Yes, we need to educate our heteronormative society's mainstream about the costs to them all of the horrible system that's in place. But let's stop excluding people as part of that, and Author Ward's presentation of trenchant and valuable arguments does that regrettable thing.
November 30, 2022
Thank you to Netgalley and the Publisher for providing me with this ARC.
[...] queers are braced for the inevitable moment when a straight woman proclaims, offhandedly, "I wish I could just be a lesbian." Sigh. Why don't you be one, then? some of us wonder. It's not that hard.
When I started this book and it started with a history of heterosexuality and straight culture, I was here for it. I kept nodding and having "AHA!" moments that explained so many things. It was well researched, the points were made clearly, I was here for it.
I was also here for the chapter about "Dating Coaches" because what in the... And I loved the field study. It was great. It was interesting. It was eye opening. Solid 4 star read for me until here (because some of the transitions were a bit forced and it didn't read as elegently as I would have hoped).
And then... Listen. If I wanted a handful (57, was it?) of queer people telling me "straight people are garbage" then I'll just go to a dinner party at my friend's house. And they will be nicer and less arrogant than the rest of the book was.
The writing I felt like switched from informative to being straight up 'holier than thou' and 'better than you' and that irked me to no end. I didn't get anything from the remaining chapters than the quote witch which I started this review "Why don't you then, it's not that hard".
I just felt like these remarks were incredibly unprofessional and shouldn't be in a book which I thought to be was a scientific work of gender- and sexuality studies.
In the end, I am giving this book two stars. Because I literally put it down and felt mad at it. Mad at the judgement, mad at the preachy-ness and mad that I'd just read around 100 pages that to me were a waste of time.
However, the first 100 pages were absolutely great, so there is that.
[...] queers are braced for the inevitable moment when a straight woman proclaims, offhandedly, "I wish I could just be a lesbian." Sigh. Why don't you be one, then? some of us wonder. It's not that hard.
When I started this book and it started with a history of heterosexuality and straight culture, I was here for it. I kept nodding and having "AHA!" moments that explained so many things. It was well researched, the points were made clearly, I was here for it.
I was also here for the chapter about "Dating Coaches" because what in the... And I loved the field study. It was great. It was interesting. It was eye opening. Solid 4 star read for me until here (because some of the transitions were a bit forced and it didn't read as elegently as I would have hoped).
And then... Listen. If I wanted a handful (57, was it?) of queer people telling me "straight people are garbage" then I'll just go to a dinner party at my friend's house. And they will be nicer and less arrogant than the rest of the book was.
The writing I felt like switched from informative to being straight up 'holier than thou' and 'better than you' and that irked me to no end. I didn't get anything from the remaining chapters than the quote witch which I started this review "Why don't you then, it's not that hard".
I just felt like these remarks were incredibly unprofessional and shouldn't be in a book which I thought to be was a scientific work of gender- and sexuality studies.
In the end, I am giving this book two stars. Because I literally put it down and felt mad at it. Mad at the judgement, mad at the preachy-ness and mad that I'd just read around 100 pages that to me were a waste of time.
However, the first 100 pages were absolutely great, so there is that.
August 30, 2020
This was a very interesting read. Throughout her introduction, she discusses her perspective, but she also brings in points from many others – especially women of color, which is particularly important since she is writing from a white perspective. Her discussion of the heterosexual “self-help” industry, in particular was interesting and very important in understanding parts of heterosexual culture. I think that this discussion of the impact of misogyny on heterosexual relationships is very important. While I did not agree with all aspects of the solutions that she gave, I do agree that there needs to be a reframing of what it means to like/desire women for heterosexual men to see woman as human and whole, rather than sex objects, in order to fix the animosity that is essential to parts of heterosexual culture.
However, parts of the book – particularly towards the latter half – could have been better. She could have used the quotes from her queer respondents in a way that made that section stronger. I understand the need to have all of the quotes in the work, but I think that using fewer within her text while she discussed the point (while, perhaps, utilizing an index to house the rest of the quotes) would have been more effective. There were also parts where she used personal antidotes too heavily for my taste; they would have been more successful if she had tied them more in with a reference to a previous study or other point that she had made. I do think that in most of these instances, she had pulled a similar point from her findings, but she did not allude to those points when she brought it up later in the book. There were other points that I would have liked to see explored as well (for instance, queer women's experiences with compulsory heterosexuality could bring an important layer to this conversation, especially since this is from a queer perspective).
I received this as an ARC from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
However, parts of the book – particularly towards the latter half – could have been better. She could have used the quotes from her queer respondents in a way that made that section stronger. I understand the need to have all of the quotes in the work, but I think that using fewer within her text while she discussed the point (while, perhaps, utilizing an index to house the rest of the quotes) would have been more effective. There were also parts where she used personal antidotes too heavily for my taste; they would have been more successful if she had tied them more in with a reference to a previous study or other point that she had made. I do think that in most of these instances, she had pulled a similar point from her findings, but she did not allude to those points when she brought it up later in the book. There were other points that I would have liked to see explored as well (for instance, queer women's experiences with compulsory heterosexuality could bring an important layer to this conversation, especially since this is from a queer perspective).
I received this as an ARC from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
November 3, 2020
She’s right, but you won’t appreciate her for saying so.
This book lays out concise historiographic and ethnographic evidence for a new understanding of the dysfunction at the heart of heterosexuality. Ward brings insight and wit to the discussion, and her overview of the history of what she terms the “heterosexual repair industry” will be appealing to most readers. There are few people who won’t be fascinated by the roots of “straightness” (as opposed to men and women coupling), and the racial and gender implications of modern straight culture. Also her commentary on what used to be pick up artistry and is now men’s self-improvement retreats is amazing.
And then Ward diagnoses the problem. She does this by doing what she calls “reversing the ally gaze” or, what I call “treating straight people the way they treat us”.
Instead of looking at straightness as the default, she solicited a sampling of queer understanding of straightness, and overlays interviews with queer participant-observers on top of straight culture, revealing patterns that a heterosexual understanding of love relationships cannot parse. In doing so, she centers queer concern about the unhealthy nature of straightness over straight culture’s belief that it inherently healthy. If a sexual “orientation” as understood in queer culture means being oriented towards, uplifting and respecting /as well as lusting after/, why in straight culture do heterosexual men and women seem oriented away from each other? Why is straight culture so dead set on seeing the gender binary as a battle of opposites rather than orienting itself towards simultaneous respect and lust for the fullness of each other? What do straight people get out of being straight and what can straight people learn from their answers to that question?
Of course, many straight folx will probably be uncomfortable with the lack of straight subjects— Ward has little interest in heterosexual understanding of itself. She chooses to focus solely on the queer subject looking at the straight object, and thereby explaining straightness to itself.
I have my own issues with the book— most frustratingly that it skirts around its use of transphobic writers (Adrienne Rich and Cherie Moraga for ex) without acknowledging that using their writing has questionable valances for trans readers.
But it is well worth a read. Queer readers will hopefully love it asmuch as I do. Straight readers... try not to get too defensive.
This book lays out concise historiographic and ethnographic evidence for a new understanding of the dysfunction at the heart of heterosexuality. Ward brings insight and wit to the discussion, and her overview of the history of what she terms the “heterosexual repair industry” will be appealing to most readers. There are few people who won’t be fascinated by the roots of “straightness” (as opposed to men and women coupling), and the racial and gender implications of modern straight culture. Also her commentary on what used to be pick up artistry and is now men’s self-improvement retreats is amazing.
And then Ward diagnoses the problem. She does this by doing what she calls “reversing the ally gaze” or, what I call “treating straight people the way they treat us”.
Instead of looking at straightness as the default, she solicited a sampling of queer understanding of straightness, and overlays interviews with queer participant-observers on top of straight culture, revealing patterns that a heterosexual understanding of love relationships cannot parse. In doing so, she centers queer concern about the unhealthy nature of straightness over straight culture’s belief that it inherently healthy. If a sexual “orientation” as understood in queer culture means being oriented towards, uplifting and respecting /as well as lusting after/, why in straight culture do heterosexual men and women seem oriented away from each other? Why is straight culture so dead set on seeing the gender binary as a battle of opposites rather than orienting itself towards simultaneous respect and lust for the fullness of each other? What do straight people get out of being straight and what can straight people learn from their answers to that question?
Of course, many straight folx will probably be uncomfortable with the lack of straight subjects— Ward has little interest in heterosexual understanding of itself. She chooses to focus solely on the queer subject looking at the straight object, and thereby explaining straightness to itself.
I have my own issues with the book— most frustratingly that it skirts around its use of transphobic writers (Adrienne Rich and Cherie Moraga for ex) without acknowledging that using their writing has questionable valances for trans readers.
But it is well worth a read. Queer readers will hopefully love it asmuch as I do. Straight readers... try not to get too defensive.
Read
January 6, 2022Pretty introductory. The first half was better than the second half, which I felt was a little less informative. I also wished she went deeper into how to fix the issues rather than just presenting the problem itself. I feel it’s already very obvious that misogyny exists in straight culture (but maybe because I’ve already taken a good number of gender studies classes)?
Read
December 7, 2022There was so much that I liked about this book but tbh I think that the approach of looking at heterosexuality through a queer lens and seeing its deficiencies could have been supplemented by more varied examples and perspectives, which was perhaps beyond the scope of the book. Reading it, I kept thinking about bisexuality and the experience of being queer (and thus not as invested in heteronormativity) and dating straight people and how that gives a unique perspective into what heterosexuality can be, where it is simply defined as dating someone with a different or "opposite" gender to you. I thought bisexual women would be featured in this book as a group of people who may contend with compulsory heterosexuality and a specific form of patriarchal violence but technically have the choice to "opt out" by dating women, and by virtue of that, may also date straight men as an expression of agency. I was also interested in the take that bisexual men might have on heterosexuality and dating straight women.
The author makes continual reference to straight women "wishing they were gay" as a way of opting out of the patriarchal violence that comes with heterosexual relationships, and makes the assertion that many women don't enjoy men's bodies, or find men attractive. To be honest, this felt very unrealistic considering the ways that the sexual and romantic desire of heterosexual women and girls for men can animate entire franchises and industries through incredibly powerful fandoms. I also thought about the phenomenon of straight women who are deeply invested in gay shipping of male characters or who enjoy gay porn as another example of straight women being deeply interested in men outside of a purely heterosexual context. If you know where to look, there are so many women on social media discussing particular aspects of men and masculinity that they find attractive in idiosyncratic ways (Is Tony Soprano hot? Is Mr Bean hot? Oscar Isaac making those eyes at Jessica Chastain, Winston Duke when the first Black Panther film was released, Kieran Culkin on Succession showing the particular appeal of short men, the bizarre repurposing of "the female gaze" on TikTok, dad bods, line cooks, elfin boys, etc). I feel that a lot of heterosexual women don't feel comfortable expressing their desire for men in straightforward ways, especially the men they're actually in relationships with, because of internalised patriarchal standards that impede the sexual expression of women, but also to avoid the vulnerability that comes with admitting your investment in someone who may be in a direct position of power over you. I think this understanding of the emotional vulnerability that comes with being deeply attracted to, and in love with, straight men despite patriarchal power structures was lacking from this book, while I thought was a bit unfortunate considering it makes the tragedy of heterosexuality more poignant.
I really appreciated the analysis of the 'heterosexual repair industry' as a tool to preserve the white nuclear family and the ways that it contends with the paradoxes of heterosexuality. But I would have really liked to see an analysis of the romance genre alongside it as I think it plays a similar role in rescuing heterosexuality from its purely transactional basis and idealising it in order to sell it. At the same time, I think romance narratives can also show the depth of emotion and investment that can lie within heterosexual relationships. I kept thinking about Zora Neale Hurston's description of Tea Cake in Their Eyes Were Watching God: "He looked like the love thoughts of women. He could be a bee to a blossom - a pear tree blossom in the spring. He seemed to be crushing scent out of the world with his footsteps. Crushing aromatic herbs with every step he took. Spices hung about him. He was a glance from God." Like... women fall deep for men! While the author presents the nature of heterosexual desire as generally boring because of investment in normativity and privilege, I think that it's more interesting to think about what desires and feelings can't be contained by those norms, but still animate many heterosexual relationships. In some cases, I think the superficiality of heteronormativity is a smokescreen for the real (and complex, and sometimes marked by violence) emotional attachments that can form heterosexual relationships. Heteronormativity becomes an excuse to not think deeply, as a way of avoiding the real vulnerabilities that are intrinsic to close relationship. Contending with those vulnerabilities is necessary for any kind of reshaping of heterosexuality.
Other perspectives that I think would have given the argument of the book needed complexity: interracial heterosexual relationships and their complicated relationship to heteronormativity, other forms of heterosexuality that go against the grain, counterhegemonic masculinities that perhaps already incorporate some tenets of "deep heterosexuality" especially in non-western cultures, a deeper understanding of the ways heterosexuality is a function of racial capitalism and colonialism, a history of nonsexual friendship between straight men and women, a more in-depth analysis of Esther Perel (while I don't deny Perel's ideas can be very heteronormative, I don't feel like the author understood her notion of mystery in relationships. To me it's not about otherness that comes from what's understood as "difference" like gender etc, or about disidentification, instead I think that's about respecting the mystery that lies in absolutely everyone, even people you live with, something closer to Glissant's notion of opacity and what can't be translatable between people, no matter what. And that mystery being a source of eroticism as a relationship to the true reality of that person as unknowable (and through that, respecting your own unknowability to yourself). I feel like respecting that opacity and fluidity that lies within a person is actually very compatible with the "deep heterosexuality" and eroticism that Ward talks about in the later chapters of the book).
Tbh all of this thinking is 100% a credit to this book. I get that it wasn't a full academic treatise and is instead a book that provokes a different viewpoint. While I didn't agree with everything said, overall I really valued the curiosity that it generated within me about heterosexuality.
The author makes continual reference to straight women "wishing they were gay" as a way of opting out of the patriarchal violence that comes with heterosexual relationships, and makes the assertion that many women don't enjoy men's bodies, or find men attractive. To be honest, this felt very unrealistic considering the ways that the sexual and romantic desire of heterosexual women and girls for men can animate entire franchises and industries through incredibly powerful fandoms. I also thought about the phenomenon of straight women who are deeply invested in gay shipping of male characters or who enjoy gay porn as another example of straight women being deeply interested in men outside of a purely heterosexual context. If you know where to look, there are so many women on social media discussing particular aspects of men and masculinity that they find attractive in idiosyncratic ways (Is Tony Soprano hot? Is Mr Bean hot? Oscar Isaac making those eyes at Jessica Chastain, Winston Duke when the first Black Panther film was released, Kieran Culkin on Succession showing the particular appeal of short men, the bizarre repurposing of "the female gaze" on TikTok, dad bods, line cooks, elfin boys, etc). I feel that a lot of heterosexual women don't feel comfortable expressing their desire for men in straightforward ways, especially the men they're actually in relationships with, because of internalised patriarchal standards that impede the sexual expression of women, but also to avoid the vulnerability that comes with admitting your investment in someone who may be in a direct position of power over you. I think this understanding of the emotional vulnerability that comes with being deeply attracted to, and in love with, straight men despite patriarchal power structures was lacking from this book, while I thought was a bit unfortunate considering it makes the tragedy of heterosexuality more poignant.
I really appreciated the analysis of the 'heterosexual repair industry' as a tool to preserve the white nuclear family and the ways that it contends with the paradoxes of heterosexuality. But I would have really liked to see an analysis of the romance genre alongside it as I think it plays a similar role in rescuing heterosexuality from its purely transactional basis and idealising it in order to sell it. At the same time, I think romance narratives can also show the depth of emotion and investment that can lie within heterosexual relationships. I kept thinking about Zora Neale Hurston's description of Tea Cake in Their Eyes Were Watching God: "He looked like the love thoughts of women. He could be a bee to a blossom - a pear tree blossom in the spring. He seemed to be crushing scent out of the world with his footsteps. Crushing aromatic herbs with every step he took. Spices hung about him. He was a glance from God." Like... women fall deep for men! While the author presents the nature of heterosexual desire as generally boring because of investment in normativity and privilege, I think that it's more interesting to think about what desires and feelings can't be contained by those norms, but still animate many heterosexual relationships. In some cases, I think the superficiality of heteronormativity is a smokescreen for the real (and complex, and sometimes marked by violence) emotional attachments that can form heterosexual relationships. Heteronormativity becomes an excuse to not think deeply, as a way of avoiding the real vulnerabilities that are intrinsic to close relationship. Contending with those vulnerabilities is necessary for any kind of reshaping of heterosexuality.
Other perspectives that I think would have given the argument of the book needed complexity: interracial heterosexual relationships and their complicated relationship to heteronormativity, other forms of heterosexuality that go against the grain, counterhegemonic masculinities that perhaps already incorporate some tenets of "deep heterosexuality" especially in non-western cultures, a deeper understanding of the ways heterosexuality is a function of racial capitalism and colonialism, a history of nonsexual friendship between straight men and women, a more in-depth analysis of Esther Perel (while I don't deny Perel's ideas can be very heteronormative, I don't feel like the author understood her notion of mystery in relationships. To me it's not about otherness that comes from what's understood as "difference" like gender etc, or about disidentification, instead I think that's about respecting the mystery that lies in absolutely everyone, even people you live with, something closer to Glissant's notion of opacity and what can't be translatable between people, no matter what. And that mystery being a source of eroticism as a relationship to the true reality of that person as unknowable (and through that, respecting your own unknowability to yourself). I feel like respecting that opacity and fluidity that lies within a person is actually very compatible with the "deep heterosexuality" and eroticism that Ward talks about in the later chapters of the book).
Tbh all of this thinking is 100% a credit to this book. I get that it wasn't a full academic treatise and is instead a book that provokes a different viewpoint. While I didn't agree with everything said, overall I really valued the curiosity that it generated within me about heterosexuality.
March 16, 2021
Thanks to Netgalley, for providing a digital copy of this book, in exchange for an honest review.
I’ll be honest, folks. I’m part of the LGBITQA+ community. In particular, I identify as a bisexual woman, and I’m currently in a longterm relationship with my girlfriend (also a bisexual woman). The subjects of gender and sexual diversity had been an important part of my research as a Social Anthropologist, and those are basically my two main areas of professional interest. That being said, when I saw that a book with this title A) existed and B) was available for request, I ran to press that button hard. And I was not disappointed.
This book is written by Jane Ward, a “dyke” (her word, not mine). She’s a professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of Riverside, California. She teaches classes on feminist/queer/heterosexuality studies. And she’s worried about the straights. Frankly, after reading this, I realized I’ve been kinda low-key worried about them too subconsciously, and now I’m genuinely worried. Divided in five chapters, Ward tells us about the issues about heterosexuality, how it grew to be our society’s norm; the misogyny paradox, or how come straight men hate women so much?; pickup artists and the seduction industry, a.k.a., self-help books but more; the opinion of queer people on straight people’s life; and deep heterosexuality, basically an "it gets better" for the straights. Maybe. If they allow some things to change. And if men learn to actually like women, mainly.
Half essay, half academic research, this reading was right at my alley. And maybe it can be of yours too, if you’re interested in these type of thing, but you’re bored/not interested/intimidated of/by academic papers, that tend to take themselves too seriously. This book will make you reflect on this subject, and some of our every-day-life events that we take for granted, but maybe we shouldn’t. Are queer people really the victims of our society? Should we really feel sorry for the LGBTIAQ+ community? Or should we focus our lense to the straight and cis woman? I have my own answer to this question. I hope you get to read this and get your own.
This book will be published on September 1st (right on time for the Hogwarts Express!), by NYU Press.
I’ll be honest, folks. I’m part of the LGBITQA+ community. In particular, I identify as a bisexual woman, and I’m currently in a longterm relationship with my girlfriend (also a bisexual woman). The subjects of gender and sexual diversity had been an important part of my research as a Social Anthropologist, and those are basically my two main areas of professional interest. That being said, when I saw that a book with this title A) existed and B) was available for request, I ran to press that button hard. And I was not disappointed.
This book is written by Jane Ward, a “dyke” (her word, not mine). She’s a professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of Riverside, California. She teaches classes on feminist/queer/heterosexuality studies. And she’s worried about the straights. Frankly, after reading this, I realized I’ve been kinda low-key worried about them too subconsciously, and now I’m genuinely worried. Divided in five chapters, Ward tells us about the issues about heterosexuality, how it grew to be our society’s norm; the misogyny paradox, or how come straight men hate women so much?; pickup artists and the seduction industry, a.k.a., self-help books but more; the opinion of queer people on straight people’s life; and deep heterosexuality, basically an "it gets better" for the straights. Maybe. If they allow some things to change. And if men learn to actually like women, mainly.
Half essay, half academic research, this reading was right at my alley. And maybe it can be of yours too, if you’re interested in these type of thing, but you’re bored/not interested/intimidated of/by academic papers, that tend to take themselves too seriously. This book will make you reflect on this subject, and some of our every-day-life events that we take for granted, but maybe we shouldn’t. Are queer people really the victims of our society? Should we really feel sorry for the LGBTIAQ+ community? Or should we focus our lense to the straight and cis woman? I have my own answer to this question. I hope you get to read this and get your own.
This book will be published on September 1st (right on time for the Hogwarts Express!), by NYU Press.
March 3, 2021
As a queer human being, I saw that this book expressed many of my opinions about the reality in which we live.
It may sound a bit over the top at times, but I think it is because we are too used to accepting heteroxesual regulations as the only possible ones, which is not the case.
It may sound a bit over the top at times, but I think it is because we are too used to accepting heteroxesual regulations as the only possible ones, which is not the case.
April 24, 2020
I received this book as an ARC through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review — thank you!
I'm not even sure where to begin for this one. I originally requested this book because I saw the title and I absolutely lost it. The concept seemed right up my alley, and I was really keen to read it. It had all the key elements to make for a potential five star read for me. But, alas... The execution.
For a non-fiction book that is supposed to have some degree of academic language, it did not achieve this. The language was far too wishy-washy and didn't take a strong stance on the arguments. I couldn't believe what the author was arguing because it didn't seem like she knew, either. That was a huge issue for me. Additionally, this was an extremely unbiased account from the perspective of a queer woman looking in on heterosexual relationships. I appreciate what the author was trying to get at (in pointing out some of the truly horrible and strange things that do occur as a part of heterosexual culture), but honestly. The entire text felt like it had an air of superiority and arrogance over anyone who happened to be heterosexual. It was a very weird thing to read, and it did not enhance the reading experience at all. I feel as though the author was somewhat projecting, because this is not he LGBT+ experience that I have at all. I definitely appreciate the truly strange parts of heterosexual culture, but I'm not acting as though LGBT+ experiences are vastly better. They are just different, with their own unique challenges. Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges — it doesn't work out in the same way.
This book had so much potential, but I was really annoyed reading the entire thing, and I can't even fathom reading anything else with this sort of tone again. Get my an unbiased account of these issues and I will happily read them, but this... just wasn't it.
I'm not even sure where to begin for this one. I originally requested this book because I saw the title and I absolutely lost it. The concept seemed right up my alley, and I was really keen to read it. It had all the key elements to make for a potential five star read for me. But, alas... The execution.
For a non-fiction book that is supposed to have some degree of academic language, it did not achieve this. The language was far too wishy-washy and didn't take a strong stance on the arguments. I couldn't believe what the author was arguing because it didn't seem like she knew, either. That was a huge issue for me. Additionally, this was an extremely unbiased account from the perspective of a queer woman looking in on heterosexual relationships. I appreciate what the author was trying to get at (in pointing out some of the truly horrible and strange things that do occur as a part of heterosexual culture), but honestly. The entire text felt like it had an air of superiority and arrogance over anyone who happened to be heterosexual. It was a very weird thing to read, and it did not enhance the reading experience at all. I feel as though the author was somewhat projecting, because this is not he LGBT+ experience that I have at all. I definitely appreciate the truly strange parts of heterosexual culture, but I'm not acting as though LGBT+ experiences are vastly better. They are just different, with their own unique challenges. Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges — it doesn't work out in the same way.
This book had so much potential, but I was really annoyed reading the entire thing, and I can't even fathom reading anything else with this sort of tone again. Get my an unbiased account of these issues and I will happily read them, but this... just wasn't it.
November 26, 2020
I received a free copy of this book via NetGalley in return for my review. I am a hetero woman who has researched and written a lot about hetero love, romance, sex and marriage. I appreciated Jane Ward's take on the heterosexual repair industry and her deep dive into what heterosexual women have to put up with to get and keep what society tells them they need — the love of a man and a happily-ever-after narrative. But a patriarchal society that for so long has made women dependent on men and supported romantic relationships that are overwhelmingly unequal has not made that all that pleasant for us.
So why do so many women continue to turn to men even though they know they’re most likely going to end up in an unequal romantic relationship? “I’m just in it for the dick,” a friend tells Ward. Others say they seek the “respectability or security that heterosexuality offers.” Ward hopes women are in it for the pleasure.
But, as she notes,“If heterosexuality were a site of significant pleasure for women, this raises the question about why so many straight women appear to be miserable.” And that is the question.
A provocative read.
So why do so many women continue to turn to men even though they know they’re most likely going to end up in an unequal romantic relationship? “I’m just in it for the dick,” a friend tells Ward. Others say they seek the “respectability or security that heterosexuality offers.” Ward hopes women are in it for the pleasure.
But, as she notes,“If heterosexuality were a site of significant pleasure for women, this raises the question about why so many straight women appear to be miserable.” And that is the question.
A provocative read.
October 21, 2020
Jane Ward knocked this one out of the park. Her insightful text discusses the queerly evident misery of heterosexuality as it arose out of and remains entwined in the capitalist, neoliberal, patriarchal project. Ward, writing as a lesbian feminist, spends great time helping the reader understand the basis of heterosexual misery through use of her own original research as well as the documented research of previous feminist and black feminist scholars. Ward reminds us of the very nature of patriarchy and heterosexuality in which relationships are explicitly tied up by hierarchy, male privilege, sexist systems of power, puritanical beliefs about sex, and ownership of property. She takes the reader on a tour of the heterosexual-repair industry of pickup artists and the ways in which this process reinforces and reifies cishet patriarchy. She concludes the book looking ways to move forward with heterosexuality that would help straight men disentangle their desire and love for women by being deeply interested and devoted in women from its capitalist, cishet, patriarchical roots. This was an outstanding book. It is an accessible read that will allow both scholars and the public to have an understanding of the Tragedy of (current models) of Heterosexuality!
November 12, 2022
So funny and I love the conclusion that men just need to be lesbians, but there wasn’t much realistic solution in the conclusion. Straight people are just screwed ig sorry to you all!
September 7, 2022
Well, that was refreshing.
November 12, 2020
'The tragedy of heterosexuality' resonated quite deeply with me. As a pan woman in a long-term, committed relationship with a cis, straight man, I went through a shit-ton of feelings while reading this book. And mostly the feelings of being an in-between that I have had for most of my teenage and adult years. It's difficult to articulate and much too personal to share here, but wow, has this given me stuff to reflect on.
I think it's very interesting to describe straightness as a tragedy and for queer people to put themselves forward as allies to straight people. Things are hardly ever framed in that way, and Jane Ward makes a really good point when she states that straight feminists seem to be stuck, because they see through men who hate women but they are still attracted to the idea of a straight relationship. And there is no denying that many women suffer in straight relationships. This is the second book I've read in a short time that proposes that being a lesbian can be a political choice, rather than a simple matter of sexual orientation - it's an interesting idea to explore.
As someone who abhors gender norms, I found it infuriating to look back on the history of straight marriage and the rise of the straight relationship repair industry (from good-wife manuals all the way to the utterly chilling seduction workshops men can attend to 'get higher-quality pussy'). The straight narrative has been pushed down our throats for so long and the damage has been so severe. I live for the day when our lives are no longer dictated by this straight pressure and we just find ways to connect as individuals, regardless of sex, gender, or expectations.
This book is really worth a read, but I'm wondering if straight people are ready to hear that their straightness is a tragedy.
Thank you to Netgalley and NYU Press for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for a review.
I think it's very interesting to describe straightness as a tragedy and for queer people to put themselves forward as allies to straight people. Things are hardly ever framed in that way, and Jane Ward makes a really good point when she states that straight feminists seem to be stuck, because they see through men who hate women but they are still attracted to the idea of a straight relationship. And there is no denying that many women suffer in straight relationships. This is the second book I've read in a short time that proposes that being a lesbian can be a political choice, rather than a simple matter of sexual orientation - it's an interesting idea to explore.
As someone who abhors gender norms, I found it infuriating to look back on the history of straight marriage and the rise of the straight relationship repair industry (from good-wife manuals all the way to the utterly chilling seduction workshops men can attend to 'get higher-quality pussy'). The straight narrative has been pushed down our throats for so long and the damage has been so severe. I live for the day when our lives are no longer dictated by this straight pressure and we just find ways to connect as individuals, regardless of sex, gender, or expectations.
This book is really worth a read, but I'm wondering if straight people are ready to hear that their straightness is a tragedy.
Thank you to Netgalley and NYU Press for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for a review.
July 1, 2020
Admittedly, Dr. Ward is one of my favorite scholars of all time, so perhaps it's not surprising that I loved this latest work of hers. This book is a reasoned unpacking of heterosexual experience examined through a queer lens, and I love that she made room for queer experience of straightness (including sadness, mystification, and anger) while writing an intersectional feminist book that is incredibly compassionate not only towards straight women, but also towards straight men--and which calls out a key element in what has made so much historical 'heterosexual repair' ineffective. This is a next-level work in gender studies in my opinion, and I loved the power, humor, insight and interrogation that Dr. Ward brought to this fraught topic.
October 10, 2020
Part of the ongoing reawakening of queer interest in heterosexuality. Ward’s conclusion that heteropatriarchy can been dismantled with a kind of “deep heterosexuality” that is modeled on lesbian relationships rings a bit hollow, although the book, overall, is very convincing. What exactly it takes to convince straight men to become enthusiastically interested in women’s welfare, liberation, and pleasure is something feminists have been trying to figure out for 200 years—thus far with some, but far from sufficient, success. Still, a well-written and enjoyable read.
December 13, 2020
I ended up DNFing this book for two reasons:
1. It read too much like a text book.
2. It made me angry. I was hoping for an eye opening book that fit today’s standards and world views. Yes the title is The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, but I was hoping for a book that embraced all types of sexuality. I am not a fan of any book, movie, advertisement that seems to “bash the competition”; and that’s how I felt right away. I felt like I was a bad, disgusting person for “choosing” to be straight.
I would not recommend this book.
Thank you NetGalley for the advanced copy for an honest review.
1. It read too much like a text book.
2. It made me angry. I was hoping for an eye opening book that fit today’s standards and world views. Yes the title is The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, but I was hoping for a book that embraced all types of sexuality. I am not a fan of any book, movie, advertisement that seems to “bash the competition”; and that’s how I felt right away. I felt like I was a bad, disgusting person for “choosing” to be straight.
I would not recommend this book.
Thank you NetGalley for the advanced copy for an honest review.
March 17, 2021
He estado leyendo muy poco pero escuché a la autora hablar de este libro en un podcast (tierneytalks) donde tocaba los puntos principales de este libro, y el título me llamó mucho la atención. Advertencia: mi reseña es larguísima porque este libro me puso dio mucho en que pensar.
Muchas mujeres, incluyéndome, usamos frases como "pinches onvres" o decimos desear haber nacido lesbianas, la autora nos pregunta: si la heterosexualidad es tan natural, por qué resulta tan cohersiva, por qué hay tanto desagrado público entre hombres y mujeres? por qué las mujeres están tan insatisfechas sexualmente? La autora asegura "la hetrosexualidad es una orientación sexual organizada alrededor del desagrado mutuo (misoginia y resentimiento)", el desinteres y violencia de parte de los hombres se encuentra con el resentimiento y el miedo de parte de las mujeres como base de las relaciones hetero; y explica como la transición de mujer degradada y subordinada a mujer como igual y digna de amor no ha sido completa ni resuelta dentro de la heterosexualidad.
La autora llama "la industria de la reparación hetero" a todos los esfuerzos inefectivos de parte de las mujeres para reparar a los hombres de su machismo, que terminan en en una mezcla de optimismo ciego y resignación. A las mujeres se nos presenta la mediocridad y deficiencia masculina como un reto para transformar, haciéndonos creer que al criar "nuevos hombres" encontraremos respeto y liberación, gastando enormes cantidades de energía en este proyecto, que, el feminismo ha demostrado, haríamos mejor en invertirlo en generar redes y vínculos con otras mujeres.
La heterosexualidad como la entendemos ahora ha sido fruto de propaganda para enseñar a las mujeres a desear las relaciones con los hombres a pesar de su inequidad. La heterosexualidad se organiza entre el amor y el abuso, comenzando desde el "te molesta porque le gustas" esa lógica sigue presente en la heterosexualidad adulta con lo que la autora llama la “paradoja de la misoginia” donde el hombre desea a la mujer pero no la humaniza. "Los hombres desean los servicios que proveen las mujeres: emocionales, sexuales, reproductivos, domésticos; más que a las mujeres reales". Mientras que la mujer aprende a acontentarse con poco con tal de experimentar el amor romántico que se nos vende como la fuente de la felicidad, estatus, protección y estabilidad, promesas que muchas veces no se verán cumplidas.
La premisa hetroromántica se le vende a la mujer como el vínculo más importante y que dará sentido a su vida, los dolores, tragedias y luchas forman parte de esta historia. Incluso se generan vinculos con otras mujeres al celebrar esta habilidad de sobrevivir a las decepciones y salir empoderadas: el sacrificio heteroromántico para llegar a la felicidad. El amor profundo de la mujer redime al hombre a través de su amor nutriente, perfecto y de aceptación. El dolor y sufrimiento femenino es el vehículo para la redención masculina y nuestra medalla de honor; sufrimiento y aceptación que se alinean con el capitalismo, con lo cual se acepta una vida aburrida y cansada como modelo a seguir. La heteroresignación y el heteropesimismo son ritos de edad de las mujeres. Hay un trabajo constante que la mujer tiene que realizar para mantener y sostener la satisfacción temporal del hombre dentro de la relación, con el miedo del abandono o la inseguridad económica. La lógica heteronormativa nos hace aceptar que entre hombres y mujeres no tenemos que gustarnos o querernos sino aguantarnos y suprimir nuestros deseos y necesidades. Que los hombres puedan ser desagradables o abusivos se plantean como cosas que hay que aguantar para cumplir con nuestras necesidades sexuales y románticas.
Del otro lado, es revelador que cuando un hombre describe interés en el mundo femenino (historias, arte, cultura o vida emocional de las mujeres) se le percibe como gay. En la hetrosexualidad actual, los hombres llegan a valorar más la aprovación de otros hombres que la humanidad femenina, usando los cuerpos de las mujeres para ganar respeto entre otros hombres. En ese contexto la mujer funciona en un triángulo erótico, donde el sexo con mujeres fortalece los lazos entre hombres. El sexo como validación masculina a través de la dominación sexual es parte de un sistema que beneficia y premia a los hombres que se disocian de la experiencia femenina en el sexo (cultura de la violación). los hombres gastan tiempo y energía en generar vínculos eróticos entre ellos sin lograr interesarse en el placer y el concentimiento femenino. Mientras los hombres hetero aseguran amar a las mujeres, sus energías continuan fluyendo hacia otros hombres (admirar, buscar su compañía y su aprovación), la heterosexualidad es una orientacion homosocial donde se romantiza la alienación entre hombres y mujeres. Para la mujer, el sexo no deseado, cohersivo y centrado en el hombre está normalizado porque el amor hetrosexual ya está construido alrededor del sacrificio femenino.
Otra cosa que pregunta la autora es si de verdad el deseo masculino, su potencia y testosterina son tan fuertes, por qué es necesaria tanta inversión de parte de las mujeres en términos de belleza y obediencia? en realidad el deseo heterosexualidad es mucho más débil y está condicionado más de lo que se acepta, la cultura pedofilica enseña a los hombres a desear mujeres jóvenes y vulnerables que necesitan protección, la actual educación sexual entrena a las mujeres a identificarse como víctimas del predador deseo masculino y ser las "gatekeepers" de la castidad, entrenadas para intercambiar el sexo por conexión.
La heterosexualidad trabaja estrechando las miras de lo que es concevible o imaginable, en su propuesta de "hetrosexualidad profunda" la autora nos dice que el elemento faltante no tiene que ver con el género u orientación sino en un vocabulario del placer: distinguir y saber nombrar lo que nos gusta. Las tipologías sexuales presentes en los espacios queer nos ayudan a imaginar formas de sexualidad libres de la monogamia, celos e infidelidad del mundo hetero y la verdadera variabilidad del deseo sexual.
Justamente una forma en la que se expresa la miseria hetrosexual es en el terror cultural a la homosexualidad, la homofobia es la expresión externa de la miseria hetero: la tristeza, y resignación a la normalidad, el miedo a desear, a ser diferente. Una de las frases del libro nos dice "si lo queer es demasiado, lo hetero es muy poco" El aburrimiento es parte de la cultura hetero, la autora define algo aburrido como algo vacío y vincula el aburrimiento con la opresión. Dentro de la hetrosexualidad, el género es una repetición, un proceso sin fin en el cual adquirimos la normalidad, o legibilidad dentro el binario masculino/femenino. En el control de estos roles predictivos y poco originales la cultura hetrosexual genera personalidades aburridas y reprimidas. El enfoque hetero es mantener las cosas tal cual están, politicamente es apático y desinteresado por la justicia social.
El libro concluye afirmando que nuestro deseo es nuestra responsabilidad, si no es algo que podemos cambiar, al menos es algo que podemos examinar. La sexualidad puede ser un lugar de elección y resistencia política, abandonando la pretención de la heterosexualidad como algo natural, simple, predeterminado y automático y articulando a donde nos lleva nuestro deseo, cultivar el deseo como algo de lo que somos agentes activos, para los hombres, una hetrosexualidad profunda significa alinear la política con el deseo. Luchar por la plenitud y humanidad de las mujeres .Transformar la fragilidad dañada de la masculinidad tóxica en un interés y amor robusto y convincente, desinvestirse en la identificación masculina, romper el pacto patriarcal. Centrar a la mujer en sus intereses, no sólo desear sus servicios y su cuerpo, pero desear su liberación y su placer.
Muchas mujeres, incluyéndome, usamos frases como "pinches onvres" o decimos desear haber nacido lesbianas, la autora nos pregunta: si la heterosexualidad es tan natural, por qué resulta tan cohersiva, por qué hay tanto desagrado público entre hombres y mujeres? por qué las mujeres están tan insatisfechas sexualmente? La autora asegura "la hetrosexualidad es una orientación sexual organizada alrededor del desagrado mutuo (misoginia y resentimiento)", el desinteres y violencia de parte de los hombres se encuentra con el resentimiento y el miedo de parte de las mujeres como base de las relaciones hetero; y explica como la transición de mujer degradada y subordinada a mujer como igual y digna de amor no ha sido completa ni resuelta dentro de la heterosexualidad.
La autora llama "la industria de la reparación hetero" a todos los esfuerzos inefectivos de parte de las mujeres para reparar a los hombres de su machismo, que terminan en en una mezcla de optimismo ciego y resignación. A las mujeres se nos presenta la mediocridad y deficiencia masculina como un reto para transformar, haciéndonos creer que al criar "nuevos hombres" encontraremos respeto y liberación, gastando enormes cantidades de energía en este proyecto, que, el feminismo ha demostrado, haríamos mejor en invertirlo en generar redes y vínculos con otras mujeres.
La heterosexualidad como la entendemos ahora ha sido fruto de propaganda para enseñar a las mujeres a desear las relaciones con los hombres a pesar de su inequidad. La heterosexualidad se organiza entre el amor y el abuso, comenzando desde el "te molesta porque le gustas" esa lógica sigue presente en la heterosexualidad adulta con lo que la autora llama la “paradoja de la misoginia” donde el hombre desea a la mujer pero no la humaniza. "Los hombres desean los servicios que proveen las mujeres: emocionales, sexuales, reproductivos, domésticos; más que a las mujeres reales". Mientras que la mujer aprende a acontentarse con poco con tal de experimentar el amor romántico que se nos vende como la fuente de la felicidad, estatus, protección y estabilidad, promesas que muchas veces no se verán cumplidas.
La premisa hetroromántica se le vende a la mujer como el vínculo más importante y que dará sentido a su vida, los dolores, tragedias y luchas forman parte de esta historia. Incluso se generan vinculos con otras mujeres al celebrar esta habilidad de sobrevivir a las decepciones y salir empoderadas: el sacrificio heteroromántico para llegar a la felicidad. El amor profundo de la mujer redime al hombre a través de su amor nutriente, perfecto y de aceptación. El dolor y sufrimiento femenino es el vehículo para la redención masculina y nuestra medalla de honor; sufrimiento y aceptación que se alinean con el capitalismo, con lo cual se acepta una vida aburrida y cansada como modelo a seguir. La heteroresignación y el heteropesimismo son ritos de edad de las mujeres. Hay un trabajo constante que la mujer tiene que realizar para mantener y sostener la satisfacción temporal del hombre dentro de la relación, con el miedo del abandono o la inseguridad económica. La lógica heteronormativa nos hace aceptar que entre hombres y mujeres no tenemos que gustarnos o querernos sino aguantarnos y suprimir nuestros deseos y necesidades. Que los hombres puedan ser desagradables o abusivos se plantean como cosas que hay que aguantar para cumplir con nuestras necesidades sexuales y románticas.
Del otro lado, es revelador que cuando un hombre describe interés en el mundo femenino (historias, arte, cultura o vida emocional de las mujeres) se le percibe como gay. En la hetrosexualidad actual, los hombres llegan a valorar más la aprovación de otros hombres que la humanidad femenina, usando los cuerpos de las mujeres para ganar respeto entre otros hombres. En ese contexto la mujer funciona en un triángulo erótico, donde el sexo con mujeres fortalece los lazos entre hombres. El sexo como validación masculina a través de la dominación sexual es parte de un sistema que beneficia y premia a los hombres que se disocian de la experiencia femenina en el sexo (cultura de la violación). los hombres gastan tiempo y energía en generar vínculos eróticos entre ellos sin lograr interesarse en el placer y el concentimiento femenino. Mientras los hombres hetero aseguran amar a las mujeres, sus energías continuan fluyendo hacia otros hombres (admirar, buscar su compañía y su aprovación), la heterosexualidad es una orientacion homosocial donde se romantiza la alienación entre hombres y mujeres. Para la mujer, el sexo no deseado, cohersivo y centrado en el hombre está normalizado porque el amor hetrosexual ya está construido alrededor del sacrificio femenino.
Otra cosa que pregunta la autora es si de verdad el deseo masculino, su potencia y testosterina son tan fuertes, por qué es necesaria tanta inversión de parte de las mujeres en términos de belleza y obediencia? en realidad el deseo heterosexualidad es mucho más débil y está condicionado más de lo que se acepta, la cultura pedofilica enseña a los hombres a desear mujeres jóvenes y vulnerables que necesitan protección, la actual educación sexual entrena a las mujeres a identificarse como víctimas del predador deseo masculino y ser las "gatekeepers" de la castidad, entrenadas para intercambiar el sexo por conexión.
La heterosexualidad trabaja estrechando las miras de lo que es concevible o imaginable, en su propuesta de "hetrosexualidad profunda" la autora nos dice que el elemento faltante no tiene que ver con el género u orientación sino en un vocabulario del placer: distinguir y saber nombrar lo que nos gusta. Las tipologías sexuales presentes en los espacios queer nos ayudan a imaginar formas de sexualidad libres de la monogamia, celos e infidelidad del mundo hetero y la verdadera variabilidad del deseo sexual.
Justamente una forma en la que se expresa la miseria hetrosexual es en el terror cultural a la homosexualidad, la homofobia es la expresión externa de la miseria hetero: la tristeza, y resignación a la normalidad, el miedo a desear, a ser diferente. Una de las frases del libro nos dice "si lo queer es demasiado, lo hetero es muy poco" El aburrimiento es parte de la cultura hetero, la autora define algo aburrido como algo vacío y vincula el aburrimiento con la opresión. Dentro de la hetrosexualidad, el género es una repetición, un proceso sin fin en el cual adquirimos la normalidad, o legibilidad dentro el binario masculino/femenino. En el control de estos roles predictivos y poco originales la cultura hetrosexual genera personalidades aburridas y reprimidas. El enfoque hetero es mantener las cosas tal cual están, politicamente es apático y desinteresado por la justicia social.
El libro concluye afirmando que nuestro deseo es nuestra responsabilidad, si no es algo que podemos cambiar, al menos es algo que podemos examinar. La sexualidad puede ser un lugar de elección y resistencia política, abandonando la pretención de la heterosexualidad como algo natural, simple, predeterminado y automático y articulando a donde nos lleva nuestro deseo, cultivar el deseo como algo de lo que somos agentes activos, para los hombres, una hetrosexualidad profunda significa alinear la política con el deseo. Luchar por la plenitud y humanidad de las mujeres .Transformar la fragilidad dañada de la masculinidad tóxica en un interés y amor robusto y convincente, desinvestirse en la identificación masculina, romper el pacto patriarcal. Centrar a la mujer en sus intereses, no sólo desear sus servicios y su cuerpo, pero desear su liberación y su placer.
July 27, 2022
Look, I don't hate allo-cishet people, that's not what this is. What this is is appreciation for Ward's ability to deconstruct societal scripts in a way that they actually end up making a lot of sense. I am... perpetually confused by how human beings function and how societal norms develop, but Ward has a real skill for making it accessible while stressing that while dangerous social norms are the fault of social structures, we can choose to reject them if we choose to recognize them.
An underlying principle within this book that I found especially fascinating is the Misogyny Paradox, "wherein boys’ and men’s desire for girls and women is expressed within a broader culture that encourages them to also hate girls and women.” It puts into words so many of the weird contradictions you see play out in high school, where boys go from talking about how much they want a girlfriend to spewing sexist crap that they don't even seem the register as devaluation of human life. (And wow if that doesn't specifically describe the oldest of my brothers.) It also traces the rise of self-help books and the seduction industry, in a way that's sympathetic but still holds both men and women accountable for how they perpetrate harmful ideals within their relationships.
It was also very interesting to see the history from which this current social paradox arose, and the circumstances under which the idea of heterosexuality being about love between a man and a woman (rather than just a partnership, alliance, or business arrangement) began to arise. People always say the nature of gayness was different in the past... It was interesting to see how the nature of straightness is similarly transient and sometimes difficult to discern.
Anyway, yeah, I really liked this one and gained some useful tools from it.
An underlying principle within this book that I found especially fascinating is the Misogyny Paradox, "wherein boys’ and men’s desire for girls and women is expressed within a broader culture that encourages them to also hate girls and women.” It puts into words so many of the weird contradictions you see play out in high school, where boys go from talking about how much they want a girlfriend to spewing sexist crap that they don't even seem the register as devaluation of human life. (And wow if that doesn't specifically describe the oldest of my brothers.) It also traces the rise of self-help books and the seduction industry, in a way that's sympathetic but still holds both men and women accountable for how they perpetrate harmful ideals within their relationships.
It was also very interesting to see the history from which this current social paradox arose, and the circumstances under which the idea of heterosexuality being about love between a man and a woman (rather than just a partnership, alliance, or business arrangement) began to arise. People always say the nature of gayness was different in the past... It was interesting to see how the nature of straightness is similarly transient and sometimes difficult to discern.
Anyway, yeah, I really liked this one and gained some useful tools from it.
Read
October 11, 2020DNF (why at end)
I came across this and am reading it as a NetGalley ARC. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am white, cis female, heterosexual, demisexual, and married for 40 years, child of parents happily married until death. I am very aware of problematic hetero nonsense, but have not experienced it personally. I know a reasonable number of het and queer couples & clumps (polyamorous) to claim I am familiar with what both success and failure look like.
I scrolled through the early reviews, and now I'm amused. Particularly at the reviewer who wants a more "unbiased" version of this book. Apparently they're new to humanity. But seriously, their problem is, they're new to an author different from themself. Jane Ward states her position in the human spectrum (lesbian) and her background as a teacher of gender studies, and with our own positions & experience, we--most of us--can understand why her observations might align with and/or differ from our own. This is how reading works.
The writing is a bit dense, as is common in academic work. It's not my favorite, but it's good so far.
Okay, DNF at 7%, because it's not just dense, it is repetitively dense, and I have no patience for that. It's too bad. I was interested, but the author's style stomped it into a pancake, sigh.
I came across this and am reading it as a NetGalley ARC. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am white, cis female, heterosexual, demisexual, and married for 40 years, child of parents happily married until death. I am very aware of problematic hetero nonsense, but have not experienced it personally. I know a reasonable number of het and queer couples & clumps (polyamorous) to claim I am familiar with what both success and failure look like.
I scrolled through the early reviews, and now I'm amused. Particularly at the reviewer who wants a more "unbiased" version of this book. Apparently they're new to humanity. But seriously, their problem is, they're new to an author different from themself. Jane Ward states her position in the human spectrum (lesbian) and her background as a teacher of gender studies, and with our own positions & experience, we--most of us--can understand why her observations might align with and/or differ from our own. This is how reading works.
The writing is a bit dense, as is common in academic work. It's not my favorite, but it's good so far.
Okay, DNF at 7%, because it's not just dense, it is repetitively dense, and I have no patience for that. It's too bad. I was interested, but the author's style stomped it into a pancake, sigh.
June 13, 2022
Let's start with the positive - I thought the history lessons in this book were invaluable. I learned how heterosexuality is tied to white supremacy and eugenics in this country. I also thought the chapter on the pickup and relationship self-help industries was fascinating. The last chapter was beautiful, there is so much we can learn from lesbians and bisexual women about how to love women more wholly.
BUT Chapter 4 - "A Sick and Boring Life: Queer People Diagnose the Tragedy" could have been omitted entirely from the book. It felt like Ward was sitting on her high horse, looking down on straight people. Where are the problems in queer relationships - I promise it's not a utopia. The earlier chapters had an academic tone, which I feel is appropriate for this book, so I don't understand why this chapter shifts into an informal tone, full of dozens of queer people's criticisms on Twitter and Facebook.
BUT Chapter 4 - "A Sick and Boring Life: Queer People Diagnose the Tragedy" could have been omitted entirely from the book. It felt like Ward was sitting on her high horse, looking down on straight people. Where are the problems in queer relationships - I promise it's not a utopia. The earlier chapters had an academic tone, which I feel is appropriate for this book, so I don't understand why this chapter shifts into an informal tone, full of dozens of queer people's criticisms on Twitter and Facebook.
October 31, 2020
Definitely a very interesting take on a subject that many of us are familiar with, either due to inclusion or proximity. The premise of this book is to show that perhaps it is not gay people who have the hard life, but instead it is straight people.
Not only does this book do its research, but it brings to light something that many of us have felt, whether straight or queer, but have not known how to put into words. I found the argument about how absurd it is that straight people are conditioned to hate each other, even though they're "the ideal" pairing. There is too much discord about how women are nagging and men are lazy, and it is something that needs to be eradicated. Not only is heterosexuality toxic to women, but it is toxic to men as well. Perhaps it is time for a reform.
I found the book a little aggressive with some of its points, but everything needed to be said.
Not only does this book do its research, but it brings to light something that many of us have felt, whether straight or queer, but have not known how to put into words. I found the argument about how absurd it is that straight people are conditioned to hate each other, even though they're "the ideal" pairing. There is too much discord about how women are nagging and men are lazy, and it is something that needs to be eradicated. Not only is heterosexuality toxic to women, but it is toxic to men as well. Perhaps it is time for a reform.
I found the book a little aggressive with some of its points, but everything needed to be said.
May 15, 2021
Funnily enough, this felt like an inversion of books explaining queerness/queer desire to straight people.
November 10, 2021
Useful history of heterosexuality, uprooted some of my preconceived notions. Very empathetic to the bum deal of hetero relationships. Also an interesting investigation into queer wealth!
May 4, 2021
It’s been a long time since I was able to read an academic monograph not under the lens of “how can I use this for paper xy” but “what do I actually learn from this?” I’m glad to discover that these books still do exist, and that Jane Ward’s “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is one of them. Glad? Quite thrilled, in fact!
It is a fact that this book quite literally changed my life, but let’s not get into that here, because that had more to do with personal circumstances than with any intrinsic quality of it. Instead, I’ll start with saying that it also changed my perspective on how academic texts can and should be written, which is perhaps its biggest merit: “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is singularly readable. You don’t need to have read any gender theory whatsoever in order to find access to it; what little jargon it uses is from queer culture rather than academia, and in every instance succinctly explained. Ward’s voice is casual, scathing, entertaining – she at several points remarks that she envisions the experience of this book as sitting at a non-heteronormative dinner party, having facetious chats with your neighbors, and that’s really how it comes across. It is never didactic, full of genuinely entertaining anecdotes and asides, it changes your perspective but also never pretends to have its own argument set in stone – instead, thinking extensively about where you would personally disagree and what the reasons for that are is part of the fun.
The argument of “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is simple at its core: for centuries, heterosexual coupling has been constructed as the paramount mode of happiness in western society, which couldn’t be further removed from the truth of many people’s experience of it. Intrinsically connected to structures of capitalism, misogyny and white supremacy, more often than not the heterosexual couple has functioned as a means of controlling women’s bodies and unpaid labor, of driving men toward higher productivity while at the same time isolating them and their emotions, and of eroding expressions of minority culture. The paradigmatic results are the normalization of gendered violence in and outside of relationships, couples staying together even though they despise or are at least not made actively happy by one another, bizarre requirements for the maintenance and performance of gender identity, as well as a whole neoliberal industrial complex providing ways for women to endlessly groom their bodies, for men to feign empathy in order to “score higher quality pussy”, and for both to accept profoundly unfulfilling relationships by means of self-help books, gender essentialism and the valorization of self-sacrifice in the name of “romantic love”. Queer culture, while of course containing ample examples of violence, manipulation, identity pressure and unhappy relationship in its own right, does so not as a default mode, in spite rather than because of the parameters on the basis of which it was constructed. The conclusion: if people “choose” to live in traditional heterosexual constellations because of what they gain from it for themselves and their partners, more power to them, but if that mode of living is treated as the gold standard everyone should aspire to unless they’re “forced by nature” to require other forms of partnership, it results in personal and societal tragedy.
While I cheer this argument in and of itself, I do feel ambivalent about the way Ward presents it: “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” reads at times more like a pamphlet than a scholarly thesis, and there are both pros and cons to that. On the one hand, it makes it so much more interesting, engaging, thought provoking, and, quite honestly, fun! On the other, while it draws upon a significant body of theoretical literature, cultural analysis, personal interviews and sociological statistics, it does every once in a while fall into “this is the case because it seems so to me” or “that’s right because, hey, doesn’t it feel right?” And yes, it probably is, and yes, I feel that a lot of good will come from that argument being out there to start a debate, even if it isn’t yet empirically conclusive. However, there remains a certain uneasiness, for one because this makes it a little too easy to deflect Ward’s argument on methodological grounds if one doesn’t want to engage with the uncomfortable facts within it, and also because it will trigger a lot of impulsive defensiveness in straight people, which is well deserved for sure, but might get in the way of actually moving society forward …
However, all this is nitpicking. The fact is that “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is one of the most poignant, easy to read and politically relevant books I’ve read in years, and despite its slight imperfections, it should be part of every man’s and woman’s basic education – especially if they’re ever planning to get married to someone with a different set of genitals.
It is a fact that this book quite literally changed my life, but let’s not get into that here, because that had more to do with personal circumstances than with any intrinsic quality of it. Instead, I’ll start with saying that it also changed my perspective on how academic texts can and should be written, which is perhaps its biggest merit: “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is singularly readable. You don’t need to have read any gender theory whatsoever in order to find access to it; what little jargon it uses is from queer culture rather than academia, and in every instance succinctly explained. Ward’s voice is casual, scathing, entertaining – she at several points remarks that she envisions the experience of this book as sitting at a non-heteronormative dinner party, having facetious chats with your neighbors, and that’s really how it comes across. It is never didactic, full of genuinely entertaining anecdotes and asides, it changes your perspective but also never pretends to have its own argument set in stone – instead, thinking extensively about where you would personally disagree and what the reasons for that are is part of the fun.
The argument of “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is simple at its core: for centuries, heterosexual coupling has been constructed as the paramount mode of happiness in western society, which couldn’t be further removed from the truth of many people’s experience of it. Intrinsically connected to structures of capitalism, misogyny and white supremacy, more often than not the heterosexual couple has functioned as a means of controlling women’s bodies and unpaid labor, of driving men toward higher productivity while at the same time isolating them and their emotions, and of eroding expressions of minority culture. The paradigmatic results are the normalization of gendered violence in and outside of relationships, couples staying together even though they despise or are at least not made actively happy by one another, bizarre requirements for the maintenance and performance of gender identity, as well as a whole neoliberal industrial complex providing ways for women to endlessly groom their bodies, for men to feign empathy in order to “score higher quality pussy”, and for both to accept profoundly unfulfilling relationships by means of self-help books, gender essentialism and the valorization of self-sacrifice in the name of “romantic love”. Queer culture, while of course containing ample examples of violence, manipulation, identity pressure and unhappy relationship in its own right, does so not as a default mode, in spite rather than because of the parameters on the basis of which it was constructed. The conclusion: if people “choose” to live in traditional heterosexual constellations because of what they gain from it for themselves and their partners, more power to them, but if that mode of living is treated as the gold standard everyone should aspire to unless they’re “forced by nature” to require other forms of partnership, it results in personal and societal tragedy.
While I cheer this argument in and of itself, I do feel ambivalent about the way Ward presents it: “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” reads at times more like a pamphlet than a scholarly thesis, and there are both pros and cons to that. On the one hand, it makes it so much more interesting, engaging, thought provoking, and, quite honestly, fun! On the other, while it draws upon a significant body of theoretical literature, cultural analysis, personal interviews and sociological statistics, it does every once in a while fall into “this is the case because it seems so to me” or “that’s right because, hey, doesn’t it feel right?” And yes, it probably is, and yes, I feel that a lot of good will come from that argument being out there to start a debate, even if it isn’t yet empirically conclusive. However, there remains a certain uneasiness, for one because this makes it a little too easy to deflect Ward’s argument on methodological grounds if one doesn’t want to engage with the uncomfortable facts within it, and also because it will trigger a lot of impulsive defensiveness in straight people, which is well deserved for sure, but might get in the way of actually moving society forward …
However, all this is nitpicking. The fact is that “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is one of the most poignant, easy to read and politically relevant books I’ve read in years, and despite its slight imperfections, it should be part of every man’s and woman’s basic education – especially if they’re ever planning to get married to someone with a different set of genitals.
January 9, 2023
3.5 stars.
This book had lots of interesting points. The main thesis is the heterosexuality paradox wherein men are (supposedly) attracted to women but they also hate them and this causes all sorts of problems. The first 3 chapters where the author outlines the history of heterosexuality and straight culture and it’s ties to the eugenics movement, the heterosexuality repair industry (self help), and the weird world of pick up artists and coaching were all excellent. The final two chapters however devolve into a survey of her and her queer friends repeating the same things over and over and having an uppity attitude which was off putting. It felt like she was romanticising queer relationships a little too much.
While I would recommend the first 3 chapters to most people - especially straights - to read, I do note some cons of the book:
- there is no discussion on bi/pan/trans opposite gender relationships which feels like a big oversight. How do, for example, bi people relate to heterosexuality culture and do they provide alternatives or do they replicate the same patterns?
- the book is not a queer lens on heterosexuality, it is a lesbian feminist lens on western heterosexuality and specifically a focus on how lesbians feel bad for the poor straight women. Almost every reference and citation were to lesbians and feminists.
- the book focuses on straight women as victims in need of saving while barely acknowledging the ways straight women uphold and cling on to heterosexuality and it’s privileges. Toxic masculinity is a focus but not toxic femininity.
- the author feels very old school sometimes in discussing lesbians. Seems mainly focused on butch- femme identities and relationships. Not a big deal but something I noticed. I knew she was femme before it was stated, with her call out of femme-discrimination in queer communities but no mention of masc/gnc discrimination among lesbians.
- for what it was the book was interesting but I was left feeling like so much missed potential. Why did she focus on self help books and pick up artists? Why not on politics and hetero policies of government? Or institutionalised heteronormativity? A good companion to this book might be In the Dream House where Machado specifically points out the heteronormativity of the justice system in cases of IPV and how views that victims of domestic violence should be feminine enough harms gnc victims. I would’ve loved to have seen the author in this book grapple with institutional issues like this rather than just on individuals seeking self help and the bad advice they are given. If she truly wants to save heterosexuality institutions will need changed not just individual straight people.
This book had lots of interesting points. The main thesis is the heterosexuality paradox wherein men are (supposedly) attracted to women but they also hate them and this causes all sorts of problems. The first 3 chapters where the author outlines the history of heterosexuality and straight culture and it’s ties to the eugenics movement, the heterosexuality repair industry (self help), and the weird world of pick up artists and coaching were all excellent. The final two chapters however devolve into a survey of her and her queer friends repeating the same things over and over and having an uppity attitude which was off putting. It felt like she was romanticising queer relationships a little too much.
While I would recommend the first 3 chapters to most people - especially straights - to read, I do note some cons of the book:
- there is no discussion on bi/pan/trans opposite gender relationships which feels like a big oversight. How do, for example, bi people relate to heterosexuality culture and do they provide alternatives or do they replicate the same patterns?
- the book is not a queer lens on heterosexuality, it is a lesbian feminist lens on western heterosexuality and specifically a focus on how lesbians feel bad for the poor straight women. Almost every reference and citation were to lesbians and feminists.
- the book focuses on straight women as victims in need of saving while barely acknowledging the ways straight women uphold and cling on to heterosexuality and it’s privileges. Toxic masculinity is a focus but not toxic femininity.
- the author feels very old school sometimes in discussing lesbians. Seems mainly focused on butch- femme identities and relationships. Not a big deal but something I noticed. I knew she was femme before it was stated, with her call out of femme-discrimination in queer communities but no mention of masc/gnc discrimination among lesbians.
- for what it was the book was interesting but I was left feeling like so much missed potential. Why did she focus on self help books and pick up artists? Why not on politics and hetero policies of government? Or institutionalised heteronormativity? A good companion to this book might be In the Dream House where Machado specifically points out the heteronormativity of the justice system in cases of IPV and how views that victims of domestic violence should be feminine enough harms gnc victims. I would’ve loved to have seen the author in this book grapple with institutional issues like this rather than just on individuals seeking self help and the bad advice they are given. If she truly wants to save heterosexuality institutions will need changed not just individual straight people.
January 16, 2023
While reading this book, my mind kept returning to something that happened 6 months ago. My wife and I were leaving a bar, and we overheard one man say to another, "Let's go to midtown. Get some drugs. Find some pussy."
Shamefully, I said nothing. I have many, many regrets in my life, but a major one has been my silence in the face of these small moments of sexism that I hear throughout my day. After reading this book, I vowed to always call someone out on their mysogeny and sexism.
The author's main point -- that compulsory heterosexuality has been terrible for both men and women -- is driven home time and time again by her examples. Midway through the book I felt sick about how many men view women as objects, to satisfy their desire for sex and status. And, worse, because of the gender norms inherent in straight culture, how these men don't even see the problem.
I also felt depressed as I saw, in my own life, the soul-crushing heteronormativity in which I was raised. Heterosexuality doesn't promote partnerships; it ruins partnerships by selling us an illusion of what marriage and family should be about. I can't begin to imagine how many straight women are depressed because they crave partnership and connection, that their husbands have no desire to provide. Forget about love -- how many heterosexual couples don't even LIKE each other?
The author's solution, at the end, is what she calls Deep Heterosexuality:
"We know that straight men could be so attracted to women that they might as well rename their sexual orientation, recognizing that the term feminist, and not straight, is the best way to describe the expansiveness of their desires for women."
While I'm hesitant to call this a real solution, I admire how it cleverly changes the frame of reference around the word heterosexuality.
In short, next time I'm in a bar and I hear the phrase "high-quality pussy" or "chase some tail," I might lose a couple teeth. I hope it's my two front ones. They're mismatched in color anyway.
Shamefully, I said nothing. I have many, many regrets in my life, but a major one has been my silence in the face of these small moments of sexism that I hear throughout my day. After reading this book, I vowed to always call someone out on their mysogeny and sexism.
The author's main point -- that compulsory heterosexuality has been terrible for both men and women -- is driven home time and time again by her examples. Midway through the book I felt sick about how many men view women as objects, to satisfy their desire for sex and status. And, worse, because of the gender norms inherent in straight culture, how these men don't even see the problem.
I also felt depressed as I saw, in my own life, the soul-crushing heteronormativity in which I was raised. Heterosexuality doesn't promote partnerships; it ruins partnerships by selling us an illusion of what marriage and family should be about. I can't begin to imagine how many straight women are depressed because they crave partnership and connection, that their husbands have no desire to provide. Forget about love -- how many heterosexual couples don't even LIKE each other?
The author's solution, at the end, is what she calls Deep Heterosexuality:
"We know that straight men could be so attracted to women that they might as well rename their sexual orientation, recognizing that the term feminist, and not straight, is the best way to describe the expansiveness of their desires for women."
While I'm hesitant to call this a real solution, I admire how it cleverly changes the frame of reference around the word heterosexuality.
In short, next time I'm in a bar and I hear the phrase "high-quality pussy" or "chase some tail," I might lose a couple teeth. I hope it's my two front ones. They're mismatched in color anyway.
October 5, 2022
Holy SHIT. This is a remarkable work—incredibly accessible without sacrificing any of the nuance that often becomes lost in academic-but-approachable-texts; Dr. Ward is a fantastic synthesizer of history, theory, and anecdote. As a gender studies person, I’m in love with this book largely because of its style and how it somehow manages to be witty even when discussing the violent foundations of heteronormativity. I annotated the shit out of this bad boy and that is a Major thumbs up from me. It’s so refreshing to see a queer approach to heterosexuality that doesn’t feel judgmental without any direction/sense of possibility; as a queer person myself I know the tendency to scorn and just completely disavow hetero culture is very tempting and very valid, so this was really fascinating in the way it showed how cultural conceptions of heterosexuality have changed over time—and how it’s ALL an industry, all marketing, all intimately connected to and entwined with the maintenance of capitalism. like duh, heterosexual “culture” IS so lifeless and inane but also why is cis straight men’s dislike and disinterest in women’s interior and intellectual/political lives NATURALIZED; wouldn’t actual hetero attraction be deeply invested in the full personhood and expansiveness of women…not objectifying them so as to impress your bros (so not homosocial at all lmao).
ok sorry. just…yes. there are definitely areas in which i wished we could’ve delved more into the complexities of dismantling essentialism; thinking more about the relationship between performativity and straightness here, def could’ve used some more Butler imo and more critique of the general binary construction of gender that heterosexuality actually entails even in “deep heterosexuality” .. but overall i loved it.
ok sorry. just…yes. there are definitely areas in which i wished we could’ve delved more into the complexities of dismantling essentialism; thinking more about the relationship between performativity and straightness here, def could’ve used some more Butler imo and more critique of the general binary construction of gender that heterosexuality actually entails even in “deep heterosexuality” .. but overall i loved it.
February 1, 2023
4.5 stars, rounded up.
I was fully invested in this book by about page 3. In The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, Ward pushes back against the idea that queer people are fundamentally unhappy and wish they could be straight; in fact, she totally reverses it: straight culture is deeply fucked, and straight people wish they had the creativity, joy, and love that queer people do. This is the kind of book that had me nodding in agreement about every other page. I really enjoyed the mix of academic analysis and familiar nods to queer memes and culture. This book also made me realize (and be grateful for) how far removed I am from the world and culture of straight people!
My only complaint about the book is that it feels a little disjointed and all over the place. Not that Ward is a bad author - there's just a lot of information and I think she could have used another 100 pages to really flesh out and organize each of the ideas. I loved the section that involved responses from the author's queer friends about their thoughts on straight people and culture. I feel like the book could have entirely centered on these responses and the author's further insights, rather than being placed strangely in the center of the book. It also feels a little academic; I found it accessible, but there were definitely times I had to re-read a section to really understand it.
Overall, I loved this book and will be recommending to everyone I know for the foreseeable future!
I was fully invested in this book by about page 3. In The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, Ward pushes back against the idea that queer people are fundamentally unhappy and wish they could be straight; in fact, she totally reverses it: straight culture is deeply fucked, and straight people wish they had the creativity, joy, and love that queer people do. This is the kind of book that had me nodding in agreement about every other page. I really enjoyed the mix of academic analysis and familiar nods to queer memes and culture. This book also made me realize (and be grateful for) how far removed I am from the world and culture of straight people!
My only complaint about the book is that it feels a little disjointed and all over the place. Not that Ward is a bad author - there's just a lot of information and I think she could have used another 100 pages to really flesh out and organize each of the ideas. I loved the section that involved responses from the author's queer friends about their thoughts on straight people and culture. I feel like the book could have entirely centered on these responses and the author's further insights, rather than being placed strangely in the center of the book. It also feels a little academic; I found it accessible, but there were definitely times I had to re-read a section to really understand it.
Overall, I loved this book and will be recommending to everyone I know for the foreseeable future!
January 9, 2023
A fun + easy pop-theory read. Funny and interesting but not really groundbreaking in any capacity. Most of what is written here is the same conversation I’ve had with every queer person in my life, and while it’s cool that it’s now in a book, I don’t think this really expanded my understanding of anything.
But I’m also a dyke. I’m pretty accustomed to observing straight culture and straight people and coming to conclusions about it. I think this book would be very interesting and enlightening for straight women in particular. Especially with the rise of nihilistic heterosexuality (re: straight women saying that they are “unfortunately straight” or that they “hate dating men”— both of which are valid statements IMO), I think this book does a good job of outlining a future where heterosexuality in its base form (men and women desiring each other) can be divorced from systems of oppression.
I think this book could at the very least give straight women the language to better articulate their frustrations with heterosexuality as an institution.
There was a certain “Cisgender White Lesbian” quality to the book, but the author is pretty forthcoming about her positionality and how it affects her analysis. Overall I am giving 3 stars because I enjoyed it but it didn’t do anything new or exciting for me.
But I’m also a dyke. I’m pretty accustomed to observing straight culture and straight people and coming to conclusions about it. I think this book would be very interesting and enlightening for straight women in particular. Especially with the rise of nihilistic heterosexuality (re: straight women saying that they are “unfortunately straight” or that they “hate dating men”— both of which are valid statements IMO), I think this book does a good job of outlining a future where heterosexuality in its base form (men and women desiring each other) can be divorced from systems of oppression.
I think this book could at the very least give straight women the language to better articulate their frustrations with heterosexuality as an institution.
There was a certain “Cisgender White Lesbian” quality to the book, but the author is pretty forthcoming about her positionality and how it affects her analysis. Overall I am giving 3 stars because I enjoyed it but it didn’t do anything new or exciting for me.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews