The Tragedy of Heterosexuality

by Jane Ward

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.”

Genres: Nonfiction, Feminism, Queer, LGBT, Sexuality, Audiobook, Gender

216 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 2020

About the author

Jane Ward is professor of Feminist Studies at University of California Santa Barbara. She teaches and writes about gender and sexual cultures, and has published on topics including the marriage self-help industry, the rise and fall of pickup artists, how early lesbian feminist ideas shaped contemporary gender politics, the meaning of sex between straight-identified men, queer childhood and parenting, the evolution of straight culture, the corporatization of gay pride festivals, the race politics of same-sex marriage, the social construction of whiteness, feminist pornography, and trans relationships.

Ward is the author of multiple books, including The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, described by The New York Times Book Review as "at heart a somber, urgent academic examination of the many ways in which opposite-sex coupling can hurt the very individuals who cling to it most. " Her book Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men (2015) was featured in Newsweek, New York Magazine, Forbes, The Guardian, BBC, Washington Post, USA Today, Huffington Post, Salon, Vice, and Slate. Her first book, Respectably Queer: Diversity Culture in LGBT Activist Organizations, was named by The Progressive magazine as a best book of 2008 and has been featured on NPR. ​

Reviews

[Richard Derus · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Simone · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Bek (MoonyReadsByStarlight) · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Tabitha]

There 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.

[Zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[mina]

Pretty 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)?

[Philip · Rating 2 out of 5]

“The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is a mixed bag of interesting analysis, painful criticisms, and (to my mind) valid arguments about heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships that’s unfortunately woefully one-sided, bias-ridden, and sometimes just wrong – and that’s in addition to frequently resorting to condescension and arguments that, if reversed, would be decried as violence or hate of one sort or another. I find it both troubling and illustrative of our contemporary world that the book has such a high rating (4.18 stars at the time of this writing).

*Heads up, there’s a chance of rambling and TMI from hereon out.

Ward says she’s an ally to straight people and dedicates the book to “[…] straight women. May you find a way to have your sexual needs met without suffering so much.” She does so from, as she frames it, a queer position of privilege – arguing that non-heterosexual people have it better (relationship-wise at least) and framing heterosexuality as the Other (reinforced by her deliberate choice of chiefly leaning on minority LGBTQIA+ voices and research looking in from the outside). It’s not an inherently problematic starting point, I think observations and lessons from “outside” of a studied demographic can be crucial to the framing of an issue, but here it clearly skewed the book to the point of undermining its valuable lessons.

As far as the author is concerned, the blame for “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” can be placed at the feet of men (especially the white kind) and their misogynistic society that violently and possessively defends heteronormative and male supremacist structures and expectations (also, white gay men are like one hairbreadth away from getting lumped in here). And it’s essentially on them to fix it. I should note that Ward points out that she’s talking generally/structurally and that of course exceptions exist (albeit that I think this is more an attempt to undermine the “not all men” criticism than anything else).

And first of all, I mean, she’s not entirely wrong. To say that men as a group (particularly the white kind, and especially in the European/North American context) have had it better in just about every way is an understatement. It’s undeniable that most, if not all, issues in heterosexual relationships in some way stem from gender roles and expectations steeped and matured in religious and patriarchal dogmas. To me, this is where the book is strongest. Ward outlines some of the harmful and oppressive mechanisms that we all – whether heterosexual or not – have to overcome in order to be the best that we can be, both together and individually. The arguments she builds on this foundation are also both insightful and valuable contributions to consider when, I would argue, building relationships of all kinds.

Similarly, her criticism of the relationship self-help industry (or, as she calls it, heterosexuality repair industry) are both on point and insightful. Whether it be books and magazines of the “how to please and support your man” and “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus” or the “Toni Robbins” and “Seduction Bootcamps” of the world, Ward picks apart the gender essentialism that underlies the whole shebang.

So far, it’s mostly good if somewhat one-sided stuff, but this is where she’s starting to wander into the more problematic things. The bootcamps (which, to be fair, I think are total and destructive hogwash) are viewed through the prism of one of the books central arguments, namely what she calls the “Misogyny Paradox” – wherein heterosexual men both love and hate women. I’m not saying she’s entirely wrong here either, I think there’s a terrifying amount of people for which this is true.

No, my issue with this argument is that while the book justifiably comes down hard on this concept, Ward also talks about women hating men in one way or another as empowering. It is, to me, flabbergasting that one can paint the “misogyny paradox” as, essentially, the core of “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality,” while simultaneously cheering on what one might similarly call the “misandry paradox.” I think it’s perfectly understandable to argue that one is a bigger problem than the other, but it’s crazy to not even see that both might play a part here.

Which leads me to one of my two main issues with this book. Ward completely ignores that men too may justifiably feel shortchanged in a heterosexual relationship. Violence and abuse are not one-way streets (even if we/society and the author try really hard to pretend it is), nor is sexual dissatisfaction.

Intimate Partner Violence is so often termed men’s violence against women that it obscures how much of a two-way problem that is. In the U.S., for example, the CDC’s NISVS 2015, found that 36.4% of women and 33.6% of men have been victims of “any contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking” in their lifetime, with 5.5% of women and 5.2% of men had been so in the last 12 months. In both the 2010 and the 2016/17 reports, the numbers were different but remained roughly equal. Note too/though, that women are more frequently victims of intimate partner sexual violence or sexual abuse, generally by a percentage point or so.

Women are much more frequently killed by their partner than vice versa (although that has not always been the case in the U.S.) and although men generally appear to be victimized more often in the 12-month window, women are more often repeatedly victimized by a single partner in the same 12-month period. Nonetheless, women also more frequently self-report themselves as perpetrators of intimate partner violence and are more likely the perpetrator in uni-directional intimate partner violence (unless studies are based on police reports).

Look, my point here isn’t to argue that it’s worse for either party (especially since the balance is not the same in every country and Ward is definitely making a more global argument), the point is to illustrate that Ward’s argument is far too unilateral. And the same is true when it comes to the sexual and relationship satisfaction argument, in more than one way even.

When it comes to sex, Ward argues that it’s mainly for men (who are all simple and happily get to climax every time) whereas the poor women miss out on amazing sex because their men are selfish and terrible at sex. Again, she is kinda half right. It’s no secret that women do more domestic work than men, which is likely a contributing factor to why women seem to feel greater marital strain in heterosexual relationships than do women in same sex relationships (who are on par with men in heterosexual relationships) according to a recent study in Journal of Marriage and Family.

Women also do indeed seem to orgasm more frequently in same sex relationships (interestingly enough though, bisexual women appear to orgasm less frequently than heterosexual women) – likely not unrelated to the fact that lesbian couples have sex longer (but less frequently) than heterosexual couples and appear to get wetter (“higher lubrication”) in same sex relationships. I’m willing to take Ward on her word that non-heterosexual partners communicate better about sex and what works, and are more likely to experiment and discover as well. Similarly, there are plenty of studies concluding that relationship satisfaction is comparable in heterosexual and homosexual relationships, so maybe she really is on to something.

However, the same study as mentioned above also found that the lowest marital strain is to be found in gay couples, so if marital strain is what it hinges on, men too would be better off in homosexual relationships. And while women tend to initiate divorce more often than men do in heterosexual couples (possibly indicating who is most dissatisfied), so too do lesbian couples divorce more frequently than both gay and straight couples do in pretty much every country that tracks this data. And the gap (in the U.S. and Canada at least) seems more pronounced in couples with children. So not so cut and dried after all.

Nor is it in the sexual arena where, despite the lower rate of orgasms, women in heterosexual relationships appear to be about as satisfied as their lesbian counterparts – at the very least, the data is inconsistent and frequently also show that straight women are more satisfied than lesbian women are (and even more so than bisexual women). And it’s not like men can’t be dissatisfied with the sex in a relationship either (hell, even the sky high male orgasm rate is only about 85%). The “birthday blowjob” isn’t a cultural phenomenon for nothing (on a TMI personal note, more than once have I run into women who give oral exactly once in a relationship – that being on the first date that ends in sex).

Regardless, I do think Ward hits the proverbial nail on the head with the need for communication and less ego in heterosexual relationships – both in terms of sex and the relationship in general. I find it mind-blowing that so many women feel the need to fake orgasms, especially considering that men apparently generally enjoy giving oral more than women do (I’m guessing this is a contributing factor to why gay men are more likely to both give and receive oral than are straight men). Not to mention how many men seem to think that sex is over the moment they’re done.

Ward is right, all this bad sex has got to stop – or, well, get better – and that goes both ways (contrary to what many women appear to think, they too can be bad in bed – and I’m not only referring to the anecdote above). But Ward is clearly not concerned with that mutual approach – she is about as one-sided in who she thinks sex should be focused on as she accuses the eponymous selfish man to be. Again, the book is far too unilateral.

Which brings me back to the book’s dedication, and Ward’s desire for women to “[…] find [their] way to have [their] sexual needs met without suffering so much.” Despite the orgasm gap, the sexual satisfaction gap she argues for is not so clear cut, obvious, or even decidedly in her favor as she claims; And while there are some pros and cons with both and men in general benefit more in a same-sex relationship, female same sex relationships dissolve more often than do male same sex and heterosexual relationships. Meaning that the “sexual needs” (and relationship needs for that matter) part of the equation isn’t super obvious.

As for the second, “without suffering so much,” part of the equation where Ward argues that women are better off in non-heterosexual relationships, well, there’s no denying that women too frequently do suffer in heterosexual relationships. Interestingly enough though, from 2017 through 2020, intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships was roughly 75% more common than it was in heterosexual relationships according to the USDOJ (and according to the CDC both sexual and regular intimate partner violence is less common in gay relationships than male victimization is in heterosexual relationships, so a disproportionate part of those additional victims was found in lesbian relationships).

Similarly, in lifetime victims of sexual crimes (although the CDC did not separate rape and other sexual violence when reporting on the sex of the perpetrator) lesbian victims are more likely to have a female perpetrator (14.8%) than both bisexual (12.5%) and heterosexual women victims (5.3%) – indicating that intimate partner sexual violence against women in lesbian relationships could be as prevalent as that in heterosexual relationships (I’ve also read a study where nearly 50% of lesbians reported sexual abuse by a woman partner – although the study is almost 30 years old and could hardly be called representative so that’s likely way high, but then again, the same shortcomings that study suffers from are present in a lot of studies relating to different sex perpetrators as well).

Again, all this is not to say that one relationship type is better than any other. It’s to illustrate that I think “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is a bit dishonest. The book has a lot of good criticisms and observations that I wish all straight people and couples take to heart. But in direct contradiction with the author’s statement that she’s a straight ally, I think the book is likely to do more harm than good. Like so much of the cultural and political discourse today, it’s drawing battle lines instead of bridging differences.

Add to that that only the first few chapters are actually constructive in any way. Once the author really gets into the "queersplaining" of heterosexual relationships, it drops of the ledge pretty fast. A prime example being her “dinner party” of queer voices that she herself would wish to attend had she been straight, that was about as constructive for me as going to a Trump rally to listen and learn would have been for her. I do not need that level of condescension and hypocrisy in my life. How in the world can anyone think that some of those statements are ok?

I’m glad to see that so many reviewers have reacted to her statement that it isn’t so hard being lesbian (Ward channeling her best Nike marketing team “just do it”), and comparing it with a cis straight person saying the same thing in reverse to someone not heterosexual or cis. I wish and hope that more people read all the other similarly kinda crazy statements in this book with the same critical glasses on (from some of the other reviews though, that may be a bit too hopeful on my part).

Despite all my criticism of the book, I want to end on the note that there’s a reason a book such as this gets published. All is not well in relationships. The solution isn’t to dump all the fault on one half as the author does, nor is the solution for all of us to “choose” turning queer or homosexual. But all is not well. In the end, Ward is right after all (sort of), the key to a lot of our problems (so prevalent in all relationships, heterosexual and not) is arguably communication, empathy, and sympathy.

Ward writes about “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality,” I would argue that it is more The Tragedy of Love. The solution to this tragedy though, is not to sunder and point fingers, but to heal and embrace.

And my recommendation? Critically read the first few chapters, skip the rest.

[Verónica Fleitas Solich · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Courtney · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Jessi ❤️ H. Vojsk [if villain, why hot?] · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting relatively short book about straight culture and the history and possible better future of heterosexuality.

[Amanda Valenzuela · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Hannah Joslin · Rating 4 out of 5]

"As an ally for straight people, I wish for them that their lust for one another might be genuinely born out of mutual regard and solidarity."

- - - - - - -

Queerness is not a sentencing to a life of misery, pain, and otherness as heterosexual culture and gay white men have taught us to believe. Rather, queerness is a source of joy, excitement, and deep connection with others, rooted in caring for humans and lacking any hint of domination, power, or control. At least, this is the type of queerness that I seek to be a part of.

Reading this book was helpful in naming the ways in which heteronormative culture rooted in misogyny has permeated and distorted the queer culture I knew and attempted to dive into when I first started exploring my own sexuality. Prior to my acknowledgment of my sexuality, I accepted phrases like “born this way” and “love is love” due to their prevalence in mainstream media (phrases that came out of cis, gay, white, male culture because white men who identified as gay were having to give up some of their power...an experience they were unfamiliar with, so queerness became a thing to grieve and had to have some sort of biological explanation, because why else would gay men choose to be gay? ...thanks patriarchy for literally creeping into every aspect of society). So naturally, I clung onto these types of messages when initially exploring my own sexuality and yet, such phrases provided a “comfort” that somehow still felt shallow and uncomfortable. I am forever indebted to queer feminist authors and to a queer history that is more expansive than cis, gay, white men.

It’s this type of book, I wish I could give to very specific people in my life because I know if they would allow themselves to listen to this book and truly examine the way they interact with the women they claim to love, their lives could be changed and their love would look so different. Though I was not, in theory, the intended audience of this book, I learned a lot. It's disheartening that the intended audience of this book has even more to learn, and yet somehow, I can't imagine them making it past the title of the book.

[Emma Covino · Rating 4 out of 5]

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!

[Dustin Rollins · Rating 5 out of 5]

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!

[Madeline · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The thing about heterosexual misery that makes it irreducible to basic human foible is that straight relationships are rigged from the start. Straight culture, unlike queer culture, naturalizes and often glorifies men’s failures and women’s sufferings, hailing girls and women into hetero femininity through a collective performance of resilience.”


No, like you guys don't get it. I can hardly even write a review on this one because how does a former building, aka pile of rubble, write about the wrecking ball that destroyed it?
People say "life changing", right? But I cannot overstate how influential this book has been in shaping my own feminism and views on queerness.
Ignore the poppy cover and the knee jerk reaction to write this one off for it's title; this is some high quality and heavy duty feminist theory, written in an accessible and engaging format.

Ward's wild suggestion: what would happen if men started actually liking women?

This book was refreshing in the fact that it spoke soberly of women's subjugation, opting to actually address the elephant in the room that is conveniently ignored by so many straight feminists. That is, men using women as objects of social status and tools to achieve greater standing among other men, approaching the world with a man-aligned vision. Heterosexuality has been enacted through a centuries long propaganda campaign, resting wholly on women's servitude. Not to say that sexual or romantic relations aren't natural between men and women, they 100% are, but that the coupling and gender roles inherent modern heterosexuality are not natural. They exist due to gendered/racialized hierarchies of male social positioning and thus require serious re-evaluation.
Straight women have been faced with an unchanging attitude in the minds of men and so have been forced to make do, creating their own gender culture revolving around their suffering; resilience is awarded with kinship and status. Meanwhile, queer women/lesbians are viewed as sad victims of bioessentialism who were not lucky enough to be normal and "straight."
Heterosexual women's fears of being labeled as a lesbian (the worst thing a woman could be in a society that objectifies women for men's use... lesbian as "difficult object") have created this environment within the many nodules of the feminist movement that says, "don't listen to lesbians! they just hate men and want everyone else to be a lesbian!"
Now, diving into Lesbian Feminism, I am struck by the clarity and empathy of their arguments. The tangible suggestions on how to improve the plight of the heterosexual woman, as well as the kindness deployed in the face of the straight woman's fear and erasure of queer women.

Most notable for me was the examination of the concept of "queer suffering" and insightful critique of bioessentialism, as well as the grip that cis gay men have had on the queer image in activism, painting a portrait of queer tragedy. Ward constructs a brilliant argument about queer joy that was truly life changing for me as a queer woman.

There is simply too much to say about this book (who writes a note about every page? me), but it is a profound experience and I highly recommend it to all of my friends, regardless of your orientation.

[Laurie Keech · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s really straight people (of course) who should be reading this book. Many of the concepts outlined are extremely obvious to most queer people, but may be news to heterosexuals- eg that lesbians have better sex than straight women, or that heterosexuality is not the “natural” arrangement of an inherent desire but a an enforced system maintained by violence. The title of the book is another good example of this- multiple straight (and one queer!) family members described the title as “explosive” or “deliberately provocative”, yet this more speaks to their hetero-centric perspective. To me the title is perfectly reasonable and actually quite obvious. Straight people have a lot to think about…

Having said that, I enjoyed this book and did learn from it. It nicely consolidates diverse ideas, and overviews a good range of queer and feminist writing. I appreciated the emphasis on intersectionality and black women’s experience, although at times it was incorporated with slight clunkiness. I’ve read some reviews on here that critiqued the lack of academic integrity and over reliance on anecdote- while I agree, I didn’t find it an issue. It just depends what you want out of it; as a rigorous academic source maybe not, but I think her perspective was bang on- if you just want to inform yourself (or are a straight people wanting to challenge your perspective) I think it’s great.

Not a perfect book but I think if you’re straight it’s an obligatory read. If you’re a well read queer person you can probably skip.

[Vicki Larson · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Megan McSherry · Rating 4 out of 5]

gave me a ton to think about. looks at heterosexual relationships through the lens of patriarchy (ie women loving a man while simultaneously existing in a society where women are treated as less than men and victims of violence at the hands of men) and evaluates all of this through a lesbian feminist pov. breaks down the tragedy of some common phrases like “ugh i wish i didn’t like men!!!” or “i wish i was gay” which women use in response to absurd things men do in their intimate relationships and in life in general.

not sure I grasped all of it, as it’s really dense and reads like feminist theory, but truly a fascinating read. want to get a physical copy and annotate like crazy

[Camille McCarthy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up this book mostly because I was intrigued by the premise of the book, which is taking a hard look at the contradictions inherent in a sexuality in which men and women desire each other sexually but also have a strong dislike, sometimes even a hatred, for each other - mostly focused on men's hatred of women and their misogynistic treatments of them while at the same time desiring to be with them and being angry and upset when women don't want to be with them. I thought the book did a great job of really delving into those issues. It also went into the history of heterosexual relationships, and how often, men and women had to be persuaded and trained to come together for marriage and procreation because they were so unfamiliar with each others' bodies and mannerisms that they were disgusted with each other, to the point where they had trouble consummating marriages and producing offspring. This is definitely a side of history that isn't talked about much, which is odd when I think about it, since this is something that would affect most people. Some of that was funny, but mostly it was terrifying, especially when the issue of wedding-night rape came up - and how eugenicists/white supremacists were usually on the forefront of trying to produce more harmonic marital relations.
Some people have criticized the portion towards the end where she asks queer people whether they like being around straight people or if they prefer queer people and why, and a lot of the responses are about how boring straight people are and how they don't seem to care about much aside from buying things and self-promotion. People thought this section was mean-spirited, but I just thought it was funny. Probably not the most helpful in terms of how to help straight people get out of the bind of their tragic situations, but funny.
Ward tried to offer a way forward for heterosexual people, using queer frameworks to have better heterosexual relationships. Her examples about how men could learn to love women in the way that lesbians love women were vivid and deep, but I didn't feel like there was much instruction for women on how to navigate a "deeper" heterosexuality. However, it would be a lot for her to both frame the problem and come up with the whole solution, especially since she is not heterosexual and it is not at all her responsibility for fixing the problem - I think it's enough that she's pointed out the contradictions and "misogyny paradox" inherent in heterosexuality and suggests some examples of how things could be different. The book definitely gave me a lot to think about and was well worth the read.

[Dani Kass · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is incredible, and gets to the heart of the differences between homosexual and heterosexual cultures and ways of approaching life. Ward looks into why (the culture behind) heterosexual couples tends to encourage relationships where men don't like women, and women have to put up with it and try to impress them anyway. She dives into the historical context, what men and women are actually accomplishing in the culture of hetero relationships, and how it's particularly harmful for women, which is where most of the sacrifice falls. It's not saying heterosexual people and all heterosexual relationships are bad, but it does provide a much bigger picture of what is expected and why it isn't questioned despite the hurt and harm it causes to those involved.

The audience does appear to be queer folk, but I think straight people would get even more out of it (even if it probably invokes defensiveness) in terms of seeing how their lives have been part of this larger sociological context.

The entire book isn't making direct comparisons to homosexual relationships, but when it did so, it fully underscored why being queer feels so different from being straight. At one point, Ward talks about how there are obviously bad queer relationships and queer partners but "the thing about heterosexual misery that makes it irreducible to basic human foible is that straight relationships are rigged from the start."

I also loved this quote, which captured something so much bigger about why heterosexual people and culture finds queerness so threatening, painful and foreign.

"Respect for sacrifice, or sucking it up and surviving life’s miseries, is one of the hallmarks of white working class culture for instance, wherein striving for personal happiness carries less value than does adherence to familial norms and traditions. Maturity and respectability are measured by what one has given up in order to keep the family system going, an ethos that is challenged by the presence of a queer child, for instance, who insists on being who they are. Queerness, to the extent that it emphasize authenticity in one’s sexual relationships and fulfillment of personal desires, is an affront to the celebration of heteroromantic hardship."

I HIGHLY recommend the audiobook but will also be buying the paperback to mark up now that I'm finished.

[Bob Larson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't know where to begin...

First and foremost, it's just a screed; the author is the quintessential man-hating lesbian. The book is solely about what she finds wrong with men (assuming men are a monoculture, accurately portrayed by sitcoms). Presumably, a more transparent title wouldn't have garnered much interest.

Second, the "methodology" of the research is literally "I asked my LGBTQ friends what they thought was wrong with heterosexual relationships." (And by the time this is acknowledged two-thirds of the way through the book, the reader is likely to have forgotten the earlier chapter where the author was dismissive of gay men and acknowledged that she surrounded herself primarily with lesbians.)

She tries to stave off criticism of her methodology by asserting that pointing out flaws in methodology is typically what people do when they don't like the conclusion. Not sure what she would accept as valid criticism -- "My umbrage is all the proof I need that you must be wrong"? There's also the whole scholarly adage about how exposing one's work to criticisms helps shore up one's reasoning, but that doesn't seem to be a viewpoint to which the author subscribes.

And finally, the author's lack of self-awareness is astounding. If the views in this book were espoused by a fictional character, that character would be lambasted as being a boring, predictable, unoriginal -- and frankly, reductive and dismissive -- stereotype.

[Tiasha ~ talesoftiasha · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Tiffany · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Sofía · Rating 5 out of 5]

Recomendado! Para empezar debo decir que soy bastante ignorante en feminismo lésbico. Muchas de las ideas de la autora me hicieron sentido. En especial lo que ella denomina "la paradoja de la misoginia" en la cual explica que los hombres desean a las mujeres, pero al mismo tiempo las odian. De eso hay ejemplos desde los más comunes (hombres que gritan "piropos" en la calle y cuando no los pescan insultan a estas mismas mujeres) hasta casos extremos de violaciones o asesinatos al ser ignorados por sus objetos de deseo. El libro me hizo reflexionar sobre las vidas heterosexuales que llevan las personas que me rodean y como dice la autora, ser testigo del sufrimiento y la frustración de esperar encontrar "un hombre bueno" o "que no sea como la mayoría" y no conseguirlo. Por último y me parece linda la idea en teoría, que para lograr una heterosexualidad sustentable es necesario que los hombres puedan desear y amar a las mujeres un poco más como las mujeres en general deseamos y amamos a otras mujeres, de manera feminista. A través de la identificación, solidaridad, interés por las MUJERES y sus luchas. En resumen, desde una dimensión más amplia.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Psychic damage one million. I finished this audiobook and then had a Golden Bachelor/Bachelor in Paradise double header with Claire and then did a sexual harassment training course for work, which really added to the experience. (Although (here's how I can make this about the Bachelor) Bachelor in Paradise this season so far is, dare I say, subversive. Super unintentionally, it just so happens that the stereotypical gendered traits within the relationships are a little inverted, por pura causalidad. If anyone here is in Bachelor Nation hit my line.)

Anyway this was crazy. The overwhelming experience was despair (I kept laughing (the bad kind), groaning, and saying "Oh my god" out loud while I was walking around listening to this), but there were some other interesting parts mixed in: the "history" of heterosexuality and how recent of definition/understanding of it is, the dating coaches section was wild, the section on how queer women actively choose and cultivate romantic relationships with women as opposed to the gay narrative of "born this way" because of patriarchy, etc. I wish more time would've been spent on the women who are complicit in/faciliate patriarchy through their acceptance/defense of this toxic heterosexuality, but that would probably be a whole nother book.

[Ericka Clou · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a woman who is very happily married to a man, I didn't agree with all (most?) of this, but it's such a different way of looking at the world from my own that I loved it. And I definitely got some ideas that resonated strongly. If you're the type of reader that reads in part to expand your consciousness, I would recommend this one to you.

[Gabriel Avocado · Rating 5 out of 5]

Initially I thought this was kind of a mean spirited read. Jane Ward digs into hetero culture and how fucking terrible the straights are, which I guess can be tedious if you're queer and offensive if you're straight. The problem is that we're steeped in a deeply patriarchal society that outright normalizes incredibly violent and antisocial behavior against women. If you found this preachy or whatever, I think it's worth examining why you think that. Is it that misogyny is so commonplace that truly seeing it laid out like this feels overwhelming? Or is it a smug feeling of superiority over these sad losers who choose misery? Maybe you even think Ward goes too far in her complaints against patriarchy--surely, she's just nitpicking. Surely it can't be that bad.

Surely.

This is a 4.5 rounded up since I think Ward repeats herself unnecessarily, especially in the beginning of the book, and this is already a pretty quick read. Otherwise, it's given me a lot to think about. I've been queer my entire life so I feel no true identification with cis heterosexuality. Yet sometimes I find myself thinking in ways that are undeniably straight-aligned while also being outright callous towards cishet women. heterosexuality is misogynist almost by default and just because we're queer doesnt mean we are immune to social conditioning.

I also think some of these reviews implying Ward is being heterophobic or whatever need to fuck off back into the misogynistic tradwife hell hole they crawled out of lmao. Queer people have never "gone too far"; you're just misogynists and homophobes. for everyone else, this can be a little bleak but i strongly recommend giving it a read, especially queer men. ward points out how queer men in particular seem sort of callous towards women, though they arent the only ones. if anything it made me even more committed to queer and womens liberation.

[Ariana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, that was refreshing.

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

'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.

[Mel D · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.