As a Canadian whose family owns a small cottage in the Laurentides, I loved your piece on the Canadian cottage, especially the reference to "questionable plumbing". My question is, what type of ground sonar should I be using to scan for mass graves, and would they sell it at Canadian Tire?
Having heard about Phoebe's book a year ago, I was really eagerly awaiting it. It didn't disappoint. It felt like exactly what I needed to read, as an average-looking straight woman who yearns a lot.
I have a lot of queer friends and have over the years been doubted by them. Are you really straight, surely you find women attractive, how can you be interested in men, etc etc. I find this very annoying and I doubt they would like it if I did it to them. I'm getting so tired of being told that things would be easier for me if I was a lesbian (because it's true that lesbians have shown more sexual interest in me recently than straight men have. But I just don't want to fuck them, so it doesn't help).
I wonder if Phoebe could say more about the current idea that to be a straight woman is to be subject to unwanted attention from men. And the implications behind that- 1) to be a proper straight woman you must be desirable to men. 2) to be a proper straight woman, you mustn't be very interested in sex, and so that's what makes the attention unwanted. It felt like something clicked when I read that. When I hear women talk about how much they have been sexually harassed, I'm unable to relate. I just don't get groped or yelled at, and it almost feels like there is something wrong with me. What am I, chopped liver?
Honestly, I think men have been inculcated with an aversion to approaching women. They're afraid it'll be misinterpreted as inappropriate. . . . at lest the men who are mostly kind, empathetic, normal guys who care about women's feelings. Which is, really, most of them.
In other words, they've been taught not to pursue.
If you initiate a bit, you might be surprised at willingness to date.
There's always a match for anyone of any attractiveness.
On a general note, I have found it exceedingly difficult to find a heterosexual date when I was dating if I was mostly hanging out with my queer friends.
Lol, maybe just not as much....you know, not a "no, but" and a "yes, and" some heterosexual circles as well.
Pro-Tip: Hanging out with couples doesn't work either. For some reason, they're totally uninterested in doing anything remotely conducive to hooking up.
*edit*
Unless they're swingers...but that's a whole other basket.
I've lived coast to coast in the U.S. From small urban, big urban, and rural to suburban.
We're talking about population trends. So it's not to say there are no men who don't. And the ones that do it a lot. So "I've been approached by men" doesn't necessarily mean "most men are fine with approaching and do it often".
There _is_ a measurable drop in relationships, sexual encounters, marriage, etc. And in studies and surveys, men _do_ list fear of approaching or offending as part of it.
Personally, I know that a lot of guys you'd probably drop in the "progressive, educated, liberal" bucket do put a considerable effort into thinking about how their advances will be interpreted.
You do seem to be against the idea of men approaching you.
The point of the book is that although that's some women's experience, there are also plenty of women who want to be approached by men and aren't, but our experiences are being discounted or disbelieved.
Phoebe argues that the majority of both women and men are average looking and not that many of us are constantly -or ever- getting asked out.
Whether or not I want men to hit on me is not my point. My point is that I disagree that men at large have an aversion to approaching women, not least because of my personal experience. I’m not extraordinarily pretty or a standout, and this happens to many of my friends.
For the sake of the birth rate I actually think the sexual harassment law at workplaces and whole HR mindset around workplace relationships needs to be RADICALLY scaled back.
Yes being hit on by your boss sucks. But so does everyone living in fear of their jobs just because they have a crush or want to ask someone on a date.
There’s a distinct difference between being hit on by your boss and being asked out to coffee by jake from sales.
One of those HR does not give a shit about at any company I’ve worked at (which includes some very large, very HR heavy corporations).
As a manager who had to walk through this stuff with a lot of reports….i found the ones most likely to think the policies were outlandish were also the ones who had a terrible ability to differentiate between appropriate and wildly inappropriate behaviour.
It made me realise the cheesy HR videos that you’d think anyone with an iota of common sense wouldn’t need were made exactly for those employees.
>One of those HR does not give a shit about at any company I’ve worked at (which includes some very large, very HR heavy corporations).
I think this is not the perception at all of like 60-70% of the workforce easily. Lots of "no dating of people in same department". No dating if there is even the faintest vague sense of a dotted line somewhere. No dating if there is any sense in which one person is above another.
And as far as bosses and underlings. I know a lot of successful relationships that started that way, even in our modern era, and TONS from a generation or two ago. Most of them seem super happy/healthy/normal.
It obviously CAN go wrong. Punish THAT. Instead it is like "never do anything that might even be perceived as sexual interest".
I once had a female boss grab my ass, you know what I did? Ignored it and got on with my life. Had a female coworker do it once at the copier too. once again it is amazing what just being a grownup who can understand that this wasn't the end of the world accomplished.
As a fellow average-looking straight woman generally surrounded by hotter and/or queer friends...hang in there. I finally found my "person" (i.e husband) in my mid-30s, and couldn't be happier with my relationship now, despite all the dating woes of my younger years.
A few thoughts:
1) I found it much harder to draw my own conclusions about men I was meeting when I had the voices of the pessimists in my ear (whether queer folks or self-hating straight women). Something to think about.
2) Based on observations of my hotter female friends, I think there's honestly a pretty big downside as a straight woman. You have a lot of guys heavily pursuing you for looks alone, but personality / compatibility matters much more in any long-term relationship and a lot of my "hot" friends have a trail of bad breakups behind them. While I dated a lot less than they did over the years, when a guy showed interest in me, I knew he had to at least somewhat like my personality lol.
3) While online dating sucks, IMO it gives the average-looking a lot more options, especially after age 30. The only women I know who regularly get approached IRL are generally super-hot 20-somethings, see point 2 for the pitfalls of that kind of male interest. Just avoid dating app "penpals", establish a 0-tolernace policy for games-playing, and keep at it.
I mean, I'm 45. So we'll see if I ever get married, but it could well not happen. I've been in long term relationships, I've dated, etc. But mostly through me being the pursuer. And I'm currently single. Not all that optimistic, but the book spoke to me because my desire is very much there. It's just rarely reciprocated.
FWIW, my husband has a number of single straight male friends in their 40s. They tend to do online dating on and off, but don't generally congregate where single women do, so I maintain my encouragement to keep at it with online dating if you're looking for a partner. :)
Social networks and openness to setups would be my advice. I know a couple of extremely eligible bachelors for the right lady, and none of them can find a woman like at all. Granted all of them don't look for women much, but to the extent they do or use the apps they get nothing but rejections. They aren't really that similar either other than not being 6'3" bankers who went to Princeton or whatever.
A) ~33 year old union Carpenter, owns large house, works at same firm his father is a bigshot at. Steadily employed for a decade. Super pleasant/clean/straight laced. Kind of tall 6'2"? and gangly, a bit awkward looking and bony, but sweet and earnest and very involved with his family. Very physically active and in great health. Would make a great dad and wants a family. Just gets zero interest.
Would say his looks are like 6/10, pale dark hair, no tattoos/piercings. Looks like what you imagine a carpenter would in terms of dress.
B) ~35 year old transit mechanic. Latino maybe 5'6", union job for over a decade. Also in career his father was in. A little heavier stockier than guy above, but also very active and in good shape/health. Also wants to settle down and start a family and is super sweet and family oriented, would also be a great father, and also spends a bunch of time with his family.
But also gets zero interest. Other than being short, a bit more handsome/normal looking, maybe a 7/10, darker skin for a Latino also no tattoos/piercings. A little more fashionable/hip.
C) ~47 year old utility worker. Lots of money, paid off house, almost into semi-retirement already. Quite a bit less active and pretty heavy with some minor health problems. Short (5'7"?), but extremely personable and charismatic, gets along with everyone and everyone loves him. Is super intelligent and thoughtful, good at math/writing/science, and generally pretty fun/entertaining. Also spends a ton of time with his nieces and nephews and loves his immediate family. Really wanted a family but it just never happened. Probably a 5/10 in the looks department.
***
My diagnosis would be that the first two mostly spend time doing adult athletics with other guys or with their parents/siblings/nieces/nephews, and these aren't good places to meet women. Combine that with the fact that they both didn't go to college and work in very male workplaces, and those two main avenues for more average looking men to meet women were closed off to them.
The third guy wasted college and his 20s chasing emotionally stunted 9s in their early 20s (some of whom might very briefly almost date him for emotional support, but all of whom dropped him like a bad habit as soon as someone more conventionally attractive came along), and by the time he grew out of it also found himself as just an average looking dude with an A+ personality at a very male dominated workplace. He also spends a bunch of time with family.
Anyway, these type of dudes are out there in numbers, so I wouldn't lose hope. But the key is to find a way for people to meet each other. I know so many lonely men who basically never meet women, or when they do they are immediately shot down because they are not like an Adonis.
I want to give Katie and Phoebe one more opportunity to reflect on Lindy West and what we learned from that drama. Lindy's primary concern seemed to be about Aham's attraction to her, not her attraction to Aham. In her place, I might have been so ticked off at Aham that I lost interest in him (this is a thing that happens!), but that doesn't seem to be Lindy's mindset. The fact that she now sleeps away from him and says she's happy with that certainly puts her in a different category from Mrs. Slocombe. Thoughts?
Really, I want every episode of this pod from now through the end of 2026 to have at least a brief tie-in to the Lindy West throuple. Even if the tie-in is: Moose ran into Lindy at your local grocery and challenged Aham to a test of dominance. (My money is on Moose.)
Love this suggestion. I would like to hear Phoebe's take on this.
I am guessing Lindy is on anti depressants though, so may not have a libido. But yeah, she is a good example of a woman feeling pressured to pretend she is something other than straight.
Easy, Palestinians have been a long-time fixation of extreme left politics for decades, and now that extreme left politics are in the ascendancy the Palestinian's enemies need to be demonized. It is not that complicated.
What's the gayest experience you ever had and when did you realise women would never be an option for you?
Please talk more about "frumpy but horny" women in Britcoms. You've spoken about Peep Show (which is definitely the best), but have you seen Father Ted, Spaced, Black Books, and Garth Marenghi's Dark Place?
The general consensus seems to be that women's sexuality is conditional and needs to be activated (as compared to the constant insatiable male hunger). There's an awful lot of women not having sex, and most of them are still saying they're fine without. Or even better off. On the other hand, women's happiness is historically low, mental illness historically high, etc.
So I wonder if anyone has looked at the causal relationship between being a heterosexual woman who is not having sex and any of those problems.
I like this question! And I would like to augment it:
There are enough women in relationships with men who have low drives that I’d like to complicate your question in that regard. I believe men when they say that they have a constant low level buzz of horniness. But also, I believe those women who say they’re more horny than their mate. I seem to recall once reading that about a third to a quarter of wives report wanting more sex than their husbands.
In general, I do think it’s true that women’s desire is geared to be more receptive. Even those of us gals who really enjoy sex want to feel desired in order to be able to desire back.
But this is thwarted by misogynistic influencers. Misogyny has become so overt and so horrific (think: Andrew Tate) that young women who can financially support themselves rightly decide they won’t put up with hate, exploitation, and potential violence. Young adult women typically have strong friendship networks, and if it comes down to orgasms, they can have those on their own. And they no longer fear they will starve without a husband.
So, men need to bring more to the table than their dads and grandfathers did. Instead, young men are hearing that they need to exert dominance over women, and those women of course refuse! These are not fringe phenomena. My college students tell me about their brothers who are halfway hypnotized by the Tate Brothers and Clavicular.
I think these misogyny-pilled men account for a good bit of the reason why young women say they’re better off without sex. It’s not that they wouldn’t want to have a loving and sexy relationship with a man. It’s more that the selection of men out there has been compromised by misogyny and also by porn addiction.
I do see one silver lining, though. My two sons are now young adults, and each will be regarded as a total catch by a discerning woman! (Yes, they’re kind of skinny. But they’re musicians. They’re handsome. And they’re funny. Also, neither of them feels compelled to hit themselves in the face with a hammer. That still has to count, right?)
Since you work at a college I defer to your first-hand experience of the habits and values of young people today.
But are we overstating the impact of the Andrew Tate-style misogyny? I sometimes have to remind myself that those of us who are frequently online in spaces like Substack live in a bit of a bubble. And that bubble may not necessarily be representative of the real world.
A good example would be the Bari Weiss CBS News controversy about which we had very spirited discussion here.. Despite all the ink being spilled, I would bet that 90% of US adults would not recognize Bari Weiss if she jumped on the hood of their car in broad daylight.
Just curious what would happen if I found 1000 random 20 year old American men and asked "who is Andrew Tate"?
I recently went to grad school with a lot of reasonably conservative or conservative-leaning young men who went to both the gym and to Mass multiple times a week, and including both grad students and undergrads. I never heard any of them say anything about Andrew Tate. They were all big Joe Rogan fans.
A number of them were more demonstratively religious than anyone I knew in college. The most "regressive" position I ever heard anyone take was that a number of them agreed that they'd prefer to marry women who are happy to be full-time parents, but even that was framed as, "I want to be able to provide for a wife and kids on my own and for my kids to have a parent who's definitely there for them." It was not a "these dumb bitches shouldn't be in the workforce," but a "I would prefer my partner not be in the workforce."
Note: this is all anecdotal, and it was a reasonably highly-ranked public university, so we're talking about, if not the 1%er elite, then the future 5-15% PMC elite supporting them.
This type of nuance gets lost in the feverish debate.
I like Helen Lewis but every time she tells me that these alt-right misogynist freaks are not fringe, I get less and less convinced that she is correct. I think she is working very hard to convince us.
Well, I don't think Helen is wrong that the extreme misogynist views she is describing *are* becoming more acceptable to say in more spaces. My argument is that her position is overstated, and it is (maybe unintentionally) lumping in extreme misogyny (like "repeal women's suffrage," which is still completely fringe) with traditional understanding of gender roles. I think there has been a very significant expansion in popularity of the latter, and much more tolerance for those views than there were over the past twenty years or so.
I do think it's absolutely more acceptable now than it was when I was in college for men to say something like, "I want to marry someone with traditional values, who wants to be a mom first," or even "I think most women would rather be with their kids than in the office." Saying that would have gotten you glares and a telling-off in most settings when I was in college (early Obama years).
Appreciate your perspective as I'm significantly older than you. (I'm 57).
Here's the irony:
you are absolutely correct that circa 1995 (I was a few years out of college), a man would have gotten in major trouble for publicly stating that he wants to marry a woman who will be a SAHM or many women prefer to raise children over career.
But in practice, you know what the overwhelming majority of my college-educated PMC female acquaintances did? Take significant chunks of time away from their careers to raise children.
Scroll through my 1991 college yearbook and good luck finding the stereotypical spinster cat lady. (a "selective" college in the Northeast, not Liberty, Baylor, Ole Miss or Catholic U).
Well also when society has normalized very high status women and even major media products basically being like "fuck men, men are awful" half the time...Hell that is practically the brand of some major publications.
Well a little pushback and "fuck women they are awful" seems warranted and is a lot more likely.
If Helen Lewis is concerned about Andrew Tate she should be reeling in the behavior of Disney and the NYT and the feminists at universities, not worrying about Andrew fucking Tate. Who is a loser criminal.
What men want from female relations is someone to fuck regularly, have kids with, and help raise those kids. It is not a big complicated mystery. To the extent modern academia and media keep trying to throw up obstacles to that, men are going to misbehave and not stick with the social niceties.
It is a tradeoff. Men get partners for fucking and provide protection and economic security. And in exchange they mellow out a bit and put up the toilet seat etc.
When societies message is "you suck men, we don't want/need you". I don't know why it is some shock some men turn to hatred right back.
I totally agree, probably 60-70% of the younger single guys I know today have absolutely no truck with Andrew Tate and that type of thinking. And of the remainder probably at minimum half would drop the who "anti-women" thought space the second a woman talked to them.
So of the hardcore "misogynists" we are talking what 10%? 20% at most?
I think that type of thinking is mainly something men use to cry into their pillows at night when they are lonely and mantras to tell themsevles when they are depressed and filled with rage at their sexlessness. They aren't like active positive thoughts they actually believe. More like blankies.
If you are a 300lb dude smoking 10 joints a day constantly losing your jobs because you are high all the time and staying up too late playing videogames, it is a lot easier to talk about "evil Instagram thots this and all women are money grubbing bitches that" than it is to fix yourself.
But almost no one other than another druggie was going to date that guy in the first place.
Women seem to live in fear of encountering these hardened misogynistic and I just don't thin than other than a few extremely online places it really ever happens.
Sure guys can absolutely be selfish dicks and cads, but that is not remotely a new or "manosphere" related phenomenon.
My point is that the feminist view on sexuality tries to reframe male sexuality as selfish, but it is actually benevolent. It's actually rather bizarre that we've be trained to see the desire to be affectionate towards another human being reframed as malevolence.
It's also something that a lady friend once said to me: "we don't know what we want". So the question is about what sexual desires or needs women have that they either can't or won't articulate.
Anecdotal, but as a straight woman I know a lot of good straight men and few of them seem to be having much success with dating. I would date many of them, and have in fact pursued a couple of them, but the feeling hasn't been mutual.
Anyway they're not getting any success on the apps or in person, and from what I can see there's not much wrong with them. They're at least averagely attractive, employed, and not sexist. So I feel like dating is broken for everyone at the moment. Not sure how this will be resolved.
I think the number of men like you sons outnumber the Tate acolytes substantially and women concerned about the latter group are just delusional internet poisoned idiots.
Talk to people, use some common sense. You can tell if someone is an asshole. Sometimes not right away, but if you find out you can just break off contact?
Long-time Phoebe fan. Wondering if she could elaborate on her view that men and women are way more similar than they are different and the implications of this? On the one hand, I am persuaded by the notion that evolutionary biology dictates a lot of basic behaviours in the sexes. On the other hand, when I think back on my own life experiences, that explanation falters in so many ways. It's hard to tease out which is which.
If this topic is of interest to you, you might like reading book(s) or Substack of Steve Stewart-Williams. https://substack.com/@stevestewartwilliams ; "Professor of Psychology and author of A Billion Years of Sex Differences (2026), The Ape That Understood the Universe (2018), and Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life (2010). Writing about psychology, evolution, science, and more.", "The Nature-Nurture-Nietzsche Newsletter", https://www.stevestewartwilliams.com/
How and why did she learn so much about all the British sitcoms of the 70s-90s? And has she ever come across the most politically incorrect of them all, Mind Your Language? I sometimes feel like I dreamt that one, no one else seems to have seen it. (Also I would love her thoughts on Margo in The Good Life who is not exactly frumpy but isn’t Felicity Kendall either and often seems to be awkward-yearning-adjacent).
I loved Mind Your Language as a child, thought it was really funny. All the characters had their own catchphrases and at school the day after many of the kids were repeating them like "a thouuuuusand apologies" and "You damn fool!", and yes, we did the accent too! It's pretty dreadful in hindsight, they were certainly simple times!
Yes, I loved it too back in the day and my sister and I used to do the catchphrases, with accents, all the time. That was when we were growing up in India, though, so the problematicness was, I guess, ameliorated except when we were doing the East Asian characters’ accents and catchphrases (which I now do cringe at, looking back). I still have a fondness for it, though, it was so obviously well-intentioned and I don’t think the stereotyping is much worse than ‘Allo ‘Allo, which people seem less down on.
How do you determine that delayed pairing and greater female selectivity reflect heteropessimism rather than a rational response to women no longer needing relationships for economic or social security?
Makes sense - the real test is what is happening with women in their 20s and 30s.
But riddle me this: Meghan Daum is exactly my age and has spoken of having all these College-educated/professional/managerial peers who are never married, and childless. I think her explanation is that the women she knows tend to be in creative professions where it's harder to meet men. While my female college buddies tend to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, investment bankers so the pool of potential mates is higher.
Query: given women's advancements in education and employment, they generally no longer "need" men in the way that their grandmothers did. But yet it seems the vast majority still "want" a man (I'm intentionally excluding LGBT folk as the calculations are different).
The rise of assortative mating illustrates that women who could conceivably live independently forever still choose to pair up. Now it's true that women are now able to be more selective and not just marry the high school sweetheart.
Maybe I'm agreeing with you but not articulating my point well?
Wouldn't know without seeing the statistics...maybe Megan just hangs out with a lot of single women. I mean, everyone I know is married with kids. 30s, 40s, 50s...all married with kids, some divorced with kids.
But that's because I'm married with kids and who the fuck wants to hang out with me but other married with kids people?
I think some of it is women being more selective and being able to afford to wait to start families and not prioritizing sex as much as men.
But my pet theory is that it's porn. To be crass, in the past young men had sexual tension build up until the horniness and maybe a couple drinks overrode any social anxiety or fears of rejection about approaching women. And even then, the rejection rate is pretty high. Men always won out on sheer number of attempts rather than success rates.
Now, with porn, just never crosses the threshold. They think about approaching that girl in their lit class they've had some decent conversations with. Get all nervous, wonder if it'd be seen as creepy to approach them at the house party, whatever, and just say "fuck it" and go home and watch porn.
I think those two things, women not _really_ needing a relationship and by default not being the initiators and men with an infinite supply of porn just translates into no one bothering.
I think those are good theories I would probably add in at least two more things.
1) Having children is A LOT of work, and I think most women and many men (correctly) perceive it as a huge obstacle to their individualist life goals. And out society is if it is anything, extremely individualist these days. That is one thing the parties CAN agree on.
Having kids absolutely will wreck your shit. My wife and I used to go to Europe each year, then we had kids, that plus some (not all) of our hobbies, basically done for 10 years+. But so many people these days and women in particular come out of college thinking 0 maybe maybe maybe 1 kid. My wife was like that. And is now super happy she had two. But it was a long journey there.
2) The collapse of church and traditional extended family connections that buttressed the irrationality and personal sacrificing in having children with frankly a lot of non-stop propaganda for it. People are all atomized and spend WILDLY less time talking to their parents and extended family than pretty much any other place/era in history. There isn't that constant social pressure and messaging about family in the same way for a lot of people, or if there is it is easier to ignore because their mother is 1500 miles away and on the phone once a month instead of in their ear every other day.
What's the most frustrating thing for her about the public conversation among women around this topic? For my part I find that even female heterosexuality's defenders are pretty careful not to write anything positive about men, or their own sexual experiences with them; their orientation is still sort of handled, as in Sarah Jones' new piece in New York Magazine, as a simple fact, not really a source of joy.
Okay, what was the deal with the teacher with the crazy large fake boobs like Noems husband but around children and in public (remember that person)? Some said it was a stunt gone wrong, others said it was the system failing to enforce common sense.
What do you think about terms like 'Heteronormative' and 'Cisgender'?
To me (male, gay) it's just made-up words made by people who love problematizing everything. But I would like an expert (you) opinion.
And on the other side; whats up with straight people who are so desperate to join the gay alphabet (Queer, Asexual, Demisexual, Pansexual, the + people......)?
Is there a reason you opted not to use the word "fujoshi" when describing the phenomenon in your book? There could have been some interesting commentary on its meaning.
As a Canadian whose family owns a small cottage in the Laurentides, I loved your piece on the Canadian cottage, especially the reference to "questionable plumbing". My question is, what type of ground sonar should I be using to scan for mass graves, and would they sell it at Canadian Tire?
Having heard about Phoebe's book a year ago, I was really eagerly awaiting it. It didn't disappoint. It felt like exactly what I needed to read, as an average-looking straight woman who yearns a lot.
I have a lot of queer friends and have over the years been doubted by them. Are you really straight, surely you find women attractive, how can you be interested in men, etc etc. I find this very annoying and I doubt they would like it if I did it to them. I'm getting so tired of being told that things would be easier for me if I was a lesbian (because it's true that lesbians have shown more sexual interest in me recently than straight men have. But I just don't want to fuck them, so it doesn't help).
I wonder if Phoebe could say more about the current idea that to be a straight woman is to be subject to unwanted attention from men. And the implications behind that- 1) to be a proper straight woman you must be desirable to men. 2) to be a proper straight woman, you mustn't be very interested in sex, and so that's what makes the attention unwanted. It felt like something clicked when I read that. When I hear women talk about how much they have been sexually harassed, I'm unable to relate. I just don't get groped or yelled at, and it almost feels like there is something wrong with me. What am I, chopped liver?
Honestly, I think men have been inculcated with an aversion to approaching women. They're afraid it'll be misinterpreted as inappropriate. . . . at lest the men who are mostly kind, empathetic, normal guys who care about women's feelings. Which is, really, most of them.
In other words, they've been taught not to pursue.
If you initiate a bit, you might be surprised at willingness to date.
There's always a match for anyone of any attractiveness.
On a general note, I have found it exceedingly difficult to find a heterosexual date when I was dating if I was mostly hanging out with my queer friends.
That's true. I've concluded I need to stop hanging out with mostly lesbians.
Lol, maybe just not as much....you know, not a "no, but" and a "yes, and" some heterosexual circles as well.
Pro-Tip: Hanging out with couples doesn't work either. For some reason, they're totally uninterested in doing anything remotely conducive to hooking up.
*edit*
Unless they're swingers...but that's a whole other basket.
Yeah if you are looking for a man hanging out with lesbians all the time is really a colossal mistake...
They both generally don't know many men and don't like them.
Can I ask where you live where the men have been inculcated with an aversion to approaching women? Because that has NOT been my experience as a woman.
I've lived coast to coast in the U.S. From small urban, big urban, and rural to suburban.
We're talking about population trends. So it's not to say there are no men who don't. And the ones that do it a lot. So "I've been approached by men" doesn't necessarily mean "most men are fine with approaching and do it often".
There _is_ a measurable drop in relationships, sexual encounters, marriage, etc. And in studies and surveys, men _do_ list fear of approaching or offending as part of it.
Personally, I know that a lot of guys you'd probably drop in the "progressive, educated, liberal" bucket do put a considerable effort into thinking about how their advances will be interpreted.
You do seem to be against the idea of men approaching you.
The point of the book is that although that's some women's experience, there are also plenty of women who want to be approached by men and aren't, but our experiences are being discounted or disbelieved.
Phoebe argues that the majority of both women and men are average looking and not that many of us are constantly -or ever- getting asked out.
Whether or not I want men to hit on me is not my point. My point is that I disagree that men at large have an aversion to approaching women, not least because of my personal experience. I’m not extraordinarily pretty or a standout, and this happens to many of my friends.
Perhaps you're prettier than me. Anyway, I'm in the UK.
For the sake of the birth rate I actually think the sexual harassment law at workplaces and whole HR mindset around workplace relationships needs to be RADICALLY scaled back.
Yes being hit on by your boss sucks. But so does everyone living in fear of their jobs just because they have a crush or want to ask someone on a date.
There’s a distinct difference between being hit on by your boss and being asked out to coffee by jake from sales.
One of those HR does not give a shit about at any company I’ve worked at (which includes some very large, very HR heavy corporations).
As a manager who had to walk through this stuff with a lot of reports….i found the ones most likely to think the policies were outlandish were also the ones who had a terrible ability to differentiate between appropriate and wildly inappropriate behaviour.
It made me realise the cheesy HR videos that you’d think anyone with an iota of common sense wouldn’t need were made exactly for those employees.
>One of those HR does not give a shit about at any company I’ve worked at (which includes some very large, very HR heavy corporations).
I think this is not the perception at all of like 60-70% of the workforce easily. Lots of "no dating of people in same department". No dating if there is even the faintest vague sense of a dotted line somewhere. No dating if there is any sense in which one person is above another.
There is a reason this is probably the single most popular meme about human resources: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hello-human-resources/
It is like people's default experience with it.
And as far as bosses and underlings. I know a lot of successful relationships that started that way, even in our modern era, and TONS from a generation or two ago. Most of them seem super happy/healthy/normal.
It obviously CAN go wrong. Punish THAT. Instead it is like "never do anything that might even be perceived as sexual interest".
I once had a female boss grab my ass, you know what I did? Ignored it and got on with my life. Had a female coworker do it once at the copier too. once again it is amazing what just being a grownup who can understand that this wasn't the end of the world accomplished.
As a fellow average-looking straight woman generally surrounded by hotter and/or queer friends...hang in there. I finally found my "person" (i.e husband) in my mid-30s, and couldn't be happier with my relationship now, despite all the dating woes of my younger years.
A few thoughts:
1) I found it much harder to draw my own conclusions about men I was meeting when I had the voices of the pessimists in my ear (whether queer folks or self-hating straight women). Something to think about.
2) Based on observations of my hotter female friends, I think there's honestly a pretty big downside as a straight woman. You have a lot of guys heavily pursuing you for looks alone, but personality / compatibility matters much more in any long-term relationship and a lot of my "hot" friends have a trail of bad breakups behind them. While I dated a lot less than they did over the years, when a guy showed interest in me, I knew he had to at least somewhat like my personality lol.
3) While online dating sucks, IMO it gives the average-looking a lot more options, especially after age 30. The only women I know who regularly get approached IRL are generally super-hot 20-somethings, see point 2 for the pitfalls of that kind of male interest. Just avoid dating app "penpals", establish a 0-tolernace policy for games-playing, and keep at it.
I mean, I'm 45. So we'll see if I ever get married, but it could well not happen. I've been in long term relationships, I've dated, etc. But mostly through me being the pursuer. And I'm currently single. Not all that optimistic, but the book spoke to me because my desire is very much there. It's just rarely reciprocated.
Fair - sorry for assuming you were a youth!
FWIW, my husband has a number of single straight male friends in their 40s. They tend to do online dating on and off, but don't generally congregate where single women do, so I maintain my encouragement to keep at it with online dating if you're looking for a partner. :)
Social networks and openness to setups would be my advice. I know a couple of extremely eligible bachelors for the right lady, and none of them can find a woman like at all. Granted all of them don't look for women much, but to the extent they do or use the apps they get nothing but rejections. They aren't really that similar either other than not being 6'3" bankers who went to Princeton or whatever.
A) ~33 year old union Carpenter, owns large house, works at same firm his father is a bigshot at. Steadily employed for a decade. Super pleasant/clean/straight laced. Kind of tall 6'2"? and gangly, a bit awkward looking and bony, but sweet and earnest and very involved with his family. Very physically active and in great health. Would make a great dad and wants a family. Just gets zero interest.
Would say his looks are like 6/10, pale dark hair, no tattoos/piercings. Looks like what you imagine a carpenter would in terms of dress.
B) ~35 year old transit mechanic. Latino maybe 5'6", union job for over a decade. Also in career his father was in. A little heavier stockier than guy above, but also very active and in good shape/health. Also wants to settle down and start a family and is super sweet and family oriented, would also be a great father, and also spends a bunch of time with his family.
But also gets zero interest. Other than being short, a bit more handsome/normal looking, maybe a 7/10, darker skin for a Latino also no tattoos/piercings. A little more fashionable/hip.
C) ~47 year old utility worker. Lots of money, paid off house, almost into semi-retirement already. Quite a bit less active and pretty heavy with some minor health problems. Short (5'7"?), but extremely personable and charismatic, gets along with everyone and everyone loves him. Is super intelligent and thoughtful, good at math/writing/science, and generally pretty fun/entertaining. Also spends a ton of time with his nieces and nephews and loves his immediate family. Really wanted a family but it just never happened. Probably a 5/10 in the looks department.
***
My diagnosis would be that the first two mostly spend time doing adult athletics with other guys or with their parents/siblings/nieces/nephews, and these aren't good places to meet women. Combine that with the fact that they both didn't go to college and work in very male workplaces, and those two main avenues for more average looking men to meet women were closed off to them.
The third guy wasted college and his 20s chasing emotionally stunted 9s in their early 20s (some of whom might very briefly almost date him for emotional support, but all of whom dropped him like a bad habit as soon as someone more conventionally attractive came along), and by the time he grew out of it also found himself as just an average looking dude with an A+ personality at a very male dominated workplace. He also spends a bunch of time with family.
Anyway, these type of dudes are out there in numbers, so I wouldn't lose hope. But the key is to find a way for people to meet each other. I know so many lonely men who basically never meet women, or when they do they are immediately shot down because they are not like an Adonis.
And these three guys are for sure not gay.
I can relate. Hit on maybe once in my life. I must be chopped liver without enough schmaltz.
I want to give Katie and Phoebe one more opportunity to reflect on Lindy West and what we learned from that drama. Lindy's primary concern seemed to be about Aham's attraction to her, not her attraction to Aham. In her place, I might have been so ticked off at Aham that I lost interest in him (this is a thing that happens!), but that doesn't seem to be Lindy's mindset. The fact that she now sleeps away from him and says she's happy with that certainly puts her in a different category from Mrs. Slocombe. Thoughts?
Really, I want every episode of this pod from now through the end of 2026 to have at least a brief tie-in to the Lindy West throuple. Even if the tie-in is: Moose ran into Lindy at your local grocery and challenged Aham to a test of dominance. (My money is on Moose.)
Love this suggestion. I would like to hear Phoebe's take on this.
I am guessing Lindy is on anti depressants though, so may not have a libido. But yeah, she is a good example of a woman feeling pressured to pretend she is something other than straight.
Why has there been such a dramatic increase in overt Jew hatred in Canada in the last few years?
Easy, Palestinians have been a long-time fixation of extreme left politics for decades, and now that extreme left politics are in the ascendancy the Palestinian's enemies need to be demonized. It is not that complicated.
What's the gayest experience you ever had and when did you realise women would never be an option for you?
Please talk more about "frumpy but horny" women in Britcoms. You've spoken about Peep Show (which is definitely the best), but have you seen Father Ted, Spaced, Black Books, and Garth Marenghi's Dark Place?
Peep show is amazing.
My question would be about female sexlessness.
The general consensus seems to be that women's sexuality is conditional and needs to be activated (as compared to the constant insatiable male hunger). There's an awful lot of women not having sex, and most of them are still saying they're fine without. Or even better off. On the other hand, women's happiness is historically low, mental illness historically high, etc.
So I wonder if anyone has looked at the causal relationship between being a heterosexual woman who is not having sex and any of those problems.
I like this question! And I would like to augment it:
There are enough women in relationships with men who have low drives that I’d like to complicate your question in that regard. I believe men when they say that they have a constant low level buzz of horniness. But also, I believe those women who say they’re more horny than their mate. I seem to recall once reading that about a third to a quarter of wives report wanting more sex than their husbands.
In general, I do think it’s true that women’s desire is geared to be more receptive. Even those of us gals who really enjoy sex want to feel desired in order to be able to desire back.
But this is thwarted by misogynistic influencers. Misogyny has become so overt and so horrific (think: Andrew Tate) that young women who can financially support themselves rightly decide they won’t put up with hate, exploitation, and potential violence. Young adult women typically have strong friendship networks, and if it comes down to orgasms, they can have those on their own. And they no longer fear they will starve without a husband.
So, men need to bring more to the table than their dads and grandfathers did. Instead, young men are hearing that they need to exert dominance over women, and those women of course refuse! These are not fringe phenomena. My college students tell me about their brothers who are halfway hypnotized by the Tate Brothers and Clavicular.
I think these misogyny-pilled men account for a good bit of the reason why young women say they’re better off without sex. It’s not that they wouldn’t want to have a loving and sexy relationship with a man. It’s more that the selection of men out there has been compromised by misogyny and also by porn addiction.
I do see one silver lining, though. My two sons are now young adults, and each will be regarded as a total catch by a discerning woman! (Yes, they’re kind of skinny. But they’re musicians. They’re handsome. And they’re funny. Also, neither of them feels compelled to hit themselves in the face with a hammer. That still has to count, right?)
Since you work at a college I defer to your first-hand experience of the habits and values of young people today.
But are we overstating the impact of the Andrew Tate-style misogyny? I sometimes have to remind myself that those of us who are frequently online in spaces like Substack live in a bit of a bubble. And that bubble may not necessarily be representative of the real world.
A good example would be the Bari Weiss CBS News controversy about which we had very spirited discussion here.. Despite all the ink being spilled, I would bet that 90% of US adults would not recognize Bari Weiss if she jumped on the hood of their car in broad daylight.
Just curious what would happen if I found 1000 random 20 year old American men and asked "who is Andrew Tate"?
I recently went to grad school with a lot of reasonably conservative or conservative-leaning young men who went to both the gym and to Mass multiple times a week, and including both grad students and undergrads. I never heard any of them say anything about Andrew Tate. They were all big Joe Rogan fans.
A number of them were more demonstratively religious than anyone I knew in college. The most "regressive" position I ever heard anyone take was that a number of them agreed that they'd prefer to marry women who are happy to be full-time parents, but even that was framed as, "I want to be able to provide for a wife and kids on my own and for my kids to have a parent who's definitely there for them." It was not a "these dumb bitches shouldn't be in the workforce," but a "I would prefer my partner not be in the workforce."
Note: this is all anecdotal, and it was a reasonably highly-ranked public university, so we're talking about, if not the 1%er elite, then the future 5-15% PMC elite supporting them.
This type of nuance gets lost in the feverish debate.
I like Helen Lewis but every time she tells me that these alt-right misogynist freaks are not fringe, I get less and less convinced that she is correct. I think she is working very hard to convince us.
Well, I don't think Helen is wrong that the extreme misogynist views she is describing *are* becoming more acceptable to say in more spaces. My argument is that her position is overstated, and it is (maybe unintentionally) lumping in extreme misogyny (like "repeal women's suffrage," which is still completely fringe) with traditional understanding of gender roles. I think there has been a very significant expansion in popularity of the latter, and much more tolerance for those views than there were over the past twenty years or so.
I do think it's absolutely more acceptable now than it was when I was in college for men to say something like, "I want to marry someone with traditional values, who wants to be a mom first," or even "I think most women would rather be with their kids than in the office." Saying that would have gotten you glares and a telling-off in most settings when I was in college (early Obama years).
Appreciate your perspective as I'm significantly older than you. (I'm 57).
Here's the irony:
you are absolutely correct that circa 1995 (I was a few years out of college), a man would have gotten in major trouble for publicly stating that he wants to marry a woman who will be a SAHM or many women prefer to raise children over career.
But in practice, you know what the overwhelming majority of my college-educated PMC female acquaintances did? Take significant chunks of time away from their careers to raise children.
Scroll through my 1991 college yearbook and good luck finding the stereotypical spinster cat lady. (a "selective" college in the Northeast, not Liberty, Baylor, Ole Miss or Catholic U).
Well also when society has normalized very high status women and even major media products basically being like "fuck men, men are awful" half the time...Hell that is practically the brand of some major publications.
Well a little pushback and "fuck women they are awful" seems warranted and is a lot more likely.
If Helen Lewis is concerned about Andrew Tate she should be reeling in the behavior of Disney and the NYT and the feminists at universities, not worrying about Andrew fucking Tate. Who is a loser criminal.
What men want from female relations is someone to fuck regularly, have kids with, and help raise those kids. It is not a big complicated mystery. To the extent modern academia and media keep trying to throw up obstacles to that, men are going to misbehave and not stick with the social niceties.
It is a tradeoff. Men get partners for fucking and provide protection and economic security. And in exchange they mellow out a bit and put up the toilet seat etc.
When societies message is "you suck men, we don't want/need you". I don't know why it is some shock some men turn to hatred right back.
I totally agree, probably 60-70% of the younger single guys I know today have absolutely no truck with Andrew Tate and that type of thinking. And of the remainder probably at minimum half would drop the who "anti-women" thought space the second a woman talked to them.
So of the hardcore "misogynists" we are talking what 10%? 20% at most?
I think that type of thinking is mainly something men use to cry into their pillows at night when they are lonely and mantras to tell themsevles when they are depressed and filled with rage at their sexlessness. They aren't like active positive thoughts they actually believe. More like blankies.
If you are a 300lb dude smoking 10 joints a day constantly losing your jobs because you are high all the time and staying up too late playing videogames, it is a lot easier to talk about "evil Instagram thots this and all women are money grubbing bitches that" than it is to fix yourself.
But almost no one other than another druggie was going to date that guy in the first place.
Women seem to live in fear of encountering these hardened misogynistic and I just don't thin than other than a few extremely online places it really ever happens.
Sure guys can absolutely be selfish dicks and cads, but that is not remotely a new or "manosphere" related phenomenon.
My point is that the feminist view on sexuality tries to reframe male sexuality as selfish, but it is actually benevolent. It's actually rather bizarre that we've be trained to see the desire to be affectionate towards another human being reframed as malevolence.
It's also something that a lady friend once said to me: "we don't know what we want". So the question is about what sexual desires or needs women have that they either can't or won't articulate.
Anecdotal, but as a straight woman I know a lot of good straight men and few of them seem to be having much success with dating. I would date many of them, and have in fact pursued a couple of them, but the feeling hasn't been mutual.
Anyway they're not getting any success on the apps or in person, and from what I can see there's not much wrong with them. They're at least averagely attractive, employed, and not sexist. So I feel like dating is broken for everyone at the moment. Not sure how this will be resolved.
I think the number of men like you sons outnumber the Tate acolytes substantially and women concerned about the latter group are just delusional internet poisoned idiots.
Talk to people, use some common sense. You can tell if someone is an asshole. Sometimes not right away, but if you find out you can just break off contact?
Long-time Phoebe fan. Wondering if she could elaborate on her view that men and women are way more similar than they are different and the implications of this? On the one hand, I am persuaded by the notion that evolutionary biology dictates a lot of basic behaviours in the sexes. On the other hand, when I think back on my own life experiences, that explanation falters in so many ways. It's hard to tease out which is which.
If this topic is of interest to you, you might like reading book(s) or Substack of Steve Stewart-Williams. https://substack.com/@stevestewartwilliams ; "Professor of Psychology and author of A Billion Years of Sex Differences (2026), The Ape That Understood the Universe (2018), and Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life (2010). Writing about psychology, evolution, science, and more.", "The Nature-Nurture-Nietzsche Newsletter", https://www.stevestewartwilliams.com/
How and why did she learn so much about all the British sitcoms of the 70s-90s? And has she ever come across the most politically incorrect of them all, Mind Your Language? I sometimes feel like I dreamt that one, no one else seems to have seen it. (Also I would love her thoughts on Margo in The Good Life who is not exactly frumpy but isn’t Felicity Kendall either and often seems to be awkward-yearning-adjacent).
I loved Mind Your Language as a child, thought it was really funny. All the characters had their own catchphrases and at school the day after many of the kids were repeating them like "a thouuuuusand apologies" and "You damn fool!", and yes, we did the accent too! It's pretty dreadful in hindsight, they were certainly simple times!
Yes, I loved it too back in the day and my sister and I used to do the catchphrases, with accents, all the time. That was when we were growing up in India, though, so the problematicness was, I guess, ameliorated except when we were doing the East Asian characters’ accents and catchphrases (which I now do cringe at, looking back). I still have a fondness for it, though, it was so obviously well-intentioned and I don’t think the stereotyping is much worse than ‘Allo ‘Allo, which people seem less down on.
How do you determine that delayed pairing and greater female selectivity reflect heteropessimism rather than a rational response to women no longer needing relationships for economic or social security?
Good question.
Anecdata alert: I was recently at a college alumni event full of educated, professional/managerial class women (90 percent white if that matters).
Very very few were in the category of never-married, childless.
Now I should issue a caveat that these women were 56-57 years old. Maybe it's different for women who are 36-37?
That'd be older GenX. So probably not the right demographic.
Makes sense - the real test is what is happening with women in their 20s and 30s.
But riddle me this: Meghan Daum is exactly my age and has spoken of having all these College-educated/professional/managerial peers who are never married, and childless. I think her explanation is that the women she knows tend to be in creative professions where it's harder to meet men. While my female college buddies tend to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, investment bankers so the pool of potential mates is higher.
Query: given women's advancements in education and employment, they generally no longer "need" men in the way that their grandmothers did. But yet it seems the vast majority still "want" a man (I'm intentionally excluding LGBT folk as the calculations are different).
The rise of assortative mating illustrates that women who could conceivably live independently forever still choose to pair up. Now it's true that women are now able to be more selective and not just marry the high school sweetheart.
Maybe I'm agreeing with you but not articulating my point well?
Wouldn't know without seeing the statistics...maybe Megan just hangs out with a lot of single women. I mean, everyone I know is married with kids. 30s, 40s, 50s...all married with kids, some divorced with kids.
But that's because I'm married with kids and who the fuck wants to hang out with me but other married with kids people?
I think some of it is women being more selective and being able to afford to wait to start families and not prioritizing sex as much as men.
But my pet theory is that it's porn. To be crass, in the past young men had sexual tension build up until the horniness and maybe a couple drinks overrode any social anxiety or fears of rejection about approaching women. And even then, the rejection rate is pretty high. Men always won out on sheer number of attempts rather than success rates.
Now, with porn, just never crosses the threshold. They think about approaching that girl in their lit class they've had some decent conversations with. Get all nervous, wonder if it'd be seen as creepy to approach them at the house party, whatever, and just say "fuck it" and go home and watch porn.
I think those two things, women not _really_ needing a relationship and by default not being the initiators and men with an infinite supply of porn just translates into no one bothering.
I think those are good theories I would probably add in at least two more things.
1) Having children is A LOT of work, and I think most women and many men (correctly) perceive it as a huge obstacle to their individualist life goals. And out society is if it is anything, extremely individualist these days. That is one thing the parties CAN agree on.
Having kids absolutely will wreck your shit. My wife and I used to go to Europe each year, then we had kids, that plus some (not all) of our hobbies, basically done for 10 years+. But so many people these days and women in particular come out of college thinking 0 maybe maybe maybe 1 kid. My wife was like that. And is now super happy she had two. But it was a long journey there.
2) The collapse of church and traditional extended family connections that buttressed the irrationality and personal sacrificing in having children with frankly a lot of non-stop propaganda for it. People are all atomized and spend WILDLY less time talking to their parents and extended family than pretty much any other place/era in history. There isn't that constant social pressure and messaging about family in the same way for a lot of people, or if there is it is easier to ignore because their mother is 1500 miles away and on the phone once a month instead of in their ear every other day.
What's the most frustrating thing for her about the public conversation among women around this topic? For my part I find that even female heterosexuality's defenders are pretty careful not to write anything positive about men, or their own sexual experiences with them; their orientation is still sort of handled, as in Sarah Jones' new piece in New York Magazine, as a simple fact, not really a source of joy.
Okay, what was the deal with the teacher with the crazy large fake boobs like Noems husband but around children and in public (remember that person)? Some said it was a stunt gone wrong, others said it was the system failing to enforce common sense.
I think you need to ask her if she ever watches peep show and if so, what is her favorite episode?
What's your most contentious or problematic Toronto-specific opinion?
What do you think about terms like 'Heteronormative' and 'Cisgender'?
To me (male, gay) it's just made-up words made by people who love problematizing everything. But I would like an expert (you) opinion.
And on the other side; whats up with straight people who are so desperate to join the gay alphabet (Queer, Asexual, Demisexual, Pansexual, the + people......)?
Ok I get it, you’re straight, but come on - every woman is gay for Gina Gershon. Can you at least admit it? :)
Is there a reason you opted not to use the word "fujoshi" when describing the phenomenon in your book? There could have been some interesting commentary on its meaning.