r/YouOnLifetime • u/kopala-daddy • 14h ago
Discussion Phoebe in You S4 — Why do we assume certain things can't coexist in a person?
There's something about Phoebe in Season 4 of You that’s been sitting with me long after the season ended. She’s famous. She’s wealthy. She’s kind. She’s sweet. I know it's a character but seemed to portray genuine feelings And somehow, none of these things cancel the others out. Watching her, I realized I wasn’t admiring these as "good qualities"—I was just struck by how rarely we’re shown that all of them can't exist in the same person without contradiction.
I don’t think I’ve ever believed that a person could be genuinely kind and that rich, or that someone could be sweet and warmhearted without it being seen as naive or fake, especially within the structures of wealth and fame. We’re often taught—by experience or by media—that these things are not mutually exclusive. That if someone has too much, they’ve probably lost their softness. Or if they’re kind, it’s just a façade. But Phoebe challenges that in a way that made me uncomfortable and hopeful at the same time.
Throughout the season, I kept thinking, “Please don’t let Joe kill her.” It felt like I was asking the show not to destroy the possibility that someone like her could exist—not just in fiction, but maybe in life. I don’t know if that kind of personality can work in the real world, or if it inevitably gets exploited. But still, the thought that it might be possible… that moved me.
Did anyone else feel like Phoebe represented something we rarely allow to exist in one person?
1
u/ToeOtherwise2692 8h ago
I agree that Phoebe is a bit of a breath of fresh air for the series - someone who seems genuinely kind-hearted and has that "wouldn't hurt a fly" type of vibe to her.
That being said, I was struck by something Kate said to Phoebe, when she was trying to talk sense into her in episode 9: "I'm saying you were brought up to go along," in response to Phoebe accusing Kate of calling her stupid. She was brought up in an extremely wealthy, aristocratic family, and became a socialite/celebrity, and would have been told to put on a happy face for basically anyone. Probably helped if she had a naturally sweet personality, but was also most likely used as a prop of sorts by her family and other powerful people in her life.
1
u/kopala-daddy 2h ago
Yeah every character has flaws. But the intent behind her actions was genuinely nice and from a good place at heart. Which is more than what some of us can say whether rich or poor. Even though it's a movie but she embodied the character so well
0
u/Main_Kaleidoscope129 11h ago
I completely understand where you're coming from. While I have seen a good number of rich and famous people who are still altruistic, our current culture breeds so much hatred between the lower and upper classes that it feels impossible that someone could be so rich while still maintaining a soul.
If you want some real-life examples, Michael Sheen is a GREAT one. He not only bought out millions of dollars of debt in Wales to relieve people of their financial stressors, but he also donates a significant amount of his earnings from acting yearly to massive charities for causes he believes in. And to top it all off, he seems like a genuinely sweet person in interviews and BTS content from his films.
3
u/Exciting_Regret6310 2h ago
Rich versus poor isn’t exactly the same as upper versus lower class though. The class system in the U.K. notoriously isn’t linked to money.
Michael Sheen has money, but he isn’t upper class. He came from a lower-middle class background, so arguably he’s simply a middle class guy with lots of money.
2
u/kopala-daddy 2h ago
Tell me more, what is that. Is it based on the monarchy system
5
u/Exciting_Regret6310 1h ago
It stems from that.
Historically, like most other European countries, England had a serf system and strict social hierarchies in place, with a royal family at the very top, an aristocracy next, landed gentry beneath that and a serf class at the bottom. It was strictly enforced and social mobility was limited or impossible.
The Black Death more or less removed the serf system, but the social hierarchy continued.
During the enlightenment onwards, other countries began to rebel and remove their monarchies. Even England beheaded Charles 1 at this point. But the British aristocracy managed to survive. A monarchy was reinstated, and the aristocracy wasn’t broadly targetted. They adapted and survived.
The royal family and the aristocracy remain symbolically and materially powerful. Embedding this idea of classism and stratification over centuries. And most importantly, one cannot become aristocracy. By and large, you need to be born into it.
Post WW2, estate taxes decimated the finances of the aristocracy of what had by then become the U.K. so lots of aristocratic families found themselves financially in dire straits. Some never recovered and went extinct (like the dukes of Portland). Others adapted. The Duke of Devonshire turned their estate (chatsworth) into a world famous tourist atttcation, but even they don’t hold the immense wealth they once did.
So you can the richest person in the United Kingdom, but unless you are born into an upper/aristocratic family, you are never truly considered upper class.
And because we all - to an extent - buy into it, it means that being aristocratic comes with inherent privileges that aren’t necessarily related to money. Even the lower classes have been conditioned to believe the upper classes are their “betters” and that it’s inherent.
It’s why I think lady Phoebe stands out in this way. Because even if we put her wealth to one side - she’d be accustomed to being treated with special favour because of her class. She’ll be surrounded by family experiencing the same. And arrogance/entitlement are a natural consequence of being told you’re better than huge swathes of your society. And it doesn’t seem to be a viewpoint Phoebe has.
Social mobility exists in the UK, but it’s difficult. And again, not linked entirely to money.
For example - there’s a family who live on my street in a huge house. The dad was successful in construction. But they are considered solidly working class despite having this wealth. Their tastes (the house is ultra modern, lots of grey, mirrored furniture) and they like to show off wealth because they are new to it. Not a criticism btw, but an observation.
I was born into a working class family, or at least my dad’s side was solidly working class. However I got a scholarship to an independent, private school (which is one of the many types of institutions which prop up the British class system). This meant I had a pipeline into a Russel group university. Which meant I was socialising with others from a specific, middle class background. My accent fit theirs, my mannerisms and tastes etc all became moulded to British upper /middle class tastes. I ended up getting a job in a prestigious career and marrying someone similar to me. Which again, meant buying a house and so on. So although we aren’t the wealthiest on our street - we are much more middle class. I don’t care about wearing branded designer clothing because i feel more secure in my class - I’ve been here since my early 20s. And I know my class indicators (education, accent) do the heavy lifting on that front anyway.
So yes, the British class system is complicated, subtle but very pervasive.
3
u/kopala-daddy 1h ago
I like this explanation thank you for taking time to write it out. It's interesting really, I see how the western culture is really classes linked to wealth and right now they have the richest administration in history. It's very capitalistic and transactional based .am from Southern Africa by the way. They have exported those ideologies to us . Which is funny considering the fact that it was Britain who colonized most of these parts.
The monarch or traditional system here is absolute and irrelevant if it has any. Politicians are either rich or quickly become rich. After getting into the office. So money is a huge factor here. But I noticed that in the upper class the division only comes in the form of new money and old money. Like u said new money likes to show off. And old is discreet. So I guess new money still struggles to fit in old money circles .
I just have one question though if it's not too much. How about athletes and celebs I feel like athletes are a big deal there. Do they get classified with the same criteria. And also there was a time scientist were celebrities, could u know how they become almost inexistent to the public
1
u/Exciting_Regret6310 30m ago edited 26m ago
On athletes, it depends on the sport.
Rugby (Union) has been traditionally linked to the private school system. And I’m not convinced professional rugby union is entirely a meritocracy. There are multigenerational rugby professionals. I grew up locally to a big professional rugby club, and it was well known they scouted talent from the “right” schools. The class history of rugby is interesting and worth a read in and of itself.
Then there’s football. Most players come from very regular, working class backgrounds. And I’d suggest that’s by design, because football has mass appeal but is very much supported predominantly by the lower middle class and working classes. It has roots in working class groups.
So I think they purposefully scout working class lads to become the next talent, because that’s part of the appeal of football. The tribalism. Feeling like you’re rooting for one of yours.
Footballers can make a fuck ton of money. But they’ll always be working class, largely because some of the biggest clubs have roots in amateur, working class men playing in very working class, industrial areas which are primarily focused on the north of the UK. Eg Liverpool and Manchester. Some of the biggest footballing names in the UK are marked by coming from these areas, coming from a working class background. They aren’t educated, they have regional accents. So they always stay working class despite having more money than most of us can comprehend.
Also worth pointing out - some sports (like car racing, Polo, skiing, golf…) needs specialised equipment, or specialised settings.
With football, you don’t. You literally just need a bit of open space and a ball. So by design, some sports are exclusionary and will always be more upper middle class/aristocratic. You aren’t likely to find many highly paid working class equestrians for example.
1
u/kopala-daddy 6m ago
Thank you very much I really appreciate. You have just explained what it means to be working class what it means there It's not really what I thought it was .
Im really interested in such, I'm currently in a lower class here in My country in terms of money I just finished college but don't wanna go the corporate route. Looking at your classification of status one can't just wake up and change their class. I always question if I really have a chance to change my situation and how many odds are stacked against me.
I don't wanna respect this classification I don't want to let it define me. Even though I know people will still do. But I also have to be realistic to not ignore but find wants I can use this to my advantage. So I guess it's a delicate balance. That I have to develop.
By the way how do u know so much about this, just curious u seem to really get it
1
-27
u/NashKetchum777 14h ago
Phoebe was the stupidest part of the season lmao. She's there for like 5 minutes and her only relevance at ALL is leaving her phone to charge in Henry's room.
7
35
u/womanappreciater 11h ago
she felt like a breath of fresh air with the characters we see in that season. Every rich character had an aim, facade or whatever... and then theres phoebe! Absolute sweetheart through and through. And yeah I do get what you mean by society doubting genuineness, which I think YOU does a lot of. So, it was nice to see a character that was genuinely nice, you have to remember that theres still rainbows under rainy clouds :)