While we were in the throes of babies and toddlers, pregnancies and postpartums, my husband would often walk through the door after work with groceries, pour me wine, and hold the baby in one arm while he made dinner with the other. I remember on some days being too exhausted to reciprocate with much except an ardent feeling and expression of gratitude to him, for him. That image of him still stands in my mind as the image of heroic manliness.

Another good father and husband we know once said that when he arrives home, he says to himself, “It’s showtime.” It’s his way of reminding himself that the crux of his day belongs to the moment he comes home from work and crosses the threshold into home. Rather than collapse on a sofa with beer and TV and be done for the day, he intended instead to bring his greatest efforts to his home life. What these anecdotes exemplify is a proper ordering of work and home that translates into specific small acts of love that echo throughout the family.

For too long we’ve repeated the cultural lore in movies and media about the domineering and distant man and the oppressed and under-actualized woman.

The good of home

To say that home ought to have primacy over work for men and women is not to say work is unimportant or that we shouldn’t develop professional skills or seek to advance careers. A job doesn’t need to be seen strictly as a means to an end; it can be a good in itself insofar as it is ennobling and sanctifying, and care should be taken to ensure it be done well. But it is a subordinate good to the good of home. Home isn’t a mere launch pad for a man’s success in the world — rather his success in the world is for the sake of home.

If a man sees his work life as a parallel good, divorced from the good of home, the two disparate goods will tend to become rivalrous, for the family wants from the father what is the family's due: to have a significance in his eyes greater than that of his career.

It’s not difficult to see how these two goods become inverted. Twenty-first-century Americans look to career for so much: an identity, the expression of some core passion, a measure of success and worth, a measure of where we stand in relation to others. It’s a compelling part of life, and the cultural stoking of its importance has coincided with the modern attenuation of home life.

These ambient messages grease the slide for us all to descend into an exaggerated view of work at the expense of home. Compounding that is the unavoidable fact that jobs often include deadlines and pressure that can understandably (and sometimes justifiably) claim a more immediate urgency than that of home life. All of this creates a tendency to subvert home for work, even without an explicit intention to do so.

Domino effect

But there are good reasons to be wary of such a tendency. When men fail to privilege home above work, as expressed in how they live each day, it has a domino effect on the family, and therefore society, in several ways.

Firstly, the husband can grow to see his family as a burden getting in the way of his higher purpose, which is his career. He begins to see his principal identity as derived from work and his primary relationships that of employer and employee. Home then starts to adopt similar characteristics; his family may be subconsciously reduced to the equivalent of employees in his charge.

Secondly, the mother’s mission is trivialized. She begins to sense her own work at home is not their common life’s work but merely her burden to endure in service of a higher mission that is his alone and to which she has not acquiesced. If work is a separate and vying good from home, it’s more natural that she begins to want that separate good for herself even at the expense of home life, which now has diminished in value for her as well.

Thirdly, their unity of purpose dissolves. The often tedious work of home is elevating and ennobling when acknowledged by both husband and wife as a taking part in an extolled good, valuable in itself and for the sake of their ultimate end of beatitude. Without this unity of purpose, these duties seem merely menial and heavy — and merely menial and heavy work will quickly feel suffocating and oppressive for whoever shoulders it. Resentment calcifies like a tumor as husband and wife become competitors rather than allies.

Eliot J. Schechter/Getty Images

Finally, there are repercussions for society that might be obvious but are worth spelling out. Sons will learn about manhood and daughters about their worth in the eyes of men in large part based upon the axis on which a father orients his life. Both will begin to understand God’s love through their father. Far less than their father’s job promotion, children will remember how he prioritized their mom and them in the small details that make up the composition of their childhood. It’s not the work of one evening or a trip to Disneyland, but it’s the quiet, persevering work of a lifetime. This work, cheerfully and generously done, will reverberate into society and future generations. The neglect of it will as well.

Ordinary love story

The stories we tell as a culture about the dynamics between husband and wife matter. When men and women are united in giving pre-eminence to home, the story can be one of families working in concert, with generosity and gratitude exchanged back and forth in a currency that multiplies with each and every exchange. It’s the story of ordinary people living their quiet shared purpose, a purpose that saturates their hearts and inclines their wills toward God and one another. This love story is transformative and extraordinary precisely because of the seemingly everyday subjects and acts that constitute its operations.

For too long we’ve repeated the cultural lore in movies and media about the domineering and distant man and the oppressed and under-actualized woman, both wanting to break from the tedium of middle-class values. The modern response to this story of dissatisfaction has been that we’ve valued home too much and at too great an expense. What this critique fails to see is that when home feels like a prison, it’s not because we’ve given it too much importance but because we’ve given it far too little.

This essay originally appeared in the Family Revival Substack.

My parents ‘arranged my marriage’ at 16; maybe I should have taken them up on it

I met Natalie Carlson at a big Christmas party for my dad’s clinic. It was in a big house. Everyone was dressed up. I was 16.

There was a roaring fire, a big Christmas tree, and a basement where the younger kids could play pool.

During my 20s, I went through a nightclub phase. Hanging out in clubs, I encountered very few cheerful women with bright faces and plaid skirts.

Natalie was the daughter of one of my dad’s colleagues. She had long dark hair and wore a plaid skirt. My memory is that she was cheerful, smart, fun to talk to.

Since our fathers were both doctors, our lives were somewhat similar. We had a lot to talk about. We had other things in common as well. We were both good students. We were both looking forward to college.

A week later, at dinner, my parents informed me that a marriage had been arranged between Natalie and me. They laughed when they told me this. It was a joke, of course.

My parents had run into Natalie’s parents, and everyone agreed how comfortable we looked together and that we’d be a perfect match.

A dowry and an exchange of goats had been decided on. Everyone thought this was very funny.

First date (or lack thereof)

Not long after that, in a quieter moment, my mother actually suggested I contact Natalie. Maybe she would want to get together.

I wasn’t totally against this idea. In fact, I was excited by it. I hadn’t really thought about going on “a date” with Natalie. But now that I had, it seemed like a good idea.

Unfortunately, there were logistical problems. She went to a different high school. She had her own friends. I didn’t have a car. I was too shy to call her.

I mean, I liked girls. I’d had girlfriends. But I didn’t have to arrange “dates” with them. We just ended up together. Through school. We’d meet up at dances or beer parties.

The idea of going on an official date with a girl ... a girl I met through my parents ... that seemed too weird. And not natural. And like too much pressure. So I never got around to calling Natalie.

Lingering dreams of love

Still, this idea of Natalie and me lingered within my family. Natalie continued to come up in family conversations. When she did, everyone at the dinner table would look in my direction. It wasn’t an inside joke exactly. It was just something we were all aware of. My parents seemed almost wistful at the thought of it.

Oddly enough, I was wistful too. I have a very clear memory — one of the most vivid of my youth — of walking across the front lawn of my high school and imagining myself, years in the future, with Natalie Carlson as my wife.

What a calming, comfortable thought this was! Having this decision made for me, having the choice of a female companion removed from my troubled adolescent brain and put safely in the hands of responsible adults. Who else would know better what was best for us?

‘Free Bird’

Perhaps I sensed, even then, that an early marriage to someone like Natalie was my best chance for a sane, reasonable life.

Natalie was an attractive, intelligent, good-natured person. How many girls like her would I come across in the future?

Of course, being a teenager, I assumed the answer was: a lot. Millions. An unlimited amount.

Which is why I didn’t need to get married young. I could put it off. Live a little first. And how did I know I would even like being married? I was into Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith. And punk rock. None of my musical heroes was advocating the joys of marriage.

Quite the opposite. Being single and free, that was the best life. Just ask Lynyrd Skynyrd!

Besides which, I had ideas of becoming a writer. Wouldn’t marriage get in the way of that?

Men going their own way

And so, conforming to the norms of the late 20th century, I did not marry Natalie, or even speak to her again. I continued with my life, following my own tastes and inclinations and not my parents.

The girls I socialized with for the remainder of high school were mostly upper-middle class, intelligent, college-bound. Much like Natalie. They drove Volkswagen Rabbits and took Advanced Placement classes. They went to nice suburban high schools like the one I went to.

At college, the idea of marriage was even more frowned upon than it had been in high school. The women at my college were there to start their own lives, their own careers. They weren’t looking for husbands, like the women of my parents’ generation.

As college progressed, I played in bands and lived an increasingly rebellious and dissolute lifestyle. I began to gravitate toward more dramatic girls, young women who were prone to dark moods, who drank and did drugs.

During my 20s, I went through a nightclub phase. Hanging out in clubs, I encountered very few cheerful women with bright faces and plaid skirts.

In my 30s, I calmed down a bit and eventually established myself as a writer. But that was not particularly conducive to stable relationships either.

Also, my “wild years” had extended a decade longer than most people’s, and this had left its mark. I was still an intelligent, college-educated person. But I was pretty rough around the edges.

By the time I was in my late 30s, even if I did come across a Natalie Carlson, I wouldn’t have known what to do with her. Nor would she have known what to do with me.

Marriage, at last

At 44, I finally tried my hand at marriage. It was a risky match, to a complicated person. Not surprisingly, it didn’t last.

But I learned something important from the attempt: that the actual state of being married was not nearly as constrictive as I’d imagined. Even for an undomesticated person like myself, married life was full of subtle joys and small comforts.

When this first attempt failed, I assumed I would marry again, now that I understood the institution’s many benefits.

But that didn’t happen. Maybe I waited too long. Maybe I was too comfortable being on my own.

In my own defense, I had grown up in a time in American history when married life, family life were not valued very much. It was uncool. It was boring. It was oppressive. It was the mistake your parents made.

Other people — smarter people than me — ignored this cultural messaging and started families anyway. I did not.

Photo by Amy Humphries/Getty Images

Nostalgia for Natalie

And so I sometimes find myself thinking of Natalie Carlson. Sweet, enthusiastic, 16-year-old Natalie. With her smiling face and plaid skirt. What if that arranged marriage had actually happened?

It’s a pretty intriguing idea. If we’d been born in a different time, in a different culture, she might be in the other room right now as I write this. With her graying hair piled on her head and her feet up, sipping a cup of tea.

We’d have grown kids by now. They’d be off at college, or beginning their careers, or starting families of their own. If they happened to call, we would both hover over the speakerphone, eager to hear their voices.

Would I trade that life for what I have now? I might.

From what I can tell, marriage is not so much a process of finding the perfect person. It’s more of a process of growing into each other over time. Which probably works better if you start early.

And it probably wouldn’t hurt to get some input from elsewhere. From someone who knows you. Like your parents.

How female crash-test dummies could save thousands of lives

The She DRIVES Act, formally known as the She Develops Regulations in Vehicle Equality and Safety Act, is a bipartisan push in the U.S. Senate to make car safety testing more inclusive and effective.

This legislation addresses a critical gap in how vehicles are designed and tested, with the potential to save thousands of lives — particularly women’s — and reduce injuries on American roads. As this bill moves closer to becoming law, it’s sparking conversations about fairness, safety, and innovation in the auto industry.

By mandating female crash-test dummies and tailored injury criteria, the bill could prevent over 1,300 female fatalities annually.

Real-world data

The She DRIVES Act, introduced as Senate Bill S. 4299 in May 2024 and reintroduced as S. 161 in January 2025, mandates that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration update its crash-test standards to better reflect real-world drivers.

Specifically, the bill requires the use of advanced female crash-test dummies, such as the fifth percentile adult female, alongside male models like the 50th percentile adult male in both front and side impact tests. It also calls for injury criteria based on real-world data, ensuring that safety assessments account for female occupants in both front and rear seats. Safety for drivers no matter your size is the bottom line.

On February 5, 2025, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee unanimously advanced the bill to the full Senate, where it awaits a floor vote. If passed, it will move to the House and, if approved, to the president for signature.

The bill’s bipartisan support, led by Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Katie Britt (R-Al.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine), signals a rare consensus on the need for change in vehicle safety standards.

Higher risk

For decades, U.S. crash testing has primarily relied on male-based dummies, designed to represent the average male body. While these tests have improved overall vehicle safety, they’ve left a critical gap: women and smaller people face significantly higher risks in crashes.

Studies reveal that women are up to 17% more likely to die and 73% more likely to sustain serious injuries in vehicle collisions compared to men. This disparity stems from differences in body size, seating position, and biomechanics, which current testing standards often fail to address.

Stark numbers

The numbers are stark. Each year, approximately 1,300 women die in crashes who might have survived if safety tests accounted for female-specific models. Tens of thousands more suffer serious injuries, from broken bones to traumatic brain injuries, due to designs optimized for male occupants. The She DRIVES Act aims to close this gap by ensuring that crash tests reflect the diversity of drivers and passengers, ultimately making vehicles safer for everyone.

Supporters of the bill, including lawmakers, safety advocates, and industry experts, argue that modernizing crash-test standards is long overdue. By mandating female crash-test dummies and tailored injury criteria, the bill could prevent over 1,300 female fatalities annually. Safer vehicles mean fewer families mourning preventable losses.

A broader push

Requiring advanced testing pushes automakers to refine safety technologies. From adjustable seatbelts to smarter airbag deployment, these changes could lead to breakthroughs that benefit all drivers, not just women, while keeping U.S. manufacturers focused on safety.

The She DRIVES Act reflects a broader push to make America’s roads safer. Vehicle safety has come a long way since the introduction of seatbelts and airbags, but gaps remain. By addressing the specific risks women face, this bill sets a precedent for new designs in an industry that touches every American’s life.

St. Lucie Co. Sheriff's Office /@PPV_Tahoe, Instagram

The way forward

The road to implementation won’t be instant. The NHTSA will need to develop new testing protocols, and automakers will need time to adapt. But the potential payoff — thousands of lives saved, billions in economic benefits, and a fairer approach to safety — makes this a cause worth championing.

This bill could make your next car safer and save lives. It’s a reminder that small changes in policy can have massive impacts on our daily lives.

One for the ladies: Educate yourself about the risks of hormonal birth control

Vanity Fair once called me “the masculinist health guru,” which is kind of cute, I guess. I suspect the outlet really wanted to call me “the misogynist health guru” and to lump me in with the Andrew Tates of this world, with their rented sports cars, Freudian cigar obsessions, and poorly tailored suits whose trousers end three inches too short above the ankles.

If you’ve actually followed my work for any length of time, you’ll know that large amounts of the advice I give to men apply equally to women. I take pains to say this.

Researchers recently showed that hormonal contraceptive use shrinks the brain. Yes, that’s right: The brain gets smaller.

With regard to the harmful effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals, which are simply everywhere today, I say, “The end of men is the end of women.”

Estro-gentleman

We might like to think all those estrogenic chemicals are only a danger to men — because estrogen is the female hormone, right? — but actually they’re just as large a danger to women. Women can have too much estrogen in their bodies as well, and overexposure has a range of very nasty effects, from menstrual disruption, endometriosis, and polycystic ovarian syndrome to cancers of the breast, vagina, and uterus.

I also give advice specifically to women too. For example, I’ve written about the dangers of sanitary products, which have been found to contain massive doses of harmful chemicals and heavy metals. What’s worse, because sanitary products are in contact with sensitive vaginal tissue, greater quantities of these chemicals are absorbed by the body.

Vaginal and scrotal tissue is many times more absorbent than the skin on your stomach or hands, which is why the vagina and scrotum are often used as routes for drug delivery. Substances that enter our bodies through the vagina or scrotum also evade a process called “first-pass metabolism” in the gut and go directly into the bloodstream. Not good.

So while you won’t find me proudly sporting an “I’m with her” T-shirt or one that says, “The future is female,” nor will you ever find me donning a pink p***y hat or reading E. Jean Carroll’s autobiography, I do care about women.

Haphazard endocrinology

And it’s in that spirit of love for the fairer sex that I offer this week’s tidbit of advice for women only. It’s also unusual because it’s not a recommendation for a beautiful organic-wool pillow or the finest Mangalitsa pork or a red-light machine to tan your undercarriage.

I want you, ladies, to read a book.

Endocrinology — the science of hormones — has a deep history. Man has been fiddling around with hormones for many thousands, probably tens of thousands, of years, even if he had no idea what a hormone was until the beginning of last century.

The first castration was the first hormonal therapy, the first bloody flash of awareness that certain tissues within the body hold the key to sexual development and expression. A bull without testicles is no longer dangerously aggressive and uncontrollable — and the same goes for a poor unfortunate slave. A castrato’s voice remains angelic, like a child’s, until his death.

A kind of haphazard endocrinology went on for thousands of years. In some places, like Imperial China, where eunuchs had important roles to play in the imperial court and bureaucracy, castration took place on an almost industrial scale. During the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), there may have been as many as 100,000 eunuchs in the imperial service at any one time.

But it wasn’t until the 20th century that endocrinology emerged as an actual science, with the discovery of hormones and experimentation with new forms of therapy at a far less crude level than hacking off the testicles with a sharp piece of rock or a knife. Particular kinds of hormonal intervention could now create a whole new way of life.

Tough pill to swallow

Of course I’m talking about hormonal contraception, the invention of which, to my mind, constitutes the most significant hormonal intervention in human history. No hormonal contraception, no sexual revolution — with everything that counterfactual movement entails.

The scale of this intervention in the hormonal lives of women is staggering. It’s estimated that 39% of female contraceptive users in the U.S., or almost 18.5 million women in 2018, were using hormonal methods (pills, intrauterine devices, implants, injections, rings, or patches). A 2013 study claimed that 80% of all sexually active young women ages 25-34 in the U.S. would try hormonal contraception at some point.

When hormonal contraception was invented, nobody fully understood the biological consequences, let alone the social or political consequences, of fixing tens of millions of women in the luteal phase of menstruation for as long as they choose.

The truth is that we still don’t — not really. While we’ve got a better idea of some of the social outcomes, much of the biology remains a mystery, and there are powerful vested interests that prevent an honest investigation or discussion of them. Pharmaceutical companies make no money from abstinence or the rhythm method, and attacks on hormonal contraception are also perceived as a threat to women’s freedom and sexual choice, which, in an obvious sense, they are.

Ick trick

In recent years, with the advent of social media, there’s been growing backlash against hormonal contraception, as women — especially young women — share their experiences of weight gain, mood problems, and even falling out of love with their boyfriends and husbands when they stop taking it.

Yes, that’s a well-attested effect of taking hormonal contraception. Women’s sexual preferences change during their menstrual cycle. Women find classically masculine men — men whose appearance and bodily cues scream “TESTOSTERONE!” — more attractive when they’re ovulating and ready to make babies, for reasons that aren’t hard to imagine. And so if you meet your boyfriend or husband when you’re on hormonal contraception and your brain is telling you to find Timothee Chalamet types attractive, going cold turkey might cause you to stop finding your boyfriend or husband attractive. You might even find him disgusting.

This really happens, and people really do get divorced because of this.

An open book

I’m not going to read you the litany of negative health effects or roll out dozens of studies to convince you to think very carefully about the benefits and deficits of using hormonal birth control. Instead I’m going to tell you to buy the book "This Is Your Brain on Birth Control: How the Pill Changes Everything," by Sarah E. Hill. This is the most comprehensive look at the biological changes that happen as a result of taking hormonal birth control, the changes you or your sister or your daughter won’t be told about when you go to the doctor to get a prescription. The changes that won’t be on the medication’s insert either. It’s a readable, accessible book, but that makes it no less shocking.

Brain drain

I will talk about one worrying recent study, though. Researchers recently showed that hormonal contraceptive use shrinks the brain. Yes, that’s right: The brain gets smaller. Scientists used MRI imaging to look at the brains of users and non-users, as well as men, and they found that a key region of the brain, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, was noticeably thinner in women on hormonal birth control.

This could have far-reaching implications for women’s behavior, and that includes their political behavior. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex is involved in fear regulation and emotional processing. As I suggest in my forthcoming book, "The Last Men: Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity," the thinning of nearly 20 million women’s brains in the U.S. could be helping to drive political polarization in the U.S., as women veer ever farther off toward the radical left and policies that endanger their own safety and well-being, while men cleave desperately to the center-right. I’m not joking. There needs to be more research, pronto.

Thankfully, the changes to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex appear to be reversible: The brain returns to normal thickness once women stop using.

Depression risk

However, other studies suggest that some alterations to the brain might not be reversible. While on hormonal birth control, women have a higher risk of depression. If a woman starts taking it in her mid-20s and then stops, the risk returns to normal levels. If, however, a woman starts taking it in her teens, she retains an elevated risk for the rest of her life. This is clear evidence that hormonal contraception causes permanent changes to the developing teenage brain. If you know anything about hormones and the kind of changes they can make in the body, this should come as no surprise.

Ultimately, it’s up to you. Your body, your choice — as the old feminist mantra has it. But the best thing you can do, the thing you owe to yourself as a (semi-)rational creature, is to be in possession of the right information so that you can make a fully informed choice.

So do yourself a favor: If you are using hormonal contraception or thinking about it, or if you have a daughter or other female member of your family who is or might, buy that book.

Expand your brain before you decide to shrink it.

We shared interests, humor, and great chemistry ... then she asked about our 'values'

I matched with Jane on OkCupid. Not Tinder (which is for hookups). Not Hinge (which is for hookups with intellectuals). But OkCupid, which is — in the online dating world — a kind of normie land.

That’s where the more ordinary, more boring singles go to meet people they can do boring things with (meet for coffee, etc.).

'You don’t have to live like this. You can just have coffee with a person.'

Jane was above average in looks. She had a job. She liked stuff I liked. She didn’t have pictures of herself doing sexy poses on a yacht. Or sneering and holding up her middle finger to the camera.

She seemed nice. Like genuinely nice. And normal. Possibly sane. That’s a serious win in the online dating realm.

The fine art of small talk

We texted back and forth on the OkCupid app, chatting, getting to know each other.

When our conversation reached a natural lull, I proposed a coffee date for later that week. I suggested a quiet café in the city. She said yes.

For the next couple of days, I daydreamed about our meeting. I felt like even if we didn’t fall in love, it would still be nice to have coffee with a relaxed, easygoing person.

This is often the best part of dating: those moments of happy anticipation, of feeling pleasantly excited about a date.

A surprise message!

But then, on the night before our date, I got a new message from Jane. I thought she was going to cancel. That happens a lot. People get cold feet.

Before I even opened her message, I considered how I might convince her to go through with our meeting. I often got cold feet myself before internet dates. Everybody did.

I would remind her it was just coffee, just a half-hour of her time. And the café was nice. You could look out the window. Why not? You only live once ...

I opened her message. It wasn’t cold feet. She was writing because we hadn’t discussed our “values” in our previous messaging. Shared values were important to her in a relationship, she said. She wanted to confirm that we were “on the same page” in that regard.

Bridge Entertainment Labs

How to respond?

I was surprised by this message. This didn’t sound like the person I had been texting with before. She hadn’t mentioned her values in our previous conversation. She didn’t put them in her profile. That’s why I liked her!

I hadn’t put my values in my profile either. Like what kind of values was she even talking about? Did she mean things like being an honest and upstanding guy? I try to do that.

Or did “values” just mean political positions? Like on immigration reform, or abortion, or mail-in ballots?

This was a tricky situation. I would have to think about it.

Boys vs. girls

The problem was, I’m a guy. When I think of “values,” I think of things like being “good on your word.” Like if you say you’re going to help your buddy move, you help him move. Even if it’s raining.

Or like when you’re a kid and you get in a fight. You don’t try to really hurt the other guy. Once somebody wins, you let up. You act in an honorable way.

Which is different from the qualities women value: compassion. Empathy. Helping people who can’t help themselves. These are also excellent characteristics for a person to have. But they are a little more female-coded.

But what if Jane was thinking of specific things, like she hates Trump and insists that I hate him too? That doesn’t seem fair.

The truth is that men and women approach politics differently. In the past, that was considered a good thing. That was the yin and yang of heterosexual relationships.

I thought back to past girlfriends. Had we always agreed about politics? Of course not. Had it caused problems in the relationships? Not really. In some ways, it made them stronger.

Beware the friend group

I still had to respond to Jane. What should I say? I went back through our original text conversation. There she was: nice, agreeable Jane. Just like I remembered.

So why the sudden need to clarify our values?

I concluded this was probably her friends. Or maybe her co-workers. Or maybe her therapist. Jane had told somebody about our date and they were advising her not to meet me until she had questioned me about my political orientation.

The response

I didn’t know what to write back. I started texting different things but then deleted them. And then I felt sad. Sad for her. Sad for myself. An invisible wall of toxic politics was being forced between us, blocking us from the simple pleasure of meeting up.

I finally texted: “I try not to discuss politics on the first date.” And then I said something like: “You don’t have to live like this. You can just have coffee with a person.”

She didn’t respond right away. Maybe she was thinking about it. I hoped she was.

But then the next morning we were unmatched. She had disappeared. Maybe she had blocked me? Then I felt even more sad. And I felt bad for her.

What could have been

But I still think about Jane. What if she had been the one? In another time, a less political era, we might have met for coffee, gone for a walk, made a connection.

She would put up with my male perspective. I would put up with her female perspective. Like men and women have been doing throughout human history.

Who knows what might have happened?

Misogyny? Please: Our real problem is female entitlement

With sensitive subjects, I believe it’s best to be direct, so let’s rip the Band-Aid off: This article is about female narcissism.

It’s not about men’s faults; those are catalogued and exaggerated around the clock, every day of the year. This piece is about a truth that many people know, and have noticed, but that almost no one will dare say.

I spent decades being the 'gay best friend' in platonic female friendships. Men like me know things about women that many other men don’t.

Since the rise of feminism in the 1960s, American women have entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers, overtaken men in college matriculation (58%), and become the vast numerical majority in every industry related to childcare and instruction.

But a strange and contradictory thing has happened along the way. The more "equality" American women have gained, the more solipsistic, entitled, self-focused, and immature they've become.

Exiles in gyno-ville

We are told that women have it worse than ever and that the average man is a misogynist. Not a “sexist.” Not even a “male chauvinist pig,” as the ladies in "9 to 5"would have called such men in the days of “women’s lib.” Nay. Men are now misogynists, a word that means roiling hatred for women because they’re women.

It is a term that, until the past 15 years, was only used to describe the most depraved men, psycho-sexual serial killers such as Richard Ramirez (the “night stalker”) or Ed Gein (“the butcher of Plainfield”).

Now, it’s glibly tossed off by self-confident but dissatisfied women toward men who don’t symbolically kneel and kiss their Manolo Blahnik shoes.

Men don’t want a second date with a woman? Misogynist. Male colleagues complain about women in HR censoring their conversations and managing their tone and terminology? Misogyny. Women with part-time jobs, or women who take time off to nurture their newborns, complain hilariously about the “gender pay gap.” They claim falsely that women are paid less for the exact same work with the exact same years of service. It’s not true. Not even a little bit.

But if you point that fact out? You guessed it: misogynist.

Hag-iography

I’m in an interesting position when it comes to commenting on the never-ending war of the sexes, a war that is being waged mainly by women against men. We men didn’t ask for these hostilities.

As a 50-year-old gay man, I spent the majority of my adult life as a leftist liberal before I matured and found grown-up conservatism. This meant I spent decades being the “gay best friend” in platonic female friendships. Men like me know things about women that many other men don’t.

When I was enacting an everyday version of Jack and Karen on "Will and Grace," I was the toast of female society. But when I began to notice the entitlement, the diva-like behavior, and the “give me stuff for free and expect nothing in return” attitude of many modern women, I was thrown to the curb.

Former friends called me — wait for it — a misogynist. And not just a misogynist but an especially virulent one. “Gay men are the most misogynistic men on the planet,” such women say in between sips of mimosas and texts to their gay BFF about what color they should ask for at the nail salon.

Some even speculated that my “anger at women” foretold a future career as a spree killer (I wish I were joking).

The fog of feminism

We’re not experiencing an epidemic of male misogyny. We’ve been living in a gynocracy for decades, and we’re saddled with a bumper crop of women who have never been told “no.” They’ve never been denied a participation trophy or a promotion to HR manager. They’ve never been told they’re not a “10.” They’re not even expected to say “thank you” when a gentleman holds a door for a lady.

Some readers think I exaggerate. They’re constructing an image of me as a “bitter” or “frustrated” man. This is where the modern female mind (and the minds of too many feckless, gelded men) go when women are held to the same standards of deportment and adult behavior that men are expected to maintain.

It’s a fish-who-doesn’t-know-what-water-is problem. Since the flower power era, feminism has been the oxygen that all Americans, liberal and conservative, breathe. We think outsized female self-regard and entitlement is normal, but it’s not. It’s recent, and it’s at the root of huge societal problems, “wokeness” being the biggest.

Dumping on men

Let me give you an example from the real world. This will indeed seem like “no big deal” to many readers, and it’s true that it’s a mild incident. But consider whether you would react that way if the sexes were reversed.

I went to the city dump to unload a car full of branches and lawn trimmings. As I hauled the leaves over to the pile, two late-middle-aged women in twin-set sweaters and pearls were doing the same about five feet from me.

One said to the other, knowing full well that I was standing there, “Where are the men? Why should we have to do this? Do they do anything?” They both gave a soft, suburban chuckle. Her friend responded, “At least when women are around we know work will get done.”

Were I to respond to those women the way they would have responded to me in the reverse, I would have shrieked, “Misandrist!” and run home to tell my wife how unsafe I felt at the town grass tip. The point is, it would not even occur to most men to be so gauche about women in mixed company. Not only are most men not inclined to give women social offense that way, they know damned well they’d be punished if they did.

NurPhoto/Getty Images

Expired tarts

This brings me to, of all people, Taylor Swift. The biggest pop star in the world became a household name by singing forgettable songs about inadequate men and the trauma of a teenager’s dating life. Thing is, she’s still singing about this stuff at age 35. And her concerts are packed not just with teen girls, but with suburban moms well into their 50s, crying the way adolescent girls did in the early '60s when the Beatles first washed ashore.

This is not normal. This infantilized girlboss pose by mothers and career women has no historical precedent. For all the talk of shiftless, video-gaming boys and young men, we spill precious little ink on the fact that adult women think nothing of dressing like 16-year-old tarts and waxing about how they’re in their “soft girl era.”

It’s undignified and so is the direction Miss Swift is taking with the publicity for her new album. Take a look at the photo she released on social media.

It’s too generous to call that garment a teddy; it’s closer to a gownless evening strap (pacé Shirley Bassey). Her rump is exposed, and she’s bending over to stick out her backside while leaning against what looks like a truck stop bathroom wall. Even the lighting looks like grimy gay male pornography from the 1970s.

Aging like milk

What does this have to do with the state of ordinary, everyday, non-Taylor Swift women? A lot.

Miss Swift is doing on stage what millions of workaday women are doing on the street. She is refusing to age gracefully, and she’s getting raunchier as time goes on. This has been a pattern with women for the past 15 years, as mothers don’t want to be seen as mothers but as the older, more ... experienced version of their nubile daughters.

This is the friction point where we can see that modern female narcissism is an expression of extreme insecurity in women. These ladies have a terribly sad belief that the only thing of value they have to offer is sex. And no, it’s not the "male gaze” or “male producers” who are at fault. Taylor Swift — and Linda Smith down the street — are doing this to themselves.

Women call it the “invisibility” problem. On leaving youth and entering middle age, they say, men stop looking at them as desirable. This is a double-edged sword for most women. Many express relief at not having their breasts and backside ogled (men are cads; women aren’t making that up), but at the same time, they complain bitterly about no longer being perceived as sex objects.

Lust for life?

They blame this on “patriarchal” male tastes, but that’s just feminist cope. If fault there be, it is the fault of nature, not social constructs. Women lose their sexual appeal after youth in a way that men, largely, do not. This is a fact. No, it's not a fun or favorite fact. But it is a fact.

Women seem to believe they are entitled to be lusted after and desired at 45, 55, 65, the way a fresh-faced college girl turns men’s heads. It’s ridiculous. Look at Madonna (67), Cher (79), or Jennifer Lopez (56). That’s the road Taylor Swift is on, and mind-bogglingly, it’s the road way too many normal women seem determined to travel.

Kavin Mazur/Taylor Hill/Xavi Torrent/Getty Images

The problem these women are facing, I believe, stems from the fact that so many have stayed adolescent girls their whole lives instead of learning from the example of their grandmothers. There is an arc to a woman's life. Some have called it Maiden, Mother, Crone. If you don't like that, label it some way you find pleasing.

Grande dames wanted

There is a role for middle-aged and old women, at least there always used to be. It was upheld in almost all societies before the mid-20th century. Even the actresses of old Hollywood, beauty queens in youth like Joan Crawford, assumed this role as they aged. Our grandmothers assumed this role.

It is the role of the grande dame. It is the carriage of a mature, put-together, self-confident, and wise woman. A true matriarch. Hair goes up, and hems go down.

Youthful beauty and sex appeal are natural to the young part of a woman’s life; this tracks with evolutionarily programmed facts of reproduction. When one is past one’s reproductive prime, life offers new roles to men and women.

But not in the 2020s. But it doesn’t have to be this way for women. Dignity is available to those who will step into it.

Is an influencer named 'Hoe_Math' our best hope to fix modern courtship?

The name sounds like something dreamed up on the set of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." A crude joke scrawled on a napkin during a particularly degenerate brainstorming session.

The man known as Hoe_Math admits as much. He chose the moniker before exploding across social media platforms. Before accumulating hundreds of thousands of followers, desperate for dating guidance. Before becoming the most brutally honest voice in relationship advice.

Modern dating is a rigged game with a broken scoreboard. Apps have turned romance into a dopamine casino, where the house always wins and the average guy always loses.

The origin is hazy. One story goes that a commenter once wrote, “It’s too early in the morning for ho math.” He liked it, branded it, and went with it. Sometimes, the clearest insights come disguised as barroom nonsense.

(Note: I reached out to Hoe_Math to confirm the origin, but received no reply by time of publication.)

Scientific precision

The name belies the wisdom contained within. Hoe_Math's content represents some of the most researched, thoughtfully presented dating advice available online. Every video dissects male-female dynamics with scientific precision, testifying to his alleged background in developmental psychology. Charts and graphs replace empty platitudes. Data replaces wishful thinking.

The approach is refreshingly mathematical. Hence the name. Dating becomes a series of equations to solve, variables to optimize, probabilities to calculate. Young men struggling with modern romance finally get concrete frameworks instead of vague encouragement. The advice works because it acknowledges uncomfortable realities that other creators ignore.

Most dating influencers peddle fantasy. They promise easy solutions to complex problems. Hoe_Math serves brutal truths with a sugarcoating of humor — laugh, wince, learn. His videos explain why certain strategies fail, why conventional wisdom leads to disappointment, why the dating market operates according to rules nobody wants to acknowledge.

No sex wars

His content speaks directly to young men lost in the wreckage of modern dating. But women gain just as much. His breakdowns of male psychology are tools for seeing through the fog of emotional misfires, mixed signals, and cultural confusion.

Unlike so many other individuals in the space, Hoe_Math doesn’t stoke the sex wars. He dissects them. He cuts past the noise and lays bare the primal instincts, the evolutionary wiring, the brutal incentives that shape modern dating. It’s not about blame. It’s about clarity. And in a landscape this dysfunctional, clarity is power.

What sets Hoe_Math apart is his humility. He doesn't present himself as a guru. He doesn't promise miraculous transformations. He's genuinely happy about his success and believes in his analysis of intersexual dynamics. But he maintains painful self-awareness about his limitations.

In fact, he considers himself too old to take advantage of his hard-won wisdom. In a viral post on X earlier this year, he wrote:

— (@)

His brutal honesty struck a nerve — and even landed on the radar of "Red Scare," the acid-tongued cultural podcast hosted by Anna Khachiyan and Dasha Nekrasova.

Bruised wisdom

The self-deprecation isn’t for show. He built his theories from personal failures — years of rejection, missteps, and romantic ruin. He isn’t preaching from a pedestal. He’s reporting from the rubble. That’s what makes it stick. There’s no hustle, no branding play. Just bruised wisdom, receipts of rejection, and data-backed despair.

The timing explains his explosive growth. Modern dating is a rigged game with a broken scoreboard. Apps have turned romance into a dopamine casino, where the house always wins and the average guy always loses.

Social media warps standards beyond recognition. Filters, thirst traps, and algorithm-fueled illusions have created a marketplace where attention, not character, is currency. The average man in his 20s or 30s now has a better chance of getting struck by lightning, hit by a falling air conditioner, or mauled by a gender studies major on Adderall than of finding the woman of his dreams on a dating app.

Starved for meaning

Amid this chaos, young people are starved for meaning. They need more than motivational fluff or red-pill rage. They need frameworks, truths they can actually apply. That’s what he offers.

His charts and diagrams make abstract concepts concrete. The "Sexual Market Value" discussions feel clinical rather than offensive. He maps how attractiveness, resources, and social status interact in modern dating. The framework explains why certain people succeed while others struggle.

Hoe_Math's SMV analysis reveals dramatic shifts since the 1990s. Back then, dating pools were geographically limited. Your competition was local. Social media didn't exist to showcase everyone else's highlights. Dating apps hadn't gamified romance into a brutal efficiency contest.

In the 1990s, a reasonably attractive person in a small town had genuine dating prospects. Today, that same person competes against algorithmically curated profiles from hundreds of miles away. The dating pool expanded infinitely. But so did the competition. Everyone's standards inflated accordingly.

Dedraw Studio/iStock/Getty Images

Starved for truth

Hoe_Math's charts illustrate this mathematical reality. Women on dating apps receive massive attention from desperate men. This attention distorts their perception of their own market value. They start believing they deserve partners far above their actual attractiveness level. The result is widespread dissatisfaction as expectations clash with reality.

Men face the opposite problem. Dating apps favor the top 10% of male profiles. Average men become invisible. Their market value crashes in digital spaces despite being perfectly viable partners in real-world contexts. The apps create artificial scarcity that benefits neither sex in the long term.

The phenomenon speaks to something deeper: a cultural starvation for truth. People are done listening to influencers pushing sanitized advice approved by HR departments. Hoe_Math breaks that mold. He isn’t pitching a brand or selling a fantasy. He’s a man who’s been crushed by the machine and lived to diagram it. The honesty cuts. His failures are functional. They forged the frameworks. In a world drowning in performative wellness and fake confidence, failure becomes a mark of authenticity. If he had started out successful, no one would care. The fact that he didn’t is the entire point.

Whether his ideas have staying power is almost irrelevant. Dating norms shift, trends mutate, platforms rise and fall. But right now, he offers structure in the chaos. He gives young men language for what they’re living through and women a mirror for what men silently endure.

That’s valuable. That’s rare. Hoe_Math might be anonymous. His name might be ridiculous. But the impact is real. His charts make sense of nonsense. His pain translates into structure. And in this era of swipe-fueled psychosis, that makes him a prophet worth listening to.

Even before it burned them, Tea was toxic for women

The viral women-only “dating safety” app, Tea, was a digital doxxing site cosplaying as “women empowerment” — and a reputational weapon against men everywhere.

But in a delicious twist of irony, after not one but two massive data breaches, it’s the women behind the screen who are now quaking in their boots.

To quote Michael Scott, “Well, well well, how the turntables.”

Tea wasn’t a step forward. It was a symptom. A glitch in a culture that’s forgotten how to talk to each other face-to-face.

The Tea app was marketed as a breakthrough for women’s safety — a sleek, viral whisper network dressed up as a tech solution for the modern dating world. It promised a digital sisterhood: a space where women could vet men, anonymously share “red flags,” and crowdsource protection in the Wild West of dating apps and swiping right.

But beneath the branding and the TikTok testimonials was something much darker: a platform that enabled digital doxxing with zero accountability, all under the guise of empowerment.

A Yelp for men

Through the app, women could upload a man’s name, number, or social media handle and attach either “green flags” or “red flags” — a kind of Yelp review for men. The intent, we’re told, was noble: Women warn each other about bad actors before wasting time or falling into danger.

But Tea offered none of the structures that real accountability requires. No requirement for evidence. No obligation to identify yourself. No meaningful way for the accused to defend themselves. It’s little surprise that what began as a tool for safety quickly turned into a tool for revenge and humiliation, based on pure speculation in the emotionally charged world of online dating.

And when Tea went viral on TikTok, launching it to the No. 2 spot on the Apple App Store, the stakes got even higher. With millions of users and near-instant exposure, a single anonymous red flag could follow someone indefinitely — without trial, without appeal, and without context.

Twisted irony

Tea just had another viral moment — and it wasn’t because of TikTok. The self-purported anonymous app had not one, but two major data breaches. Though the company reported that the breach exposed 72,000 user images (including driver’s licenses and selfies), other experts weighed in, claiming the breach was bigger than the company was letting on.

A security researcher, Kasra Rahjerdi, told 404 Media that he was able to access more than 1.1 million private messages from Tea's users. The messages included "intimate" conversations about topics ranging from rape and divorce to abortion and infidelity. Rahjerdi also said that several chats included personal information like phone numbers and locations to meet up.

However ironic the data breach is, it’s largely beside the point. Tea was flawed at its very core. No matter how noble the marketing, the model was always built on anonymity, unverified accusations, and reputational risk without recourse. It didn’t just fail to protect women — it encouraged them to wield unaccountable power over men and called it justice.

Digitized gossip

In the past, warning a friend about a man’s character came with weight. You did it face-to-face. You had to stand behind your words. You risked being wrong. You risked being held accountable. It wasn’t anonymous — it was personal. And because of that, it was taken seriously.

Tea tried to digitize that ancient role of communal discernment and strip it of all responsibility. But accountability without cost isn’t accountability — it’s just gossip. And digital gossip, unlike the whispered kind, doesn’t stay in the room. It stays online. Forever.

Dedraw Studio/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sure, women can be vengeful or petty. But Tea didn’t explode for that reason. It went viral because so many women are profoundly alone. We’ve lost the webs of embodied community that used to help us navigate love, danger, and everything in between — sisters, mothers, friends, pastors, neighbors. Into that vacuum stepped the algorithm. And it offered us the illusion of safety, in exchange for the erosion of truth, accountability, and community.

Tea wasn’t a step forward. It was a symptom. A glitch in a culture that’s forgotten how to talk to each other face-to-face — and how to seek justice in public, not in secret.

In the end, Tea didn’t just fail to keep women safe. It made all of us — men and women alike — more exposed, more suspicious, and more divided.

In 6 months, Donald Trump has done the impossible

President Donald Trump released a video highlighting his landmark accomplishments over the past six months — and the results speak for themselves. While the media fixates on negative polls and manufactured controversy, this period marks one of the most dramatic political turnarounds in recent memory. Now is the time to take stock of what conservatives have achieved — victories that once seemed unimaginable.

Reining in gender radicalism

Nowhere has the shift been more profound than in the fight against gender ideology. Just five years ago, opposing male athletes in women’s sports brought swift condemnation from corporate boards, activist groups, and political elites. Today, the momentum has flipped.

This is no time to coast. The next phase demands aggressive follow-through. Now it’s about willpower and execution.

Americans no longer feel compelled to nod along as ideologues insist that men can become women — or vice versa. This change didn’t happen because it polls well. It happened because we reclaimed a basic principle: truth.

The same country that once put a Supreme Court justice on the bench who couldn’t define “woman” now has a federal government unafraid to say, “That’s a chick.”

That shift marks a massive cultural victory. A few years ago, it felt impossible. Now, it reflects a growing national trend — a long-overdue return to reality in public life.

Securing the border

Border enforcement has taken a decisive turn. For years, Americans watched as federal officials failed to act, leaving the southern border wide open and allowing criminal networks to thrive. That era has ended.

Under President Trump, the government began doing what it should have done all along. Targeted enforcement raids have sent a clear signal: Illegal immigration won’t be ignored, and those here unlawfully face consequences. Self-deportation has increased. Illegal crossings have declined.

The policy works — and the message is unmistakable.

This marks more than just a policy shift. It’s a cultural and political turning point. Americans now recognize that a secure border isn’t just possible — it’s essential. National sovereignty is back on the table.

A resurgent economy

Trump’s economic agenda has delivered real results. When he returned to office, the nation was still stuck in the inertia of the post-COVID economy and the slow-growth legacy of the Obama-Biden years. That changed quickly.

Trump’s signature 2017 tax cuts, now made permanent, have sparked renewed business investment, job creation, and wage growth. These are the largest tax cuts in U.S. history — and they’re doing what they were designed to do: make American companies more competitive and American families more prosperous.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has broken the regulatory chokehold that once blocked vital infrastructure and energy projects. Nuclear plants are coming back online. American energy is rising — without relying on foreign regimes.

This pro-growth agenda doesn’t just create jobs. It revitalizes the core of the American economy: workers, builders, producers, and risk-takers. By slashing taxes, limiting government overreach, and putting American interests first, the Trump administration has reignited prosperity — and buried the stagnation of the past.

Peace through strength

Trump has reshaped American foreign policy with bold, decisive leadership. For decades, presidents vowed to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. None followed through. Trump did.

He launched targeted strikes, enforced crippling sanctions, and shattered the illusion that diplomacy alone would stop Iran’s ambitions. Critics warned of escalation. But Trump understood what past leaders refused to admit: Weakness invites aggression. Strength deters it.

His response proved the U.S. will defend its national interest — no matter the cost.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Trump didn’t just contain Iran. He rewrote the rules of diplomacy in the Middle East. The Abraham Accords shattered decades of failed orthodoxy, establishing historic peace deals between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The foreign policy establishment said it couldn’t be done. Trump did it anyway.

He also forced NATO allies to pay their fair share — a long-overdue correction. For years, U.S. taxpayers carried the burden of Europe’s defense. Trump ended the freeloading and demanded real commitments.

Together, these achievements mark a dramatic departure from the weak, consensus-driven diplomacy of the Obama-Biden era. Trump hasn’t just restored credibility on the world stage. He’s proven that America leads best when it leads with resolve.

Just the beginning

These past six months have delivered a series of political and cultural victories many thought out of reach. A year ago, they seemed impossible. Today, they’re reality.

But this is no time to coast.

The next phase demands aggressive follow-through — especially on immigration. Trump must solidify the gains made on border security and ensure illegal immigration remains in retreat. The infrastructure exists. Now, it’s about willpower and execution.

Foreign policy also demands continued focus. The world remains volatile, and America needs a president who won’t hesitate to defend U.S. interests. Trump has shown he can meet that challenge. He must keep doing so — with clarity, strength, and resolve.

And then there’s spending. The left hasn’t let up. Democrats want more programs, more debt, more control. Trump’s tax cuts delivered real growth, but long-term stability means confronting the bloated federal bureaucracy and forcing Congress to spend less — not more.

The first half of 2025 brought a revolutionary shift. We reversed trends that once looked permanent. We reclaimed cultural and political ground that had been written off.

But none of it will last without vigilance. To secure lasting change, conservatives must stay engaged, focused, and relentless. The future won’t protect itself. We have to do it — now.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.