Has Feminism And ‘Hoeflation’ Destroyed Dating In The West?
It’s a problem in the western world that is rarely discussed in the media beyond puff-piece articles and glancing polls that avoid connecting the dots. The precipitous decline of dating, committed relationships and marriage along with a flatline in population in the past couple decades in the US is treated as a novelty issue rather than the threat to the stability of civilization that it actually is. History shows that without the traditional family structure, numerous ugly societal consequences follow.
One could argue, though, that the situation is far worse than that. We may be heading into a future where families become a novelty, and many argue that the root cause is feminism and the hyperinflated delusions of progressive women.
In order to understand the problem we have to look at the stats.
More than 50% of American women are still childless by age 30. By age 35 fertility goes into steep decline with women having a 15% chance of becoming pregnant, and a less than 5% chance of motherhood at age 40. Meaning, the best window of opportunity for women to find a compatible partner and build a family is in their 20s.
Feminists argue, though, that this is the time in a woman’s life when they should be building a career and having fun. Family life, they say, is an artificial prison “created by the patriarchy” in order to oppress the fairer sex. Corporate media and Hollywood entertainment often reinforce this narrative and encourage unrealistic life goals.
The propaganda has generated what many refer to as the “Female Happiness Paradox.” Surveys show that increased power, job access and responsibility for women in society since the 1970s has also led to a diametrically opposed decline in overall happiness for those same women. The correlation suggests the exact opposite of what feminism originally promised and that the ideology has been a net negative.
Though some will argue that a general decline in economic conditions is the real cause, surveys show that women have suffered a far more pronounced drop in happiness compared to men. Meaning, men were already acclimated to the struggles of the workaday world and their roles as providers and protectors. Women were happy until they joined men in the trenches.
For men, the reaction has been to back away from the dating scene and the double standards involved. Over 63% of men under the age of 30 are now single; that’s up from 51% in 2019. The majority of single men say this is by choice and that they are seeking to avoid relationships altogether. Why? The consensus appears to be that modern western women cost too much money and cause too much trouble.
Fear of failed marriage is one aspect that has the younger generation of men on edge, with family courts still largely in favor of women in divorce settlements and child custody. This is one reason why marriage rates have declined by 60% since the 1970s. However, the obstacles go well beyond divorce and into a new culture of female entitlement.
The word on the street is “Hoeflation”: The dramatic increase in cost for men today to maintain a relationship with a woman while the quality of women continues to go down. That is to say, it is an increase in female expectations vs what they bring to the table in a relationship.
In other words, women of the past used to have something to offer beyond sexual companionship, from greater femininity, greater potential for motherhood, less combativeness and narcissism, as well as a superior ability to raise children and maintain a home. Such traits are highly attractive to men even after 60 years of widespread feminism, but are seen as non-existent among women under 30 in 2023.
It should be noted that “Hoeflation” seems to be directly linked to progressive influences, and not all women fall into this category. Unfortunately, around 71% of young women identify with progressive beliefs, as opposed to young men who are only 53% progressive. It should also be noted that progressive today means something a lot different from what it meant in the 1990s (progressive now means woke, or extreme leftist cultism).
A majority of American women have cast off their traditional roles in exchange for modern feminist ideals while still expecting traditional roles for men. Dating, younger men complain, is now more like a job interview with scrutiny of their finances a primary topic. Beyond that, the online meat market isn’t helping. Dating app research shows that 80% of western women are all chasing after the top 20% or less of men, with earning potential being the biggest factor next to physical attractiveness.
A recent viral trend on social media in which women made a list of restaurants that they would refuse to eat at on a first date exemplifies the concept of “Hoeflation.”
The Cheesecake Factory in particular was consistently mentioned as a “red flag” for “cheap men.” Spending of up to $200 or more was presented as a bare minimum for a first date, and only 26% of women indicated they are willing to split the tab. First dates used to be an opportunity for men and women to decide if there is a chance for compatibility, now progressive women expect grand gestures of wealth and ambition. Like Valentine’s Day, but everyday.
What feminism has done, essentially, is hyper-exaggerate women’s natural inclination to seek out more productive men, while also hyper-exaggerating their sense of self worth and making them insufferable.
Women who have nothing to offer have been inculcated with delusions of grandeur. So much so that the question “what do you bring to the table” is sneered at – “I am the table” is their response. There is no cure for this level of narcissism except hitting rock bottom, which is an outcome that western women (and society as a whole) are swiftly approaching
The problem is not as historically entrenched as one might think, with Gen Z being the biggest deviation with the worst prospects for relationships among all other generations. Feminism has been an ever present agenda but Gen Z has been hit with the brunt of the fallout in the span of a single decade. We can hope, however, that as quickly as the cancer of feminism has spread it might recede. If the greatest damage was done within one or two generations, maybe a cure can be applied in the next generation.
Major Tsunami Warning Issued After Powerful 7.6 Earthquake Strikes Japan
Japan has issued a major tsunami warning following a series of strong earthquakes on Monday A massive earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 7.6 hit Ishikawa and nearby prefectures in central Japan, triggering the tsunami […]
The post Major Tsunami Warning Issued After Powerful 7.6 Earthquake Strikes Japan appeared first on The People’s Voice.
McDonald’s Franchise Sues Israel Boycott Movement – Reuters
McDonald’s Malaysia is suing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Malaysia movement for damaging its business through a series of social media posts linking the fast-food chain to Israel’s “genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza,” Reuters reported on Sunday citing court documents.
According to a writ of summons dated December 19 and seen by the news agency, Gerbang Alaf Restaurants (GAR), which controls the McDonald’s franchise in the country, has accused BDS Malaysia of promoting boycotts against its restaurants with “false and defamatory statements,” which resulted in a loss of profits and job cuts. GAR is now seeking damages from the movement in the amount of 6 million ringgit ($1.31 million).
McDonald’s Malaysia confirmed it had started court proceedings against BDS Malaysia in a statement on Friday, saying it is seeking to protect its “rights and interests” in the country. The latter, meanwhile, said it “categorically denies” any wrongdoing and expects the court to sort the matter out.
Israel declared war on Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that controlled Gaza, after the latter’s October 7 surprise attack that killed an estimated 1,200 Israelis. Since then, an Israeli offensive has resulted in the deaths of over 21,000 Palestinians in the enclave, according to the local health ministry. Many activists, especially in majority-Muslim countries, have since launched boycott campaigns against businesses with alleged ties to Israel and called for an end to hostilities. Apart from McDonald’s, the companies targeted by the campaigns include Coca-Cola, Starbucks, KFC, Nestle, and IBM.
Yemen’s Houthi rebels have staged a de facto blockade of shipping through the Red Sea and attacked vessels thought to be linked to Israel, which they say is also in solidarity with the plight of the Palestinians.
The Malaysian government is an outspoken champion of the Palestinians, and earlier this month reversed its 2002 decision to allow Israeli-flagged ships or vessels headed for the Jewish state to dock or load cargo at its ports, according to an announcement by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s office.
Vivek Ramaswamy Issues Emergency Warning: Southern Border Is Now A UN Invasion Frontier
The Year that Expertise Collapsed
Getting sick and getting well is part of the human experience at all times in all places.
As with other phenomena of human existence, that suggests there is a great deal of embedded knowledge on the topic woven into the fabric of our lives. We aren’t born knowing but we come to know: from our moms and dads, experience of siblings and others, from our own experience, and from medical professionals who deal with the problem daily.
In a healthy and functioning society, the path toward maintaining personal and public health becomes embedded in the cultural firmament, just like manners, belief systems, and value preferences. It’s not necessary that we think about it constantly; instead it becomes a habit, with much of the knowledge tacit; that is, deployed daily but rarely with full cognizance.
We could know for certain that there had been a change in the matrix in March 2020 because, seemingly out of nowhere, all of this knowledge was deemed wrong. A new gaggle of experts was in charge, one day to the next. Suddenly, they were everywhere. They were on TV, quoted by all the newspapers, amplified on social media, and on the phone constantly with local officials instructing them on how they must shut down the schools, businesses, playgrounds, churches, and civic gatherings.
The message was always the same. This time is completely different from anything in our experience or in any previous experience. This time we must adopt a totally new and completely untested paradigm. It comes from models that high-level scientists have deemed correct. It comes from labs. It comes from “germ games” of which none of us are part. If we dare to reject the new teachings for the old, we are doing it wrong. We are the malicious ones. We deserve ridicule, cancellation, silencing, exclusion, and worse.
It felt like a coup d’etat of sorts. It certainly was an intellectual coup. All wisdom of the past, even that known by public health only months earlier, was deleted from public spaces. Dissent was silenced. Corporate media was absolutely united in celebrating the greatness of people like Fauci, who spoke in strangely circuitous ways that contradicted everything we thought we knew.
It was exceedingly strange because the people we thought might have stood up to the flash imposition of tyranny somehow vanished. We could hardly meet with others at all, if only to share intuitions that something was wrong. “Social distancing” was more than a method to “slow the spread;” it amounted to comprehensive control of the public mind too.
The experts instructing us spoke with astonishing certainty about precisely how society should be managed in a pandemic. There were scientific papers, tens of thousands of them, and the storm of credentials was everywhere and out of control. Unless you had a university or lab affiliation and unless you had multiple high-level degrees attached to your name, you could not get a hearing. Folk wisdom was out of the question, even basic things like “sun and outdoors are good for respiratory infections.” Even popular understanding of natural immunity came in for hard ridicule.
Later it turned out that even top credentialed experts would not be taken seriously if they had the wrong views. This is when the racket became incredibly obvious. It was never really about genuine knowledge. It was about compliance and echoing the approved line. It’s astonishing how many people went along, even with the stupidest of the mandates, such as the distancing stickers everywhere, the ubiquity of Plexiglas, and the dirty masks on every face which were somehow believed to keep people healthy.
Once the contrary studies started coming out, we would share them and get shouted down. The comment sections of the studies started to be raided by partisan experts who would hone in on small issues and problems and demand and obtain takedowns. Then the contrarian expert would get doxxed, his dean notified, and the faculty turned against the person, lest the department risk funding from Big Pharma or Fauci in the future.
All the while, we kept thinking that there must be some rationale behind all this madness. It never emerged. It was all intimidation and belligerence and nothing more – arbitrary diktat by big shots who were pretending the entire time.
The lockdowners and shot mandators were never intellectually serious people. They never much thought about the implications or ramifications of what they were doing. They were just wrecking things mostly for pecuniary gain, job protection, and career advancement, plus it was fun to be in charge. It’s not much more complicated than that.
In other words, we’ve gradually come to realize that our worst fears were true. All these experts were and are fakes. There have been some hints along the way, such as when North Carolina Health Director Mandy Cohen (now head of the CDC) reported that she and her colleagues were burning up the phone lines to decide whether people should be allowed to participate in sports.
“She was like, are you gonna let them have professional football?” she said. “And I was like, no. And she’s like, OK neither are we.”
Another candid moment came five months ago, only recently unearthed by X, when NIH head Francis Collins admitted that he and his colleagues attached “zero value” to whether and to what extent they were disrupting lives, wrecking the economy, and destroying education for kids. He actually said this.
As it turns out, these experts who ruled our lives, and still do to a great extent, were never what they claimed to be, and never actually possessed knowledge that was superior to what existed within the cultural firmament of society. Instead, all they really had was power and a grand opportunity to play dictator.
It’s astonishing, truly, and worthy of deep study, when you consider the extent to which and for how long this class of people were able to maintain the illusion of consensus within their ranks. They bamboozled the media all over the world. They tricked vast swaths of the population. They bent all social media algorithms to reflect their views and priorities.
One explanation comes down to the money trail. That’s a powerful explanation. But it is not the whole of it. Behind the illusion was a terrifying intellectual isolation in which all these people found themselves. They never really encountered people who disagreed. Indeed, part of the way these people had come to conceive of their jobs was to master the art of knowing what to think and when and how. It’s part of the job training to enter the class of experts: mastering the skill of echoing the opinions of others.
Discovering this to be true is alarming for anyone who holds to older ideals of how intellectual society should conduct itself. We like to imagine that there is a constant clash of ideas, a burning desire to get to the truth, a love of knowledge and data, a passion for gaining a better understanding. That requires, above all else, an openness of mind and a willingness to listen. All of this was overtly and explicitly shut down in March 2020 but it was made easier because all the mechanisms were already in place.
One of the best books of our time is Tom Harrington’s The Treason of the Experts, published by Brownstone. There is simply not in the present era a more insightful investigation and deconstruction of the sociological sickness of the expert class. Every page is on fire with insight and observation about the intellectual juntas that attempt to rule the public mind in today’s world. It’s a terrifying look at how wildly wrong everything has gone in the world of ideas. A great followup volume is Ramesh Thakur’s Our Enemy, the Government, which reveals all the ways in which the new scientists who were ruling the world weren’t scientific at all.
Brownstone was born in the midst of the worst of this world. We set out to create something different, not a bubble of ideological/partisan attachment or an enforcement organ of the proper way to think about all issues. Instead, we sought to become a genuine society of thinkers united in a principled attachment to freedom but hugely diverse in specialization and philosophical outlook. It’s one of the few centers where there is genuine interdisciplinary engagement and openness to new perspectives and outlook. All of this is essential to the life of the mind and yet nearly absent in academia, media, and government today.
We’ve put together a fascinating model for retreats. We choose a comfortable venue where the food and drink are provided and the living quarters are excellent, and bring together 40 or so top experts to present a set of ideas to the whole group. Each speaker gets 15 minutes and that is followed by 15 minutes of engagement from everyone present. Then we go to the next speaker. This goes on all day and the evenings are spent in casual conversation. As the organizer, Brownstone does not pick topics or speakers but rather allows the flow of ideas to emerge organically. This goes on for two and a half days. There is no set agenda, no mandated takeaways, no required action items. There is only unconstrained idea generation and sharing.
There is a reason why there is such a clamor to attend. It’s the creation of something that all these wonderful people – each person a dissident in his own field – had hoped to encounter in professional life but the reality was always elusive. It’s only three days so hardly Ancient Greece or Vienna in the interwar years but it is an excellent start, and hugely productive and uplifting. It’s amazing what can happen when you combine intelligence, erudition, open minds, and sincere sharing of ideas. From the point of view of government, huge corporations, academia, and all the architects of today’s world of ideas, this is precisely what they do not want.
The difference between 2023 and, say, five years ago, is that the expertise racket is now out in the open. Vast swaths of society decided to trust the experts for a time. They deployed every power of the state, along with all affiliated institutions in the pseudo-private sector, to browbeat and manipulate the people into panicked compliance with preposterous antics that never had any hope of mitigating disease.
Look where that got us. The experts have been fully discredited. Is it any wonder that ever more people are skeptical of the same gang’s claims about climate change, diversity, immigration, inflation, education, gender transitions, or anything else pushed today by elite minds? Mass compliance has been replaced by mass incredulity. Trust will not likely return in our lifetimes.
There is, further, a reason why hardly anyone is surprised that the president of Harvard stands accused of rampant plagiarism or that election officials are deploying sneaky forms of lawfare to keep political renegades off the ballot or that money launderers for the administrative state are getting away with rampant fraud. Graft, kickbacks, bribery, misappropriation, nepotism, favoritism, and outright corruption rule the day in all elite circles.
In a few weeks, we are going to hear from Anthony Fauci, who will be grilled by a House of Representatives committee on exactly how he claimed to be so sure that there was no lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research being done at a US-baked lab in Wuhan. We’ll see how much attention this testimony gets but, truly, does anyone really believe that he is going to be honest and forthcoming? It is pretty much a consensus these days that he has been up to no good. If he is “the science,” science itself is in grave trouble.
What a contrast to just a few years ago when Fauci-themed shirts and coffee mugs were big-selling items. He claimed to be the science, and science did rally behind him as if he had all the answers, even though what he advocated contradicted every bit of common wisdom that has always been practiced in every civilized society.
Three years ago, the expert class went out on the farthest limb one can imagine, daring to replace all social knowledge and embedded cultural experience with their off-the-cuff rationalism and scientistic razzmatazz that ended up serving the industrial interests of large-scale exploiters in tech, media, and pharma. We live in the midst of the rubble they created. It’s no wonder they have been completely discredited.
To replace them – and this is a long-term strategy and one that unfolds gradually with bold efforts such as that undertaken by Brownstone Institute – we need a new and serious effort to rebuild serious thought based on honesty, sincere engagement across ideological lines, and a genuine commitment to truth and freedom. We have that opportunity right now, and we dare not decline to take up the task with every sense of urgency and passion. As always, your support of our work is greatly appreciated.
Vivek Ramaswamy Issues Emergency Warning: Southern Border Is Now A UN Invasion Frontier
Legacy Media Complains Social Media Platforms Aren’t Censoring “Deepfakes” Enough Ahead of 2024 Elections
The Associated Press (AP) used to be a reliable wire service – that provided actual news, stripped of opinion or interpretation, for news media to incorporate in their own reporting.
But, things have changed. In a piece “warning” that deepfakes have gone “mainstream” the AP also manages to claim, right in the title, that social media “guardrails” are fading. Spoiler: the article’s call to action is basically, “We need (even) more censorship here.”
The footnote to the piece is interesting. Usually, these are simply legal warnings, and other factual information – but here, the agency defines itself as one that “receives support from several private foundations.”
For what purpose? “To enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy.” (The phrase, “explanatory coverage of democracy” doesn’t sound like not something George Orwell would edit out of his writing.)
And now for, how one covers elections, and democracy, in an “explanatory” fashion. First, this is all about the 2024 US presidential ballot, although it starts off by mentioning the previous election.
The January 6 riots, then what the authors term to be “false election conspiracy theories” (so – there true ones?) are there to frame the message about what must happen ahead of 2024. And, clearly, in order to help those now in power remain there.
AP’s warning: however bad things were for democracy (from the pro-Biden point of view) the last time, they are now going to get worse. After all, hand-picked “experts” say so.
There’s also an almost comedic moment in the article, when former President Trump – himself since 2016 the victim of the notion that “elections can’t be trusted” and many Democrats believing he is not a legitimately elected president and free to say so – accompanied by a fierce media campaign – is now accused as the one guilty of the trend.
“Many Americans, egged on by former President Donald Trump, have continued to push the unsupported idea that elections throughout the U.S. can’t be trusted. A majority of Republicans (57%) believe Democrat Joe Biden was not legitimately elected president,” writes the AP.
Then, there’s that fear of deepfakes as supposedly the be-all-end-all of what’s, in reality, an extremely complex election process – and in reality, that “fear” is there simply as a vehicle to force social media platforms to censor content even more ahead of the 2024 vote.
“I expect a tsunami of misinformation. I can’t prove that. I hope to be proven wrong. But the ingredients are there, and I am completely terrified,” said University of Washington’s Oren Etzioni, unwittingly shooting the whole “anti deepfakes conspiracy theory,” right in the foot.
Vivek Ramaswamy Issues Emergency Warning: Southern Border Is Now A UN Invasion Frontier
The Real Minimum Wage Is Always Zero
The real minimum wage is always zero.
Restaurant workers in California are about to find that out the hard way.
Minimum wage laws are politically popular. According to the narrative, benevolent politicians raise the minimum to force greedy businesses to pay their workers a decent wage. It sounds great, doesn’t it? It seems like a victory for the little guy.
The problem is you can’t suspend economic laws by government edict.
One of the biggest enduring economic myths is the notion that the minimum wage laws only help workers and have no real negative effects. The fallacy inherent in this line of thinking becomes immediately clear if we simply propose a $ 1,000-per-hour minimum wage. After all, if $20 is good, $1,000 would be fantastic, right?
Of course, nobody would pay a worker $1,000 per hour to perform a low-skill task. You’d never get any kind of return on that investment, and it’s obviously unaffordable. A $15 per hour minimum is just slightly less unaffordable. It’s only a matter of scale.
The smaller scale of a hike to $15 makes the effects much less obvious – sometimes completely invisible. But the same fundamental economic reasons a $1,000 per hour minimum wage would never work make a $15 minimum just as economically unviable.
Nevertheless, as long as we have politicians, they will pander to “workers” and pass these economically damaging laws. And as long as there are minimum wage laws on the books, some low-productivity workers will go without jobs.
A wage is nothing more than the price of labor. And labor is subject to the laws of supply and demand. When you raise the price of something, demand falls. That means raising the price to hire somebody will ultimately mean fewer people get hired.
It’s critical to understand that governments can force employers to pay you minimum wage. But they can’t force a company to hire you.
CALIFORNIA: A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE
California workers are going to learn this economic lesson the hard way.
A $20 per hour minimum wage for restaurant workers in California will go into effect in April. To cope with the increased cost of labor, two Pizza Hut operators plan to eliminate delivery service. That means some 1,200 delivery drivers will go from making their current wage to earning zero.
“PacPizza, LLC, operating as Pizza Hut, has made a business decision to eliminate first-party delivery services and, as a result, the elimination of all delivery driver positions,” the company said in a statement.
Southern California Pizza Co. also gave notice that it will discontinue delivery service.
Restaurant industry analyst Mark Kalinowski told Business Insider that he expects “more harm to come” from the law as fast food chains “take action in an attempt to blunt the impact of higher labor costs.”
Some of that pain will fall on customers. Pizza lovers will now have to pick up their orders or depend on third-party delivery services such as DoorDash and Uber Eats. Meanwhile, McDonald’s and Chipotle have already indicated that they will raise menu prices.
Gov. Gavin Newsome signed the FAST Act into law in 2022. The original plan would have raised the fast food industry minimum wage to $23 per hour. In a compromise, a law passed last year set the wage at $20. The wage applies to California-based fast-food chains with 60 or more locations nationwide.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH A MINIMUM WAGE?
Nick Giambruno did a good job of explaining the problem with minimum wages in an article published by the International Man. He points out that minimum wage laws are simply price controls.
In this case, a control on the price of labor. And price controls always create destructive distortions in the market. Here, that means unnecessary unemployment and artificially high prices passed on to consumers. Even the Congressional Budget Office admits that 500,000 jobs would be lost if the US government raised the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10.”
Giambruno illustrates this point by making a comparison that’s easy to wrap your head around. Imagine if the government set the minimum price for an aluminum can at $5. In that scenario, Coca-Cola would have to charge over $5 for a can of Coke. Would you shell out more than five bucks for a can of Coke?
Me neither.
In this scenario, we’d end up with a glut of Coke cans sitting on store shelves.
In this scenario, the problem isn’t that people don’t want Coke. They do. The problem is the artificially high price of aluminum cans… which leads to the artificially high price of Coke… that just sits on shelves, gathering dust, until eventually, Coca-Cola drastically cuts back production because of lack of demand.”
In all likelihood, Coca-Cola would just switch to exclusively using glass or plastic containers. The $5 minimum can price that was supposed to help the can companies would actually hurt them over the long term.
Now, just substitute aluminum cans for labor and you have the same scenario.
A similar dynamic plays out when the government mandates the price of labor. But instead of Coke cans, potential employees sit on the shelves while employers eliminate jobs they otherwise wouldn’t, and are forced to pass on higher prices to consumers when they otherwise wouldn’t. The plain truth is, not every job generates $15 an hour worth of output. And some workers would much rather accept jobs that pay less than $15 than have no job at all.”
Minimum wage advocates seek to solve a legitimate problem facing American workers: their dollars buy less and less every year. But simply mandating employers fork over more dollars is a little like putting a band-aid on an amputation. It doesn’t do anything to address the underlying problem. We don’t have a wage problem. We have a money problem.
Vivek Ramaswamy Issues Emergency Warning: Southern Border Is Now A UN Invasion Frontier