Author’s Note: This article originally appeared in my weekly Top of Mind newsletter, which goes out to subscribers every Thursday. Sign up to receive it directly in your inbox.
John K. Wilson’s essay in Inside Higher Ed, “Misogyny and ‘Hoeflation’ at the National Association of Scholars,” attacks my essay, “College Students in a Romance Recession, Boys Blame ‘Hoeflation.’” He calls me an “idiot”—though, in his view, an influential one—and has now repeated his objections in the comments of Minding the Campus.
His central accusation is that I’m a misogynist because I used the term “hoeflation.” Reporting or analyzing a social phenomenon is not the same as endorsing it. In my essay, I wrote:
And, unfortunately for men, dating algorithms concentrate attention on the top 10 percent—those deemed most attractive—rendering the majority effectively unseen. This imbalance has led young men to coin the term ‘hoeflation,’ the grind of chasing women they might barely fancy, but will date just to escape loneliness. (Young American men experience loneliness at rates far exceeding those of their counterparts across other developed countries.)
[RELATED: College Don’t Hurt Me]
This was simply an observation of what many young men are saying. The term “hoeflation” captures their sense that women’s expectations have risen out of reach. In fact, the term appears only twice in my essay—once in the passage above and once in the title. The term, of course, is meant by those who use it to express resentment and is therefore cutting.
Wilson also critiques my reference to a University of Tennessee professor, Matthew Pittman, who staged a “class cancellation” around Taylor Swift’s engagement. He is correct that the incident was a hoax and that I did not fully spell out that nuance in my dating essay. However, both Samuel Abrams and I had already made clear in earlier Minding the Campus coverage that the cancellation was staged. In my dating essay, I referenced the episode as shorthand, trusting readers to recall the prior context; in fact, I directed them to my earlier essay, “When Taylor Swift Gets Engaged, Class Dismissed—What That Reveals About Campus Culture.”
Wilson further dismisses my use of a Texas student’s story—a young man who showed up to an empty dance class hoping to meet women—as anecdotal evidence, sneering that my “dataset” consists of “precisely one dude.” But single stories, when representative of broader patterns, are a longstanding literary and journalistic device. That student’s experience reflects a genuine generational trend: the erosion of traditional courtship and the dominance of dating apps favoring a small, elite group. Broader surveys and reporting confirm this imbalance.
[RELATED: College Students in a Romance Recession, Boys Blame ‘Hoeflation’]
Finally, Wilson challenges my critique of campus events such as Harvard’s Sex Week and Texas State’s “Sex in the Dark,” portraying my opposition as if I am advocating a ban on sexual freedom or students’ rights. In reality, I am not calling for the repression of sexual expression or even for prudishness. My argument is that when colleges and universities host these events, they often frame sexual expression in ways divorced from intimacy, responsibility, and family formation—the social structures that support meaningful relationships. Additionally, these programs should not take place at universities at all; higher education institutions, particularly taxpayer-funded ones, are not the appropriate venues for such activities.
The cultural trends I described—the rise of career-first priorities among women, the narrowing dating market for men, and the framing of sex divorced from long-term connection—are observable realities. Wilson’s critiques, focused on labels and minor contextual nuances, do not change that.
Follow Jared Gould on X.
Image by Home-stock on Adobe; Asset ID#: 1182650166
