You Have No Bitches, You've Never Been With a Baddie, & You Are Scaring the Hoes

Disclaimer: I am a 34-year-old Black man from Houston, Texas. I also possess an advanced degree in philosophy and a law degree. Inside of me, for lack of a better phrase, are two wolves: one trained in formal analysis, the other fluent in the far more precise vernacular of Southern Black speech.

It is difficult to discuss gender dynamics without acknowledging its intersection with race. It is even more difficult to do so within a shared linguistic framework in a country as large, regionally fragmented, and dialectically inconsistent as the United States. Much of what passes for disagreement in public discourse is, in fact, a failure of translation.

Take, for instance, the word “hoes.”

To the uninitiated, particularly those trained in the sanitized dialect of institutional liberalism, the term registers immediately as derogatory. But within its native context, it operates less as an insult than as a flexible linguistic tool, capable of referring to virtually any noun in the abstract:

“That hoe far.”

“That hoe clean.”

“Y’all some hoes.”

In none of these cases is the speaker referring to women. The term functions as a grammatical placeholder. It is elastic, imprecise, and yet, in practice, remarkably efficient. It is not unlike how physicists use variables to describe unknown quantities. “Hoes,” in this sense, is a variable.

The difficulty arises when one attempts to import this linguistic framework into a broader, more academically constrained discourse. The liberal or left-leaning mind, particularly in its online iteration, often exhibits an inability to process meaning outside of its preferred lexicon. Words are treated not as vessels for ideas, but as moral objects in themselves. They are either permitted or forbidden, clean or contaminated. There is very little room for context, and even less for humor.

This presents a problem.

Because if language is constrained too tightly, thought itself begins to narrow.

Many theorists have made this point more eloquently than I ever could. Ludwig Wittgenstein famously observed that “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” A society that loses the words necessary to describe a phenomenon does not eliminate that phenomenon; it merely renders it more difficult to perceive.

Ernst Cassirer extends this further: language does not simply describe reality, it actively constructs it. It gives contour to the amorphous, boundaries to the undefined, and categories to what would otherwise remain socially unintelligible.

Without language, there is no classification. Without classification, there is no critique. And without critique, there is no correction. Or, as my father might say: you can’t fix what you can’t name.

It is in this spirit, then, that I will proceed.

Throughout this essay, I will refer to women at times collectively as “hoes,” and occasionally as “bitches.” This is not done with malice, nor with the intent to degrade, but rather as an adherence to a linguistic framework that prioritizes descriptive efficiency over moral theater. To translate the terms into something more palatable would be to lose precision. And precision, in a discussion such as this, is a requirement even if it makes some readers uncomfortable, which it will.

With that established, we may now turn to the subject at hand:

Men who have no hoes and men who have never been with a baddie.

Being a cisgender, heterosexual man, I have spent the better part of my life in close proximity to other cisgender, heterosexual men. As such, I have always been keenly aware of these men’s relationships to women. Or, more precisely, to the hoes.

There exists, broadly speaking, a spectrum of male competence in this domain. Some men possess an almost intuitive fluency. Others require more deliberate effort. They study, adjust, optimize. They learn through failure, refine through repetition, and eventually arrive at something resembling proficiency.

Certain variables reliably assist in this process. Physical attractiveness helps. Height helps. Status, presentation, and basic social awareness all contribute in predictable ways.

And yet, there remains a third category of man for whom none of these inputs seem to matter.

These are men who, regardless of their height, income, grooming, or social positioning, exhibit an almost preternatural ability to repel women. They do not merely fail to attract; they actively generate aversion. They do not lack opportunity so much as they negate it upon arrival.

In the vernacular, these men “scare the hoes.”

Urban Dictionary defines scaring the hoes as: “striking fear into the hoes’ hearts with abnormal actions.”

However, for some men, action isn't required. Their presence alone appears to produce a low-grade, ambient discomfort that women can detect with remarkable consistency. One might describe it as a kind of social radiation of hoe scaring.

The question of nature versus nurture in this context has always been a mystery to me. Whether it is the result of upbringing, socialization, neurological variance, or some more ineffable quality is difficult to determine.

My father once told me: “It’s in you, not on you.” At the time, I understood this as a warning against the idea that external markers of success cannot fundamentally alter one’s internal composition. One cannot purchase charisma any more than one can lease sincerity.

There is wisdom to this. My father, Deon, is a very wise man. But more importantly, my father never scared the hoes. I never witnessed my dad engage in any hoe scaring behavior.

But I digress.

Something that goes hand in hand with hoe-scaring are these men’s negative attitudes towards women.

If you’ve been in a group of guys long enough, you’ve picked up on this. Some people call it red-pill behavior. Misogyny. Women-hating. Hoe-scaring.

In my life, I’ve noticed that the men who have the most negative things to say about women are almost always the same men who have the least access to them. Which raises a pretty obvious question: where are these opinions coming from? Because it clearly cannot be interpersonal experience.

Perhaps it’s online. Perhaps it’s anecdotal. Perhaps it’s something else entirely. But whatever the source is, it is not rooted in regular, sustained interaction with actual women. It's strange, really. Women are cool. Even the worst ones (white) will introduce you to new things like Clairo and Pilates,

I’ve never met a cobra, but I have a lot of negative things to say about cobras. That opinion is based on distance, on reputation, on a general understanding that interacting with one would probably go poorly.

But I wasn’t raised by cobras. Cobras are not 50% of the population. And cobras, importantly, do not have boobs, which are great to look at.

So how does one develop such strong, consistent, and confident negative opinions about women without actually being around them in the first place?

Another phenomenon I have observed is the man who has never been with a baddie speaking authoritatively on women.

To be clear, I do not believe a person’s value should be tethered exclusively to physical appearance. Beauty is, as we are often reminded, subjective. Socially constructed. Context-dependent. All women are beautiful except for the ones I personally find chopped and busted like a can of biscuits, which is a separate discussion in itself.

Still, even within a framework that resists strict hierarchies, it would be dishonest to pretend there are no variations. There are levels to this, as the youths say.

Men, for instance, are evaluated (fairly in my opinion) on a composite of factors: appearance, status, income, charisma, competence. It is a holistic assessment. A man is rarely judged on a single axis; he is judged on the totality of his circumstances.

Women, being people, are presumably subject to a similarly multidimensional evaluation, though any serious analysis must account for the distorting effects of patriarchy, beauty standards, and the broader social context in which these judgments occur.

And yet, even granting all of that, a question remains: Why is it that the men with the least access to highly desirable women speak with the greatest authority about women as a class? One would not consult a man who has only eaten at Applebee’s for a comprehensive theory of cuisine. (Comparing the bitches to Applebees is unbecoming and I do apologize for that.)

There is something peculiar about forming strong opinions about a domain in which one has demonstrated limited success.

If one’s romantic history consists primarily of what we might politely describe as mid and below, it is worth asking what exactly is being generalized from that sample? What data is being used? And why it is being treated as sufficient? Be so fucking for real right now, gang.

In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, prisoners are chained in a cave, facing a wall, watching shadows cast by a fire behind them. They mistake these shadows for reality. When one prisoner is freed and sees the actual world, the sun, the trees, the real objects casting those shadows, he tries to return and tell the others. They do not believe him. They prefer the shadows. The shadows are familiar. The shadows do not require them to change.

Men who have no hoes and have never been with a baddie are not chained by circumstance. They are chained by preference. The shadows they watch, the Andrew Tates, the manosphere podcasts, the pill, are not imposed upon them. They are chosen. Because the alternative would require them to confront a far more uncomfortable truth: that they are generally unpleasant to be around. That's really what's so sad about these men. I'm friends with some of these type of guys and man are they a chore to be around. Good lord. It’s true they scare women but these men often scare other men which is why I believe in the universality of the term “scaring the hoes.” Having a hoe scaring friend past the age or 28 is a serious liability both personally and professionally. Spiritually as well. Probably financially too.

What's even more depressing is how hopeless they are. There truly may be no way to save them and perhaps that's for the best. Social ecosystems tend to correct for this sort of thing. Men who consistently repel women are, over time, excluded from meaningful participation in the very domain they claim to understand.

So what are we to do with them

Nothing, perhaps except recognize that a man’s theory of women is only as good as the women who are willing to be around him.

I could be wrong tho idk.