> hoeflation took longer to be posted than it should have.  dealing with women today involves ten times the costs it did a century ago when you factor in risks, opportunities and obligations into the costs, because the society is entirely made to cater to women.  on the receiving end you have women that are ten times worse as wives than a century ago (not that the women were ever intrinsically good, but men contained them into a decent role at the time which they have ceased doing because it's been made effectively illegal). lets' not even talk about them as mothers while they murder 25% of their children.  the bang for your buck of dealing with women is thus 100 worse than a century ago. the reality is, aside form children, there is no rational plan in which you choose to deal with women instead of playing more video games. the only interactions left are done as an obsessive compulsive reflex.  people that are surprised make the common economic fallacy of imagining there is such a thing as a vertical demand curve (where demand remains constant or at least not below a certain level no matter the price). it isn't so of course. the demand curve for women (from men) is steep but not vertical. as the price of interacting with women increases (and the user experience decreases) you will eventually converge towards zero demand. the fact it would lead to extinction is not a counter argument, people do commit suicide when prospects becomes bad enough for them, although more realistically some patriarchy will be restored before extinction.  on the other hand demand for men by women has also crashed because of all society being made to cater to women indirectly, the welfare state, etc. all of this is already taken into account in the generalized costs.  any obfuscation of hoeflation with retarded psychobabble about "social skills" and blaming smartphones and fluoride is bluepilled.
United States