Gendernomics: How to avoid buying a lemon

choice criteriaWhen you go out to buy a product, your behavior is shaped by choice criteria, which in essence is what you use to select an option between alternatives. The choice criteria tend to change based on the product, what your need is and whether it is a high investment or low investment purchase. For instance, most of us would invest more brain power to ensure we make a good choice when we are buying a new car as opposed to getting lunch. Our choice criteria would obviously also change, in a car you may look for mileage, financing options, durability, repair costs, speed, and many others. Whereas for lunch many would simply wonder “is this a suitable quality food in the right amount for the money I am willing to spend”. On a more abstract level these can be broken down into product characteristics and product purpose. When you see “10 things women look for in a man” in some glossy magazine, this is essentially women setting up their perceived choice criteria in a ranking system. These are obviously not accurate and as I once heard said, these are the “in addition to” criteria rather than an exhaustive list.

When you ask yourself as a man, what your primary choice criteria are for finding a woman, you will inevitably decide whether you are looking for a car or a lunch, and your choice criteria will adapt based on the selection. If you are unsure, your choice criteria will be muddled and you will struggle with making a good decision. Which is often how men end up with “I was only going to bang her once, it turned into FWB, then suddenly I was married with 3 kids, how the hell did this happen?” in that they were not clear to themselves of what they were actually in the market for.

What happened to obfuscate the choice criteria for the gentleman above to end married to his lunch with little finger sandwiches to boot?

The bartering system of the SMP

The sexual market place works in a bartering system with obfuscated pricing and choice criteria precisely because this puts the negotiation in the hand of the one who controls whether there will be a coupling. To draw a parallel to how financial markets worked prior the legislation in the wake of the crash of 1928, and the depression, an information asymmetry existed where the seller inevitably had more information than the buyer and therefore could value a security more accurately. In the sexual market place, the buyer (the male) exists in a state of information asymmetry and negative market projections vs. the females perfect information and positive market projections.

This leads intrinsically to a wrongful valuation downwards for the male and upwards for the female. With the female in a more powerful bartering position, where the male wrongfully views himself as less valuable, it follows that he will limit his own choice criteria, and is more likely to accept a lower quality product. In the same manner a female holding a view of herself as highly valuable and thus is more likely to demand a higher quality product. This is in essence the nature hypergamous optimization for females, the optimization of maximum output for minimum input. This is why narcissism in men is such an effective trait for landing great deals, narcissism is the cure to self-perceived value errors on both sides of the equation.

To illustrate hypergamy in a graph, where we assume that males and females could be objectively valued and compared look at the following graphs:






From the graphs, you can see that a male valuation of self is lower than actual value, while the opposite is true for the female. As these perceptions cloud not only the valuation of self but also the self in comparison with others. From a perception of negotiating over a product, it is obvious that the person who perceives themselves as offering the better deal will be driving a harder bargain. Thus the female 5.5 who perceives herself as a 7, will be driving a harder bargain with the 10 male who perceives himself as 7. This ultimately leads to the male reducing his choice criteria, which in this case means lowers his standards down to a female 4, who will then have optimized her hypergamy by netting a man who is a full +3 on the SMV scale.

The role of female liberation and feminism

As some of you may have read, I have been writing a series on social justice warriors of which feminists are a central part. As I was doing research for this article I came across the various arguments for rejecting the traditional gender roles, beauty standards, behavioural standards and various other standards that society expect women to fulfill. As I was writing the preceding section of the article I found myself wondering what purpose these accomplish from the perspective of Gendernomics and sexual market value.

Analyzing the various gender roles, the female in a relationship offers certain labours into the relationship, in the traditional relationship this was among others cooking, cleaning, caretaking, nurturing, and raising children. The modern strong, independent woman on the other hand gets an education and chases a career. This is a change in the available choice criteria for men, leading to a lower supply of females who are happy to fill the traditional roles and a higher supply of females who are in essence embracing the traditionally male gender role. The effect will naturally be affected by the amount of men who create demand a woman who desires the traditional roles, and the amount of men who create demand for women of the newer variety. It does also put an additional performance burden on men, as they are still expected to remain in full time employment making more money than the female otherwise her hypergamy is not optimized, while it also requires him to share in the traditional female roles. Furthermore, the traditional male “chores” at home will still largely fall on him.

If we look at what has happened recently with the “fat shaming“, “body shaming” and various other issues that come from the Social Justice Warrior league, is that they seek to remove any expectations that males, other females or perception in aggregate has of how women should look. This gives women the liberty of looking as they please, in effect reducing the value of the physical product a man is in the market for, thus impacting male choice criteria.Furthermore, the removal of female behavioural standards by society as a whole, leads to a furthe reduction in male choice criteria.

The overall effect of the 3 points in aggregate is that the objective ranking standard we assumed into existence in the preceding section, now ends at an objective 6 for females rather than 10, however the perception remains at 10. This drastically reduces the female performance burden to reach the peak of sexual market place value, thus creating an even better deal and negotiating position for females.

Summary and conclusions

In the first section of this post I outlined how the relative valuations of males and females function and affect the bartering system that is the sexual market place. In this market place females self-perception is higher than their objective valuation and vice versa for males. Furthermore, the social movements of feminism and social justice are working to reduce the general standards that society and men use to gauge whether someone is a suitable partner in order to increase the gap between female actual and female self-perception. The best way to ensure that nobody can tell the difference between a 1 and a 10, is to muddy the standards to such a point that a 1 can easily appear as a 10 and vice versa.

The “sphere” writes a lot on the male performance burden, however, there is such a corresponding female burden as well, which traditionally manifested in the value the female created, in her beauty and in her fertility. However, with females now dominating University level education, females starting to make more money than their male counterparts, a fewer aspiring to traditional roles, the female desire has perhaps shifted, but have the male choice criteria? As I’ve outlined in this post, feminism and female liberation was ultimately about casting off what little remained off a female performance burden, in essence what made her a worthy investment for a male. As behavioural criteria disappear, more infidelity and divorce takes place, as does the expectation that she behave as an adult rather than as a child throwing tantrums. As standards of beauty decline more and more relationships will exist where the man simply is not attracted to the person he is sharing a bed with. Finally as the most important choice criteria of them all, the woman’s ability to give him children, raise his children and take care of his children are all gone, the higher the male performance burden will be.

The female choice-criteria are well known in the “sphere” thanks to research and field experiments by countless men over the past 15 – 20 years. The male choice criteria are also fairly well documented throughout history. Yes, they change a little bit, but there are no radical changes to my knowledge in recorded history of the values each sex appreciates in a partner. What is new is our modern world where opulence and security have created a situation where it is possible for females to reject all behavioral standards, beauty standards and performance standards without being shunned by a tribe and left in the wilderness. This has been accomplished by replacing the family patriarch with the government patriarch, who has taken over the duty of protection and provision for women. As Daddy Government does not have the same incentive to get his daughters married and thus relegate the performance burden to his son-in-law, Daddy Government does not require that his daughters maintain standards. This means that as women moved away from being directly cared for by a man, and towards being cared for by all men via the government, this meant freedom for women to do, act and be whatever they wanted. This manifests in a steadily declining female total quality, that translates into a steadily declining spiral of choice criteria for men, unless they adopt narcissism and adjust their mindset to deal with the new reality. You see, ultimately men let women get away with offering us an increasing amount of shitty deals by not demanding more.

A note:

I recently launched a Patreon page where I will be posting additional content every month for those who support me and I will do a Google Hangout for the highest tier Patrons (limited to 10 people).

I’ve also had some requests for consults, which I’ve declined up until now, but due to demand I’ve chosen to open up for doing some consults on request. For details please check out my Consulting and Patreon Page

As always you can buy my book Gendernomics at as both paperback and Kindle

7 comments on “Gendernomics: How to avoid buying a lemon

  1. Passer by says:

    There are many misconceptions and wrong assumptions here. First at all, there was never such thing as “female liberation”, i think you swallowed too much propaganda. Females were helped by technological advancement – contraception allowed them to have lots of lovers, and to have only one or two kids, instead of 4-5 kids in the past, which gave them more free time. Plus technology helped a lot – back then there was no plumbing or various home appliances, no washdishers and washing machines, so women had to do all those chores by themselves. If you remove the pill and home appliances then women go back to the 30s.

    Plus i wouldn’t call the massive redistribution of stuff that is going on in the West a “liberation” – it looks more like massive parasitism to me. Men pay 70 percent of taxes, while women consume the vast majority of welfare, medical care, and pensions, and use the infrastructure for free – infrastructure that is built, mantained, and payed by men (see above who is paying the vast majority of taxes). Not to mention that men invent 95 percent of new things, and as feminist Camile Paglia said, women will be livving in grass huts, if not for men. Plus women get huge money from men via alimony and via divorce. Not to mention the special grants for female businesses, the special assistance for female businesses, the special government contracts for female businesses, (no competitive bidding for such contracts), the affirmitive action and “diversity” quotas for women, and so on. So basically what you have isn’t “liberation”, it is massive dependence, redistribution, and parasitism instead.

    “The modern strong, independent woman”
    As i explained above, modern women are not independent.
    I also wouldn’t call them strong, but selfish instead.

    They are driven by man envy, and try to immitate men, but they are not masculine.

    1. Men are twice more likely to participate in sport activities, while women are more likely to be fat. This is not a sign a strengh.

    2.Woman are as hypergamous as ever, and don’t care about 80 percent of the opposite sex. A male CEO has no problem marrying his secretary/biographer/trainer, but a female CEO will look for another CEO. A strong man cares about a weak woman, but a strong woman does not care about a weak man. This is not sign a strengh, it is a sigh of zero responsibility. Plus it leads to more income inequality, as rich males have no problem going after poor women, but rich females do not go after poor men.

    3. Women pay 30 percent of taxes, while consuming the vast majority of welfare. This is not sign a strengh.

    4. Women are not xenophobic and nationalist, and are more likely to support open borders (in other words to open their legs) to everyone. They care less about their own people. This is not sign a strengh, it is a sigh of zero responsibility.

    5 Women vote and talk like low IQ blacks or other third worlders. (RACIST. SEXIST. I’m OPRESSED. GIVE ME, GIVE ME.) This is not sign a strengh.

    So women are becoming more selfish, and having more time for bs behavior, due to negative birth rates (and negative birth rates lead to their own destruction and replacement by low IQ women, so..). They immitate masculinity due to penis envy and envy of men (see Sigmund Freud), but they are not masculine.

    So from what i see women are becoming more selfish, not more strong and masculine. To be a man means to take responsibility, and current women are not doing that.

    “However, with females now dominating University level education, females starting to make more money than their male counterparts”

    Many more women apply to University, compared to men. Thats it. But it does not mean that women perform better in higher education, since among those who apply for Uni, a higher percentage of males gets accepted (something like 80 percent of those who apply), compared to women (75 percent of those who apply). But anyway, high education is overrated these days, since many graduates can not find full time jobs, and there are many bs majors (dominated by women) who do not return the investment later in life.

    Women dominate low IQ, low pay majors (social work), while men dominate high IQ, high pay majors (such as STEM).

    “females starting to make more money than their male counterparts”

    If you knew something about men and women, then you will know that this is impossible to happen, due to differences in reproduction, IQ (especially math and spatial abilities, see who most of MENSA members are), and psyhomotor abilities.

    1. Full time jobs: women earn 80 percent of what men earn.
    2. Part time jobs: women are much more likely to occupy part time jobs, while men are more likely to occupy full time jobs.
    3. The are more working men (10-15 percent more) than women. See labour force participation rate.
    4. Women are more likely to take extended leaves, compared to men.
    5. Women are only one third of business owners.
    6. Women earn 39 percent of earnings and pay 30 percent of taxes.

    As you can see, their performance is way behind that of men. Other that that, the article sounds good.


    • Thank you for your comment. I have mentioned the invention of the pill and household appliances before on this blog as a major contribution to the creation of feminist ideology. The focus in this article was on the purpose of the ideology itself, not what facilitated the creation of it. The massive redistribution, is what I referred to when I used the terminology of Daddy Government.

      When it comes to higher education, women are now earning the majority of degrees. As these degrees are frequently the gatekeepers for roles in governmental and private sector that have significant social influence, ignoring this is short-sighted at best. Gender studies is a bullshit major, yet look at the amount of influence they have had in shaping the last 30 – 50 years in the west.

      As for your statistics on income,
      1. The difference in earnings come down to choice, and is an aggregated number. This in and of itself does not contradict the statement that some women are now out-earning their male counterparts.
      2. This is accurate, but it still does not disprove the statement that some women are now starting to earn more than their male counterparts.
      3. This does not disprove the statement.
      4. This does not disprove the statement.
      5. This is not even related to the statement.
      6. This is relevant to the Daddy Government section.

      To make the intention of the section you commented on clear, it was not to reiterate the statistics that many other manosphere bloggers have beaten to death, and which I have referred to many times on this blog as well. It was to establish from an ideological perspective what the goal of “Female liberation” actually is, which is to not be accountable. Furthermore, how that influences the sexual market place valuations that take place every day.


      • Passer by says:

        You are welcome.

        “When it comes to higher education, women are now earning the majority of degrees.”

        This does not mean anything from a performance POV. If only females applied to Uni, then females would earn 100 percent of all degrees. Does this mean that they perform well in higher education? Of course not.

        Much more females apply to Uni, ergo they have more degrees. Its not that they perform good, though.Female academic performance is quite weak, as seen in STEM fields, which require high IQ, in the number of professors (only 25 percent of all professors and 10 percent of science professors are female), in the fact that they publish far less science papers per capita, and in the fact that men start 90 percent of high growth businesses and hold 95 percent of commercial patents (so they invent the vast majority of new things).

        I’m not ignoring artificial female overrepresentations in higher education but TPTB (in the West) are self-destoying themselves by their blind female favoritism. Plus these days higher education is depreciating, as it is becoming more expensive, yet more and more graduates can not find good jobs.

        Having lots of females with degrees instead of males will simply blow up most western economies (a female doctor for example is 25 percent less productive than a male doctor).

        “Female doctors are creating time bomb”

        Western countries are on the decline, debt levels are already enormous, and if they continue with this decadent behavior, they will lose their power. And feminism will lose too. Not to mention that white women, who are the most feminist women, are aborting themselves out of existence.

        “This in and of itself does not contradict the statement that some women are now out-earning their male counterparts.”

        I thought that you believed that women *as a whole* made more money than men, because in reality, men make way more money than women. Its ok then. Yet this trend of rising female earnings will not continue as feminist societies are destroying themselves via low birth rates and dysgencs (dumb women have more kids than smart women, the highest educated women are those with the lowest birt rate). The West is declining as a share as world gdp and Western Europe (for example) is set to produce only 7 percent of world GDP by 2050, with half of worlds GDP in Asia. So i wouldn’t worry too much about feminism, as it is destroying itself.

        In ending, as i said, these are my other corrections to your text:

        1. I do not see something called “female liberation”. This term is manipulative and is used by feminists mostly. Technology allowed women to live better life, plus women were always supported by men via numerous ways. I woudn’t call parasitising upon on men and using society without contributing to it (see the negative birth rates) a “liberation”. It looks more like parasitic behavior to me.

        2. I also do not see modern women as independent (they are extremely depended on redistribution), and i do not see modern women as strong (just like kids, they do not take responsibility for society or their own actions).


      • The sad thing is that performance is not the standard to which things are judged anymore, once “diversity initiatives” entered the workplace, and society as a whole performance as a metric seized to be critical and became an “add on. I’m very well aware of the performance issues, and I’ve spoken of them before. As women are now twice as likely to be hired for STEM jobs and professorships due to diversity initiatives, and we all know what happens once females make up a critical mass of people within an organization.

        1. The other “corrections” are towards your personal preference. I’m fairly certain the population at large understands what is contained within the subtext “female liberation” I doubt they would understand “the effect of female parasitism”.

        2. Neither do I, but the “strong, independent, woman” is a term which covers women who think they are just that, but are anything but.


      • Passer by says:

        I will say this again because i see way too many people whining “Oh my gawd, there are more females in University, they are so much smarter than men, men are so dumb for not being able to enter”, and this misconception is so widespread that is really becoming laughable. 🙂

        More women than men apply to Uni (i think 300k vs 200k in Britain). Hence you have more females with degrees. Yet, of those who apply, men are more likely to enter Uni, compared to women. (80 percent of men who apply vs 75 percent of females who apply are accepted). So men are more likely to enter University, compared to women.

        And, as mentioned above, men dominate high IQ majors, while women dominate low IQ majors. Not to mention the very high male percentage of professors, of science paper authors, of inventors and patent holders, etc.


      • Passer by says:

        Yes, you want people to understand you. You want to use easily digestible language. I understand you.

        The problem with “female liberation” is that it simply is not true. When someone says a lie a thousand times, people start to believe it. Words have power. This phrase has manipulative and brainwashing effect, this is why it was chosen by feminists. And don’t forget that women have high verbal intelligence, and are quite good at waging war with words.

        Everytime you use the term “female liberation” this makes your male readers unconsiously feel that they are guilty, that men are bad people who opress women, and that the noble, pure, revolutionary women rebelled against the bad men who “enslave them” and liberated themselves from the “oppressors”.

        Every time males accept phrases like this, without challenging them, they swallow the feeling that they are guilty people, that they “did bad things”, that they should never forget their “sins”, etc.

        If you use this term often, you will simply do a disservice to men. Use it or not, its your choice, but if i was on your place, i woudn’t use it when talking to unsophisticated males, that could be easily manipulated or brainwashed.

        And btw, if you have time, you could review my article here and let me know if you find some errors in my analysis –


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.