~ archived since 2018 ~

Gendernomics: Risk management, how to avoid getting burned

Black Label Logic
April 10, 2016

Risk matrixRisk is defined by ISO 31000 as the effect of uncertainty on objectives. Risk management is focused on identifying, analyzing, and mitigating risk. There are multiple types of risk used in business and there are multiple types of risk in the SMV. You have risk coming from legislation, risks coming from the social sphere, health risks and plate risk.

The most commonly known method for assessing risk is based on a risk matrix where the risk is equal to probability plus impact. For instance high probability and high impact is a high risk. High probability and negligible impact is a low risk. Mathematically this can be done easily too, if something has a 50% chance of happening and if it happened the cost would be $100.000, then the risk is $50.000

Often risks are divided into known known; risks we are aware of, and understand. Unknown known, risks we are not aware of but understand. Known unknown risks we are aware of but do not understand, and unknown unknown, risks we neither are aware of or understand.

The Risk of the SMP

Government can create frictions in markets and they quite often do, either through influencing productions costs, such as by mandating health and safety regulations, environmental regulations and put special taxes on certain industries.

How does the government influence the sexual market place? Well, marriage is the best example, other examples include dead beat dad laws, child support laws and rape legislation.

The recent “Yes means yes” laws have an effect to increase risk to men. As it has been demonstrated by multiple mainstream news outlets in cases such as Duke Lacrosse, Mattress Girl and Jian Ghomeshi, treated the accused as guilty as a de facto position. This came with great negative consequences to their personal lives and their professional lives. This reasonably could be argued to increase the risk of engaging in sex. The effect of this in the SMP is that it reduces demand for sex from men. This is an example of a known-unknown, you know the risk exists but do not understand it or the probability that it will happen.

On the other hand, easy access abortions, morning after pills, safe haven laws and “The Pill” reduce the risk of sex for women. You may argue “female contraception reduces the risk for both genders” and you would be wrong, because the formerly mentioned methods are 100% under a woman’s control, so men experience the same risk. What you have done is to transfer the risk for men from a known known (the risk of pregnancy when having unprotected sex) to a known unknown.  Therefore what the female contraceptive laws do is that they increase the number of women who will have sex (increasing supply) but it does nothing for demand. Secondly, female contraceptives do not reduce the risk of getting an STD, only the male condom  does.

In the case that something goes wrong with the pill, the woman has 3 other risk elimination tools and if she selects to carry to term, she can sue for child support and thus greatly mitigate the financial risk. The man on the other hand, will in a situation where contraceptives fail, be exposed to a very high financial risk and be completely at the mercy of the woman. I covered this area in depth in the post on reproductive rights.

Social risk

Women in general and feminists in particular are very fond of dredging up the risk of a woman ending up raped or in a situation where domestic abuse takes place. These are legitimate and understandable concerns, however, in the case where a woman is the victim of rape or domestic abuse, this comes at very little social risk to her in the west. She has domestic abuse shelters to go to, support hot-lines and government programs to help her. In the case of rape it is a crime that is possibly the most despised crime that can happen in our society.

For a man on the other hand, who is the victim of domestic abuse, this comes not only with the same psychological and financial costs of a woman in the same situation, it also comes with the risk of social loss. Studies have shown that men are 40% of victims in domestic violence cases [1] yet do not have the same support systems as are available to women, but also suffer in terms of their reputation.

The same can be said for false rape or domestic abuse allegations, where legislation largely favors females and where law-enforcement are likely to take the side of the woman over the male. To the point where some women use false allegations of domestic abuse or child abuse as a weapon in divorce cases. [2]

Portfolio theory and plate spinning

The core of portfolio theory in investment is that you can reduce the risk of a portfolio through the combination of stocks you hold. A basic form of this is known as diversification. The idea is that you can eliminate all individual stock risk (through averaging) and be left only with systemic risk. Systemic risk being events that happen to the whole system rather than to individual securities or sets of securities.

Not putting all your eggs in one basket is sound advice, but it doesn’t make much of a difference if a meteor strikes you. Red Pillers often advocate that a man should date/sleep with multiple women at a time (often called spinning plates) and this is a basic type of diversification. If you have investments in multiple relationships, it reduces both risk and loss.

Let us say that you are dating one woman, if the relationship ends, you lose 100% of your investment. If you are dating 5 women, losing any one of those relationships means losing 20% of your investment. Secondly, if one of those relationships does end, you still have the other 4 women, meaning loss feels less severe. This is a known-known risk since we know relationships end and we know what the impact is. The more women you have in your portfolio the lower the loss of any one woman would be. However, this is not me advocating that anyone should become the Peter Lynch of pussy.

It also reduces the risk that the man will take on a high risk exposure in one plate as a result of having too few plates to distribute the “capital” in. It’s a common theme among some investors, that when they have a lot of free cash on their hands, they realize that keeping it in the bank offers very little return. This could be equated to a man having plenty of time on his hands and realizing that watching TV all day is a poor investment of his time, thus he tries out 15 hobbies in the span of 3 weeks. This is a rush to invest the capital, in a sense investing the capital because you have the capital, rather than investing the capital because you see a good opportunity for return.

Total risk

There are a multitude of risks we as men have to be aware of in the sexual market place. From the 22% of women who can be diagnosed with mental illnesses, to the risk of STDs, the unwanted pregnancy risk that can land you in hot water for 18 years, the danger to your reputation from false domestic abuse claims, and many others.

If we view this from the position of a male, most of the risks are known-unknown, in that the risks are known, but the probability and impact are unknown to some degree. If we list some of the risks for a man:

Risk of unwanted pregnancy: Can be mitigated through control of the reproductive method of choice. This means using good quality, not-expired male condoms, and possibly spermicides. Considering the availability of condoms, and their high rate of effectiveness if used correctly, the probability is fairly low, yet the impact is very high since the cost is potentially 18 years of child support payments.

Risk of domestic violence: Can be mitigated through careful vetting of potential partners, avoiding relationships in general, or avoiding long-term relationships. Having a  zero tolerance policy for any kind of physical, emotional or psychological abuse. Given that the statistics on the frequency of domestic violence against men is hard to come by, this is perhaps a medium risk and low to high impact depending on the situation.

Risk of false allegations: Cannot really be mitigated other than by employing body-worn surveillance technology and keeping all correspondence between you an the other participant. In the present climate with the tendency towards the accused having to prove consent, and allegations taking place long after the event, this must be considered a fairly high risk considering the damage done to both professional and private life.

Risk of ending up with a person with mental illness: This is probably the highest risk situation a man can end up in given the 21.8% of American women who have been diagnosed with a mental illness in just the last 12 months. What people often do not consider is that this risk influences all the other risks I outlined. “Crazy bitches” are more likely to engage in abuse of their partner, false allegations and “accidentally” ending up pregnant. Especially if they are of the Borderline, histrionic, narcissistic or psychopathic variety crazy. Keep in mind that that 21.8% is women who could be diagnosed, it does not take into account those who are never checked out, or those who are not crazy enough to be diagnosed, yet crazy enough to take a chainsaw to you while you’re sleeping.

If we compare to women, they have built in risk-mitigation and elimination systems from the government. There are special laws to protect women from violence such as the violence against women act, there are shelters and support hotlines for women in domestic violence situations. The police are more likely to haul the abuser away in handcuffs, as opposed to the victim. Law-enforcement are also less likely to laugh at a woman who got beaten up by her man, than a man who took a frying pan to the face from a 5 ft tall, 50 lb woman.

The risk of unwanted pregnancy for women is reduced to 0. In addition to having the same access to- and more choices in terms of contraception. Women also have the benefit of their choice to be a parent being a case of “consent to sex does not mean consent to parenthood” as I wrote about in length here. Furthermore, if they do elect to have the child, the man will have to pay child support for 18 years, even if he was underage and she poked holes in the condoms.

STD risk is the same for both genders.

The risk of ending up with a person with a mental illness is lower for women. According to the statistic I used, only 14.1% of men compared to 21.8% of women could be diagnosed with a mental illness. That means that for men the chance of ending up with a crazy is a little bit over 1/5 whereas for women it is about 1/7.

Conclusions and summary

The thing that I found myself thinking over and over again while writing this post is; why does demand for sex from men not seem to go down markedly despite the last 50 years of increased risk of sex? Part of this may be explained by lower risk aversion in men, than a women [3] but I think most of it comes down to thinking with the small brain, rather than the big one.

Some would be inclined to argue that improving the situation of women does not automatically make the situation worse for men, and I would be inclined to agree in a lot of cases. However, this is not one of them. Any legislation that changes the market dynamic in the sexual market place, especially when related to risk, does not eliminate that risk, it just shifts that risk. When legislation improves the situation for women, it does so by shifting more of the risk onto men.

In the case of unwanted pregnancy, the woman has multiple options to get rid of the consequences of the pregnancy, the man has none. If the woman elects to keep the child, then she can demand 50% of the cost of raising said child from the father.This means that both parties carry 50% of the financial risk, but one party has the option to completely take away that risk for both parties.

If legal abortion became a possibility for men then both parties would have a tool to eliminate the risk to themselves, but also control their own risk exposure. However, the financial burden currently covered by child support, would either have to go to the woman, or to the state. Most likely the state.

The fact is that the SMP is a zero-sum game, and has zero-sum risk profiles, therefore any shifts in power leads to one party carrying more risk than the other.

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 Amazon.com as both paperback and Kindle

More Reading

The Black Swan by Nicholas Nassem Taleb

The Art of Thinking Clearly by Rolf Dobelli


[1] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Splitting-Protecting-Borderline-Narcissistic-Personality/dp/1608820254/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460320672&sr=8-1&keywords=bill+eddy


TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the blog Black Label Logic.

Black Label Logic archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Gendernomics: Risk management, how to avoid getting burned
Author Black Label Logic
Date April 10, 2016 9:16 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Blog Black Label Logic
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/blog/Black-Label-Logic/gendernomics-risk-management-how-to-avoid.24335
Original Link https://blacklabellogic.com/2016/04/10/gendernomics-risk-management-how-to-avoid-getting-burned/
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter