Mainstream economics is structured by Homo economicus—it’s dependent on detached and gendered notions of economic agency.

The science of economics conceptualizes itself as a value-free and universal methodical approach used to describe self-interested actions by the agents in a market, which is defined as a place for the exchange of goods. The description of this process does not need to include values or evaluative standpoints, however it does not deny that economic agency is restricted and shaped by normative topics. A Jewish society differs from the action parameters of a Moslem society, this from a Buddhist, a Confucian and a Christian one, and so on. Science itself is not bothered by these preconditions. For the different societies it is true that women are not equally present, neither as producers of economic output nor as economic agents. Women are excluded as agents in the market and thus excluded from the relevant positioning of their interests (Strassmann 1997: viii). The sheer fact that women are not visible within the different economic realms is not problematized within the systems themselves. The fact of their absence and the inferior valuation of their contribution to the Gross National Products worldwide is taken to be a result of their lack of participation and a consequence of women’s role in society, stereotyping them into activities which are not regarded as being a part of economic productivity. Nonetheless, the rational economic agent is perceived to be gender-neutral (Ferber and Nelson 2003; Strassmann 1993; Justman 1996). The homo oeconomicus is a preference-selecting person, an autonomous individual acting in abstract circumstances, “in society without being influenced by society,” and acting in an “ideal market” without realizing the ostracisms and segregations that shape this market (Nelson 1995). Although economic science claims that the homo oeconomicus is a universal model of economic action, it regards the predicates of autonomy and context-free action capacity as particularly masculine and is convinced that these concepts are justifiably dominant over culturally feminine predicates, like interde- pendency, interconnectivity and concreteness. Albeit the economic man is predi- cated as a universal one, it is a particular identity, built upon exploitation and discrimination (Barker and Kuiper 2003: 9). Cultural organization has placed one at the market place, the other in the house. Often these two kinds of activities are presented as being opposite. When they are designed to be complementary, this is not relevant for the market. The assumption of perfect competition in the market turns out to be irrelevant for the comple- mentary activities of the gendered production endeavors. On the contrary, the market is a male segregation locus, supported by women and caregivers, who provide important labor to support the productivity in the market (Waring 1988: 14). Mainstream economics presents itself as a result of abstract, free and independent individual actions and ignores the fact that its categories depend on the cultural contexts and social norms which comprise a nation, with religion shaping the determining conditions and traits on the paths which economics has developed and has not overcome but confirmed. It ignores the fact that its knowledge belongs to epistemic communities (Strassmann 1993; Longino 1993; Nelson 1993). Preference economics has disregarded important elements that influence the eco- nomic process, shape preferences and thus lead to a tautology of self-confirming effectiveness (Hagengruber 2000). Elementary economic principles that should guarantee the transparency of action, equal access to the market, preference for the best, are ignored and even contradicted by this practice. These kinds of social patterns are realized in preference and utility-functions and deepen the traps of cultural backgrounds. Choice theory is built upon tautology and a consequentialist attitude (Dunleavy 1991; Seiz 1999). This way, economic actions perpetuate seg- regation habits, allowing the maximum benefit from this kind of oppression and segregation (McCloskey 1998). Stating that these kinds of values enter into eco- nomic analysis, as every choice is the expression of personal value, the value judgments in all aspects of economics must be considered (van Staveren 2007). There are elementary parts in economic theory which are inherently qualitative. Economics, like any science, is referring to social constructions that shape its theory (Nelson 1995). The aim of feminist research on economic concepts is thus to identify these social and cultural constructions that privilege male interpretations of economic issues, identifying where these forms of dominance and subjection tend to devaluate women in the economic realm (Power 2004). The market is dependent on provisioning activities which are not part of itself. These are gendered social activities, performed mostly in favor of the male of the house and performed by the females. The sex-segregating labor implies the per- formance of domestic work, care work, subsistence work such as that of the male dependent worker, with unpaid or lower paid labor and even “voluntary” work, often connected to personal and emotional interaction. This social provisional work —although necessary and also acknowledged as such—has presented a challenge to mainstream economics as the traditional image of the economic man is shaped as the autonomous and self-interested individual. Consequently, the thus constituted homo economics negated this provisional work as a market relevant action, as neoclassic economics did in demarcation to classic and ancient economics. Although provisional labor is a substantial and necessary part of every market participation and participant, it is excluded as fact-relevant labor and not counted as a relevant input for the homo oeconomicus to present himself in the market.