The education of children in modern times

[godelian]

As I noted earlier, college isn't job training but most in business say, give me a hire with grit, we'll teach them what they need to know for work.

Now look at the situation from the point of view of the employer.

So, the candidate has just spent tens of thousands of dollars and several years on a training that is of no use to anyone, and now, based on that, he expects me to pay him a hefty salary for me to waste my time and teach him the skills that he actually needs, because hey, he's got a degree. How arrogant!

The gap between a degree's curriculum and the job skills actually needed, does not exist because job skills are typically esoteric. The gap exists because the academia, more often than not, have no clue what they are talking about.

Combine that with the agenda to indoctrinate a whole bunch of imbecile beliefs, such as "gender studies", "political science", and undoubtedly a bunch of other ideological nonsense -- "what are your pronouns?" -- and then you have a recipe for the disaster that is increasingly unfolding, i .e. the mass production of imbecilized idiots.

The West is economically collapsing. There are very good reasons for that. The West is going to become increasingly poor, and that is ultimately the only solution to bring back some reality. Hence, the problem is ultimately going to solve itself.

[LuckyR]

As I noted earlier, college isn't job training but most in business say, give me a hire with grit, we'll teach them what they need to know for work.

Now look at the situation from the point of view of the employer.

So, the candidate has just spent tens of thousands of dollars and several years on a training that is of no use to anyone, and now, based on that, he expects me to pay him a hefty salary for me to waste my time and teach him the skills that he actually needs, because hey, he's got a degree. How arrogant!

The gap between a degree's curriculum and the job skills actually needed, does not exist because job skills are typically esoteric. The gap exists because the academia, more often than not, have no clue what they are talking about.

Combine that with the agenda to indoctrinate a whole bunch of imbecile beliefs, such as "gender studies", "political science", and undoubtedly a bunch of other ideological nonsense -- "what are your pronouns?" -- and then you have a recipe for the disaster that is increasingly unfolding, i .e. the mass production of imbecilized idiots.

The West is economically collapsing. There are very good reasons for that. The West is going to become increasingly poor, and that is ultimately the only solution to bring back some reality. Hence, the problem is ultimately going to solve itself.

What the employer "gets" from a college graduate isn't what they learned in college, what they get is someone who has proven they can stick to a difficult task for years and not quit. So it's not "the degree" itself, it's what it took, character-wise to get the degree.

[godelian]

What the employer "gets" from a college graduate isn't what they learned in college, what they get is someone who has proven they can stick to a difficult task for years and not quit. So it's not "the degree" itself, it's what it took, character-wise to get the degree.

Well, they have certainly proven that they are good at orthodox conformity and that they can conceivably stick to a meaningless and boring task for years and not quit. In a sense, they may have learned to be good drones.

I would, however, not say that the task is particularly difficult, as in non-STEM fields, the task mostly amounts to repeating lots of tripe from memory.

STEM fields, on the other hand, are only difficult if the student has no talent for mathematics. In that case, the student should probably do something else which is more in line with his talents. What's the point in struggling with something that you probably do not even like and that you will have to avoid for the rest of your life for lack of talent?

Furthermore, the multi-year length of a degree does not seem to have any bearing on how long graduates will stay in their first job:

https://www.parkerdewey.com/blog/nace-2018-recap

55.3% of recent college graduates will leave their first job within the first year

Last week I attended the 2018 NACE Conference and was inspired by all of the conversations around improving career success for college students and recent grads. However, even with all of the innovation and desire to improve college-to-career outcomes, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 55.3% of recent college graduates will leave their first job within the first year.

This is a massive issue impacting companies and college students alike, and has not gotten better even with the use of AI, assessments, video interviews, and other filtering tools.

So, doing a boring multi-year degree does not seem to increase the graduate's ability to stick it out in a possibly boring job. That is certainly not what the employer is buying or receiving by demanding a degree.

[Kaylla]

High value man!?
Are you for real?

A high-value man is a man that lots of other women also want. This is typically the case because of his handsome appearance (short term) or his wealth (long term).

You know that some people have this thing called personality? Right? Right!?

I am married, and she is pretty, she didn't have a lot of money. Her good looks were the initial reason why - still in high school - I walked over to her and, ignoring my heart going through the roof, asked her if she understood the math homework we were asked to do. She had good looks, no money, was kind, intelligent and shared a lot of interests with me and was willing to put up with the fact that at 14, I was a mess prone to uncontrolled emotional outbursts.

[Immanuel Can]

High value man!?
Are you for real?

A high-value man is a man that lots of other women also want. This is typically the case because of his handsome appearance (short term) or his wealth (long term).

You're not wrong. I disagree with you on a lot, but you're actually speaking the truth here.

Also, a high-value woman is one that a lot of men would want. It's not a woman who has a lot of what other women value, or what Feminism tells women men ought to value. It's a woman who has a lot of what men actually DO value. And they will always value what they think is in their own best interests. That can't be 'educated' out of them, even if women wanted to try.

And it's perfectly fair, or at least equitable. The value of a quanitity in a mutual-agreement situation, like marriage, is defined by the buyer, not the seller. The value of the man, in that transaction, is determined by women. Likewise, the value of a woman in that situation is defined by the men.

That's not a popular realization. Today's Feminists would like to think that a) the value of men is defined by women, and b) the value of women is defined by women's standards, their ability to please themselves and to satisfy the Feminist ideological expectations. In other words, they would like to believe that only women can define the value of either. But that's clearly not reality. And since it's a mutual-exchange situation, failure to grasp that is terminal...because either partner can opt out if the relationship does not offer the perceived value.

Men value in women youth, beauty, purity, fertility and emotional support....at minimum, in the form of respect. They also value peace. None of these things are offered by way of the Feminist narrative of value: Feminists aim at cultivating women who are older (because highly educated), not focused on their aesthetics, career-focused, sexually-promiscious, abortion-loving, non-domestic, contemptuous of males and prone to stridency and picking fights (which they take to be indicative of independence).

These are the opposite of all the qualities a high-value male (as defined by women's choice) is looking for. A man with money, leadership skills and charisma is not in need of an older, crabbier, proud, sexually exploited, independent, non-domestic and contentious woman. Why would he be? She has nothing for him to value. He's going to pick the hot 22-year-old with the qualities he values. And since women, on average, prefer men who are older than they are, and more mature, charismatic and stable financially, the hot 22-year-old has the pole position in the race among women to obtain every high-value male.

It's not rocket science. You have to offer the person you want to be with the thing that they value, not what you would prefer them to value. And you would think that education would at least make basic self-interest obvious to both men and women. But we keep persuading young women to forgo commitment, behave promisciously and disrepectfully, build careers, wait to have children, be independent, and to be contentious and proud. None of that is actually in the interests of what most women really want...a committed relationship with a high-value male who wishes to establish a family with them.

[Kaylla]

What is interesting here is that men who go on about how women want "high value men" are never, by their own standard, "high value men".

I suppose wealthy confident men in their 50s who feel confident enough to hit on 20 year olds (most 20 year olds will have an ick reaction but enough wont that hitting on every attractive 20 year old may eventually produce results) have better things to do than express incel gibberish.

[Alexiev]

Men value in women youth, beauty, purity, fertility and emotional support....at minimum, in the form of respect. They also value peace. None of these things are offered by way of the Feminist narrative of value: Feminists aim at cultivating women who are older (because highly educated), not focused on their aesthetics, career-focused, sexually-promiscious, abortion-loving, non-domestic, contemptuous of males and prone to stridency and picking fights (which they take to be indicative of independence).

Hmmm. It seems to me that men value women who practice birth control (but not in the form of abstinence). The leaves "fertility" and "purity" out.

It seems that a great many Christian men do value "youth". They are called "pedophiles".

[Immanuel Can]

Men value in women youth, beauty, purity, fertility and emotional support....at minimum, in the form of respect. They also value peace. None of these things are offered by way of the Feminist narrative of value: Feminists aim at cultivating women who are older (because highly educated), not focused on their aesthetics, career-focused, sexually-promiscious, abortion-loving, non-domestic, contemptuous of males and prone to stridency and picking fights (which they take to be indicative of independence).

Hmmm. It seems to me that men value women who practice birth control (but not in the form of abstinence). The leaves "fertility" and "purity" out.

Oh, you misunderstand men, then.

I'm going to tell you something you won't like. It's true, and every man you meet knows it. But they won't tell you. They know it's not in their interest to tell you. But they do know it when they're with other men, for sure.

Every man has two categories for the women he meets, if they're at all in his "eligible" category, or he has any attraction at all to them. The two categories are "fun women" and "serious women."

Men value women who are accessible for fun, but only as "fun women." A high-value male will use, but will never commit to a "fun woman." He'll give her gifts, take her places, sleep with her, and so on...but he's not going to commit. She's not that type of girl. A smart man knows it.

Then there are the "serious" girls. Those are the ones you realize you're going to have to make a commitment to, if you're going to keep them. They won't fall for the presents, travel and sex games, and other men are going to desire them. So you're in a competition, and you have to bring your "A" game, and if you get to close the deal, you're married to her. But one of the distinguishing features of such a woman is that she is rare. You don't get to be with her for nothing. She doesn't give intimacy away. A smart man sees her value, and knows that he can't treat her like a "fun" girl; he's got to bring his long game, or just walk away. There's no middle position with her.

See if you can find an honest man, who will tell you that what I'm saying is true. I promise you, it is. And if you know a man you can trust -- say, if you have an honest brother or father or whatever, and if you ask in neutral tones, he'll maybe tell you.

It seems that a great many Christian men do value "youth". They are called "pedophiles".

A very female tactic, that. It's an attempt to shame. But men know what to do with that: they really ignore it. Calling men who value things you do not "pedos" will not bring them around to your point of view. They will keep liking what they like: and men like purity.

It matters to them, because their primary interest is in the reproduction of their own genes, not of somebody else's, and because experience is like sleeping with rivals. It's gross. Men call it "sloppy seconds" for a reason. To be where other men has been is low-status, and high-value men don't have to stoop to that. Only desperate losers and "fun"-seeking boys will do that.

Of course, women who are "experienced" don't want men to value purity, but as I said earlier, you can't dictate to somebody else what they should value. They'll value whatever they value. And even the "fun"-seeking boys will prefer the purer women.

Let's take a case.

Angie is a 32-year-old single mother with a 5 year-old-son. She has a master's degree in communications, and works in a Human Resources office, defending various worker's rights. She has to work a bit on looking young...age is starting to tell on her. She's put on a few pounds lately. On weekends, she visits the bar scene and has various relationships. She's detached from her parental family, who live in a different city, and sees them only really on holidays.

Or, let's say that this same Angie is only 22 and single. She is beautiful. She goes to church or synagogue, and she's a virgin. Or, she's had only one serious boyfriend so far, and she was with him for five years. She has no children, did not go to university, but has spent her time on small jobs and charity work, and wants to find a good man and have a family. She would not dream of trivial relationships, stays off the internet sites, and knows bars for what they are.

Let me ask you this: which is the "serious" Angie, and which version of her is the "fun" one? Which one do you think the men think is serious?

[Alexiev]

Oh, you misunderstand men, then.

I'm going to tell you something you won't like. It's true, and every man you meet knows it. But they won't tell you. They know it's not in their interest to tell you. But they do know it when they're with other men, for sure.

Every man has two categories for the women he meets, if they're at all in his "eligible" category, or he has any attraction at all to them. The two categories are "fun women" and "serious women."

Men value women who are accessible for fun, but only as "fun women." A high-value male will use, but will never commit to a "fun woman." He'll give her gifts, take her places, sleep with her, and so on...but he's not going to commit. She's not that type of girl. A smart man knows it.

Then there are the "serious" girls. Those are the ones you realize you're going to have to make a commitment to, if you're going to keep them. They won't fall for the presents, travel and sex games, and other men are going to desire them. So you're in a competition, and you have to bring your "A" game, and if you get to close the deal, you're married to her. But one of the distinguishing features of such a woman is that she is rare. You don't get to be with her for nothing. She doesn't give intimacy away. A smart man sees her value, and knows that he can't treat her like a "fun" girl; he's got to bring his long game, or just walk away. There's no middle position with her.

See if you can find an honest man, who will tell you that what I'm saying is true. I promise you, it is. And if you know a man you can trust -- say, if you have an honest brother or father or whatever, and if you ask in neutral tones, he'll maybe tell you.

It seems that a great many Christian men do value "youth". They are called "pedophiles".

A very female tactic, that. It's an attempt to shame. But men know what to do with that: they really ignore it. Calling men who value things you do not "pedos" will not bring them around to your point of view. They will keep liking what they like: and men like purity.

It matters to them, because their primary interest is in the reproduction of their own genes, not of somebody else's, and because experience is like sleeping with rivals. It's gross. Men call it "sloppy seconds" for a reason. To be where other men has been is low-status, and high-value men don't have to stoop to that. Only desperate losers and "fun"-seeking boys will do that.

Of course, women who are "experienced" don't want men to value purity, but as I said earlier, you can't dictate to somebody else what they should value. They'll value whatever they value. And even the "fun"-seeking boys will prefer the purer women.

Let's take a case.

Angie is a 32-year-old single mother with a 5 year-old-son. She has a master's degree in communications, and works in a Human Resources office, defending various worker's rights. She has to work a bit on looking young...age is starting to tell on her. She's put on a few pounds lately. On weekends, she visits the bar scene and has various relationships. She's detached from her parental family, who live in a different city, and sees them only really on holidays.

Or, let's say that this same Angie is only 22 and single. She is beautiful. She goes to church or synagogue, and she's a virgin. Or, she's had only one serious boyfriend so far, and she was with him for five years. She has no children, did not go to university, but has spent her time on small jobs and charity work, and wants to find a good man and have a family. She would not dream of trivial relationships, stays off the internet sites, and knows bars for what they are.

Let me ask you this: which is the "serious" Angie, and which version of her is the "fun" one? Which one do you think the men think is serious?

"I like a man with a future and woman with a past." Oscar Wilde. It is true that Wilde, despite being married with children, may not have been typical in his heterosexual loves and lusts. But many men (including me) like women (and men) with whom they have fun. Some of us like fun, however strange this may seem to someone of a Puritanical bent.

I'll grant that Elon Musk seems to have an obsessive "interest in the reproduction of (his) own genes". But most of the young men I know prefer that their sexual activity leads to no such propagation. Perhaps you move in different circles.

You are sounding like godelian now, with your "high-value men". Shouldn't a Chirstian think that all humans are "high-value"? Good grief! My experience is the opposite of yours. The men I know (and I) like women who are well educated, conversant about art, literature, and (we can always hope) sports. We also like women who enjoy sex,and often prefer those who are not fertile.

Only the most shallow among us divide women into two (and only two?) categories, "fun" and "serious". If a woman is sufficiently fun, we become serious about her, which is called "falling in love".

One question: what century do you live in? Henry VIII did seem obsessed with propagating his genes, especially in the male line, but that obsession seems to have become less common in the intervening 400 years.

[godelian]

What is interesting here is that men who go on about how women want "high value men" are never, by their own standard, "high value men".

I suppose wealthy confident men in their 50s who feel confident enough to hit on 20 year olds (most 20 year olds will have an ick reaction but enough wont that hitting on every attractive 20 year old may eventually produce results) have better things to do than express incel gibberish.

Donald Trump may not necessarily be a philosopher. However, if you express in language what he does, you will probably end up with what you call "incel gibberish".

Melania was a young and stunningly beautiful Slovenian model in her early twenties while Donald Trump was a wealthy businessman and investor in his fifties.

Furthermore, I choose women in SE Asia for exactly the same reason as why Donald Trump keeps a foreign first lady in the American white house.

For the last seven years, my only job has been to hodl Bitcoin.
According to the Bitcoin maximalist philosophy, I cannot make more money than by just "hodling":

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hodl.asp

* HODL is a crypto slang term meaning to buy-and-hold indefinitely.

* It implies not selling when markets go down or become volatile.

* Sometimes, it is said to mean "hold on for dear life."

* HODL originated from a typo of "holding" as "hodling" in a 2013 online post.

* Today, it is a core tenet of many Bitcoin and crypto believers.

This strategy insists that you do "exactly nothing". It is the admiral ship of null strategies.

For cryptocurrency maximalists, HODL represents more than a strategy for reigning in FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt), and other profit-eroding emotions. Long-term crypto HODLers stay invested because they believe:

* Cryptocurrencies will eventually replace government-issued fiat currencies as the basis of all economic structures. Should that occur, then the exchange rates between cryptocurrencies and fiat money would become irrelevant to crypto holders.

* Cryptocurrencies will continue to rise in value because of the former belief, and they will be rich.

Predictably, a meme best captures this HODL maximalist philosophy. Neo from The Matrix asks Morpheus, "What are you trying to tell me, that I can trade my Bitcoin for millions someday?" Morpheus responds, "No Neo, I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready … you won't have to."

When to HODL

Based on these principles, the best time to HODL is now, always, and forever. A true believer would always hold on to their tokens, even if markets crash or become extremely volatile. HODLing becomes an ideological belief about the long-term prospects of blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies, and the communities that have formed around them.

Hence, for deep ideological reasons, I do not have anything better to do than to hodl.

Doing something would be ideologically unsound. So, I don't do it. I do exactly nothing, and I intend to keep doing exactly that for the foreseeable future.

[Immanuel Can]

"I like a man with a future and woman with a past." Oscar Wilde. It is true that Wilde, despite being married with children, may not have been typical in his heterosexual loves and lusts. But many men (including me) like women (and men) with whom they have fun.

Not fun. "Fun." Figure out what that is a euphemism for. It doesn't mean what you are assuming.

I'll grant that Elon Musk seems to have an obsessive "interest in the reproduction of (his) own genes". But most of the young men I know prefer that their sexual activity leads to no such propagation.

Exactly right. They DON'T want to reproduce with a "fun" girl. So most of the young men you know haven't met any girl they regard as serious, I would suppose. Because when they do, they tend to behave very differently.

But our latest crop of young men is actually being trained to fear commitment; and that's another serious issue, but not the one in hand here.

Shouldn't a Chirstian think that all humans are "high-value"?

We're talking about marriage-market value. We're not talking about the general value of human beings. And "value," in this case, is always what the "buyer" is willing to assign to that "product."

So no. Christians regard all human beings as having intrinsic value as persons. That doesn't mean they want to wife everybody. And it doesn't mean that even among those in whom they might be interested, they have no standards of decision-making. But what we are talking about is the secular world, and what the economics of dating and mating are in it.

The men I know (and I) like women who are well educated, conversant about art, literature, and (we can always hope) sports.

They like them in "fun" situations, obviously. But when a man wants a wife, his metric is different. It's much less important whether or not she can discourse on Beethoven or the Boston Red Sox, and much more important are the other metrics. Her sports and culture habits fall way down the line.

And if she's aging, with a shady dating history, some school debts, somebody else's kid...all these things knock her way down in market value...at least for what women regard as a high-value man. Some gamma may settle for such low-value women, but the ones the women themselves regard as prime don't have to. They have all the options in the world...

Only the most shallow among us divide women into two (and only two?) categories, "fun" and "serious".

Every man I've ever met has exactly the same sorts of classes. If he doesn't, he's seriously dumb...probably to a dangerous level. Because it means he's not screening the women with whom he is consorting.

There are actually three categories: women of no interest, women of "fun" interest, and women of "serious" interest. And every man knows within about five minutes which category he's inclined to put each woman in. Sometimes faster.

That is, among heterosexuals. I can't speak for the Oscar Wilde set.

[Alexiev]

Not fun. "Fun." Figure out what that is a euphemism for. It doesn't mean what you are assuming.
.

Gee, IC. I didn't realize that words like "promiscuous" ("unchaste", "libertine", "slutty","licentious") were so shocking to you that you had to use euphemisms.

Exactly right. They DON'T want to reproduce with a "fun" girl. So most of the young men you know haven't met any girl they regard as serious, I would suppose. Because when they do, they tend to behave very differently.

But our latest crop of young men is actually being trained to fear commitment; and that's another serious issue, but not the one in hand here.

Oh, my. Haven't you seen "Pretty Woman." Doesn't Vivian morph from whore to marriage material? What about Cleopatra? She was "fun" (evidently), but Julius Caesar and Marc Anthony both seemed serious about her. Modern men seem to like "fun" (we call them "sex positive") women, and are often "serious" about them. How about Lancelot? Was he "serious" about Guenevere, or was she just for "fun:?

They like them in "fun" situations, obviously. But when a man wants a wife, his metric is different. It's much less important whether or not she can discourse on Beethoven or the Boston Red Sox, and much more important are the other metrics. Her sports and culture habits fall way down the line.

And if she's aging, with a shady dating history, some school debts, somebody else's kid...all these things knock her way down in market value...at least for what women regard as a high-value man. Some gamma may settle for such low-value women, but the ones the women themselves regard as prime don't have to. They have all the options in the world...

Like godelian, you seem to see women as commodities. They have a "market value". Some of us see them as human beings, whose value cannot be measured by the market. Also, some men don't want wives. We think marriage is archaic. Instead, we want "good company", which Anne Eliot described to her cousin: "My idea of good company, Mr. Elliot, is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation; that is what I call good company." To this litany I would add that the best company for many men is a woman who is, to use a less obscure euphemism, "sex positive".

[Immanuel Can]

Not fun. "Fun." Figure out what that is a euphemism for. It doesn't mean what you are assuming.
.

Gee, IC. I didn't realize that words like "promiscuous" ("unchaste", "libertine", "slutty","licentious") were so shocking to you that you had to use euphemisms.

Heh. Not shocking at all. But I use the word "fun" because it comes in a wide variety of degrees. Certainly there are men whose sole interest is sexual, or women whose sense of their worth is solely that. But that's abnormal. "Fun" can mean no more than "light dating," or "flirting," -- but in all cases, with a kind of (at least light) fraudulence, in that the recipient is allowed to believe there is at least the potential for a deepening of the relationship, whereas in fact, the "fun" seeker knows that barrier will not be crossed.

Haven't you seen "Pretty Woman." Doesn't Vivian morph from whore to marriage material?

Yes. We should learn all our relationship dynamics from Hollywood. Good idea.

..you seem to see women as commodities.

Not at all. I see them as human beings, in every way the same in value as men, existentially speaking.

But we're not talking about generic human value. We're talking about how people commit and marry. And they don't marry people who don't have "marriage value" in their eyes.

There is very much a "market" quality to all dating and courting. In every case, there is a "buyer" and a "vendor" on both sides of the dynamic. The same is totally true of both men and women. The woman chooses whom she will assign marriage value, the man in whom she will invest herself and her opportunity; and the man chooses whom he will assign marriage value. It's totally equitable, in that way. The woman doesn't have to "buy" what she sees as not valuable; and the man doesn't have to "buy" what he sees as not valuable. They have to demonstrate their commitment or marital value to each other, and the conclusion of the "transaction" can be shut down on either side, for whatever reason each decides.

And it's a good thing, too: because the alternative is forced investment...and nobody should want that. But all this is routine, and I'm certain you know it, too: you just perhaps don't like the mercantile metaphor...nevertheless, it's a good way to understand the basic dynamic.

...some men don't want wives.

Well, some are naturally celibate or disinclined to invest themselves. Others are just "fun boys." And how they cast themselves is up to them. But the women have the same veto they have, and they don't have to provide "fun" for the "fun boys." Because in the "fun" relationships, the women always end up losing more than the "fun boys" do.

But what do women want? Do they want a life composed of a series of "fun boys," while their relationship resources drain away, and they become old and ugly, and can look back on a life with no lasting love, no marriage, commitment, family, children, finances or security? Let's call them "the Chelsea Handler woman." Does anybody believe Handler, with her protestations that getting up at 10 in the morning and having a drink and then doing whatever she wants is making her happier than a stable relationship? Well, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[Alexiev]

Not at all. I see them as human beings, in every way the same in value as men, existentially speaking.

But we're not talking about generic human value. We're talking about how people commit and marry. And they don't marry people who don't have "marriage value" in their eyes.

There is very much a "market" quality to all dating and courting. In every case, there is a "buyer" and a "vendor" on both sides of the dynamic. The same is totally true of both men and women. The woman chooses whom she will assign marriage value, the man in whom she will invest herself and her opportunity; and the man chooses whom he will assign marriage value. It's totally equitable, in that way. The woman doesn't have to "buy" what she sees as not valuable; and the man doesn't have to "buy" what he sees as not valuable. They have to demonstrate their commitment or marital value to each other, and the conclusion of the "transaction" can be shut down on either side, for whatever reason each decides.

And it's a good thing, too: because the alternative is forced investment...and nobody should want that. But all this is routine, and I'm certain you know it, too: you just perhaps don't like the mercantile metaphor...nevertheless, it's a good way to understand the basic dynamic.

I've read a lot of 19th century novels, in which both men and women were seen as commodities -- mainly for their titles and their money. I hope we've progressed beyond that. I want "good company", in Anne Eliot's sense of the word. In fact, I think I'm in love with Anne Eliot. Too bad she's taken. Damn that Captain Wentworth!

But what do women want? Do they want a life composed of a series of "fun boys," while their relationship resources drain away, and they become old and ugly, and can look back on a life with no lasting love, no marriage, commitment, family, children, finances or security? Let's call them "the Chelsea Handler woman." Does anybody believe Handler, with her protestations that getting up at 10 in the morning and having a drink and then doing whatever she wants is making her happier than a stable relationship? Well, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I doubt you have any idea what women want. You don't appear to know what men want, either. "Relationship resources"!? Good grief. Women have the same relationship resources as men -- wit, conviviality, humor, and an ability to enjoy life. All this talk about youth, beauty, and fertility is nonsense. Anne Bolyn had all those things. Where did they get her? (I guess they got her daughter a Queenship, at least.) Or perhaps you think Melania Trump has procured a "high value" man. I don't.

[Immanuel Can]

I've read a lot of 19th century novels, in which both men and women were seen as commodities...

Well, they aren't, here. Here, they're being regarded as individuals who have a right to make choices about with whom and when they commit...and to do so on the value scale they hold, not on one dictated by the opposite sex.

I also have read many 19th Century novels. The beloved Jane Austen commenced Pride and Prejudice with the following axiom: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." That sounds dangerously close to saying that women marry men for money, does it not?

But we needn't be unfair to Jane. All she was saying is that financial security figures importantly in a woman's value-scale, to a degree or in a way that it does not, in return, for men. Austen was smart about these things.

I doubt you have any idea what women want.

Funny: I would say the same about anybody who had any difficulty recognizing the basic economics of the marriage market.

Anne Bolyn had all those things. Where did they get her?

They got her the same as I ask from my barber: "a little off the top."