I found this in the comments section of a YouTube post, and saved it. I don’t think “all women are like that.” This one is clearly a top-shelf turbo-slut. But, for many women today — I would say more than 50% in the U.S. — it is a matter mostly of degree. At least this woman had the good style to die young. Things often do not go well for these sorts after age 45, and then you still have to live for another 35 years. Along the way, women like this strew chaos and wreckage in the lives of anyone she comes in contact with, including her own children (if she had any).

***

Something you guys might be interested in. 

Years ago I became friends with a very hot blonde in her early 30’s, who was dying of cancer. Due to her impending death, she decided that it was okay to relay a vast amount of inside information to me, regarding what women were really all about. She volunteered this information. I have never forgotten what she told me, and it has served me quite well over the years. 

Here is a summary of the 10 critical things she told me about the true nature of women over the span of a couple of weeks, shortly before her passing: 

Point 1) Women are exactly like little children. We are constantly poking, prodding and testing a man, in order to find out what his boundaries are. If he has no boundaries, we will destroy him, especially if he loves us (more on this in Point 8, below). A man has to have boundaries, and he has to outline them precisely, and he has to force us to adhere to them with the power of his conviction and the power of his action. If he doesn’t do that, we will beat him over the head with his weaknesses (his lack of boundaries) until he breaks. 

Point 2) Women put up a false front about virtually everything. Our faces are fake (makeup), our hair is fake (dyed), our boobs are fake (some of us), everything about us is fake. Most especially when it comes to what is inside of us. We lie constantly, because we are far worse, characterwise, than even our closest friends or lovers will ever know, and we desperately fight to keep all of that hidden. We are looking for our true daddies, basically – the idealized daddies that we never had – somebody who can see through all of our false fronts and call us out on our bullshit and put us in our place. The problem is, those type of men are very few and far between. 

Point 3) If a woman ever tells you, “If we don’t have trust, we don’t have anything,” she is either cheating on you already, or she is planning to cheat on you. There are no exceptions to this rule. We use that as cover, to try and make the man feel guilty for questioning our fidelity. What we are really saying here, is, “I will fuck whomever I want and you’d better keep your nose out of it or I’ll cut you off from my pussy and I’ll ruin your freaking life if you keep pressing the issue.” If we really cared about you, and if we really weren’t cheating on you or planning to cheat on you, we would tell you something like, “I am not cheating on you, I love you, and I would never do that. I don’t care if we have to stay up all night, for the next week, and go over every single shred of doubt that’s currently troubling you about this. I have nothing to hide, I would never cheat on you, and I don’t want you thinking these things about me. Please tell me exactly why you think I am cheating, point by point, and I will do anything and everything that I have to do to prove to you that I’m not cheating, in order to ease your worried mind.” 

Point 4) Women are much hornier than men. Vastly, exponentially, hornier than men. A woman will do just about anything, sexually speaking, so long as she is fairly certain she won’t get caught. For example, we will occasionally go out of town in order to rendezvous with a man we’ve been longing to fuck, and/or to have multiple sex partners in the same evening, and/or at the same time. This is something that hot women do, most especially. In our minds, it is a natural desire, and a natural thing, and so long as nobody else finds out, it’s “game on”. Women are receptacles for cock, that’s how we have been biologically designed. Nothing feels better to us than being completely filled up with multiple penises, than being the center of sexual attention, than being the object of unbridled group lust. Since it’s something we can’t risk doing on our home turf (don’t shit where you eat), we have to think outside the box, in order to get our boxes completely satisfied. And you might find this shocking, but many women – many, many women – have sex with dogs on a routine basis. This is just one example of how insatiable we truly are. I can see why you might not believe it, to which I say, look really hard at all of the women you know who have dogs. Look at women who have dogs whenever you see them out on the street, in the act of walking those dogs. Or at the park. You will notice that most of them have male dogs – the vast majority, in fact. This isn’t a coincidence. And look at all the female teachers who are exposed in the media for having sex with underage students. We have no self-control when it comes to sex – or anything else, for that matter. To our way of thinking, losing control is what makes sex great. Doing anything that is taboo is what makes sex great. 

Point 5) Women do not have female friends. We have female competition. We lie to our so-called female friends and pretend we are loyal and faithful to them, just like we do with the men in our lives. Secretly, we are jealous of each other, and we want all of the desirable things that other women have – most especially when it comes to our female friends’ things. And we consider men to be things. If one of our friends has a hot man, we want him to want us. We will do everything we can to seduce him. Not because we really want him – we don’t really want anybody. We do it because we are rarely happy, and we don’t want our girlfriends to be happy, either, and we want to boost our own egos more than anything else. And after we get him to fuck us, when our girlfriends find out that he has had sex with us, that’s when we finally get what we wanted in the first place. If we break up the previously happy couple, that’s fine, too. It’s all about our pussy, not hers. It’s about winning. 

Point 6) Women want what they can’t have. If a guy doesn’t want us, it doesn’t matter who he is – if we have expressed an interest in him, and he blows us off, or laughs at us, or sees us for the piece of crap that we really are, it will make us feel miserable inside, and we will pursue him to the ends of the earth. 

Point 7) Women always lie about the number of sexual partners they have had. They also lie about not wanting men with large penises. If we told the actual truth about the number of different men and women we’ve slept with, and if we told the actual truth about our fervent desire for big dicks, our pool of potential suitors would shrink drastically, to the point where it would completely dry up. So we lie. Most often, we will claim that we’ve had between three and eight sexual partners in our lifetime. And, to our way of thinking, it isn’t a lie, because if we had five sexual partners last Saturday evening, and our man asks us how many sexual partners we have had, and we answer, “Five”, well, technically we aren’t lying. 

Point 8) All women hate themselves. And because we hate ourselves, we hate any man who doesn’t see through our bullshit. The more a man loves us, the more we hate him. The more he overlooks our sins, and the more he fails to see how corrupt we are, and the more he gives us the benefit of every single doubt – the more we despise him. We will escalate our bad behavior until we finally break him and he wakes up and realizes how worthless we are and what a fool he has been for believing in us. 

Point 9) Women don’t want a man who wants us. We want a man whom we can’t have. We want a man who honestly doesn’t give a fuck about us, who doesn’t care if we come or go. That’s the kind of man we will pursue. Call them bad boys or call them whatever you want, that’s the kind of man we want – period. The kind of guy who will make us orgasm, crudely, and give us a huge sexual thrill in the bedroom, and then discard us like used toilet paper, and fuck our female friends afterwards, just because he can. (Just like we would do with his male friends.)

Point 10) All women are masochists. And all hot women are narcissistic masochists. We hate it when things are going well, especially if they continue to go well for long periods of time. We know down deep that we are fucked-up and not worthy of anything that is truly good. So when things are going well in a relationship, we eventually sabotage it. We just can’t help ourselves in this regard. We could have the greatest, most handsome, most well-hung husband in the world – a one-of-a-kind man who makes all of our girlfriends jealous; we could have the greatest children in the world, who are beautiful, well-behaved and ambitious; we could have the most enviable career imaginable; we could have all of the money and prestige and the truly good things in life, and we could repeatedly tell ourselves over and over, and believe, on the surface, that we would never cheat on our husbands. But down deep we know that it’s a lie. Because one day, we could walk into a grocery store, and some bad boy could whisper just the right combination of words in our ear, and the next thing you know, we’re at the Motel 6 getting it in the ass. That’s just how we are, and any woman – especially a hot woman – who says otherwise, is a liar. 

Over the years, my deceased friend’s words have proven to be spot-on, in the vast majority of cases. And if they ring true from your own personal experience as well, then I am more than happy that I shared them with you here today. I know that my deceased friend would be thrilled to know that I have shared this information with the manosphere. After all, she used to be a conniving hottie, and she’s now dead, and by giving me the inside scoop on her female competition, she continues to beat them – she continues to “win” – even from beyond the grave…

Sometimes, regarding sex, a woman asks: “What can I do to please you?” Although any man might like a good back rub, in the end you want to get to the Main Event, and here the answer is always the same: “I want you to have a chain of brain-melting orgasms that leave you a quivering heap of pleasure.” To achieve this, men generally take the active role, and women the passive; or perhaps, as in dancing, both are active in their way, but the man takes the leadership role. Men do to; women are done to. Women are usually pretty happy about this. This is “good sex.” Unfortunately, I think it is rare these days.

From this, you can extend to relationships between men and women in many aspects.

I will relate a little anecdote I heard, that pertains to our interests here.

Our protagonist is a smart, successful corporate woman type, who is coming up on her fortieth birthday unmarried and childless. After dismissing children and family for a long time as secondary, she is now panicking as women often do around that time. Of course she has not been celibate: rather, she has had a long string of boyfriends over the past twenty-five years. All of these relationships were failures.

Looking back on these men, she put them in two categories:

1. Men that she liked, and were worthy fellows, and who she thought might be a future husband, but they fought constantly. Eventually they would break up.
2. Men that she regarded as immature children, and who she felt she should send back to their mothers for more training.

Now, these men had already passed whatever hurdles this woman had, her “standards,” to become long-term boyfriends in the first place. So, none of them were schlubs and losers. They must have possessed some initial attraction.

It has been asserted that women have two natural modes, that of the wife and that of the mother. The wife subordinates herself to and cooperates with the husband. The mother takes a leadership role, but tends to then regard her subordinates as “children.”

Whether this assertion has validity or not is a good question. It certainly seems to work well here. I don’t know all the details of all these relationships, but from my standpoint, it looks like this:

1. Men who took the leadership role, or at least, did not subordinate themselves to this woman. They would not allow her to tell them what to do. Since the woman would not subordinate herself to them, but insisted on “getting her way” (making the decisions; i.e. taking the leadership role), they would end up fighting ceaselessly.
2. Men who were probably not much different than the first category in their general characteristics, but who would allow the woman to make the decisions, even if only as a way to cease the endless conflict. The woman, taking the role of the “mother,” would then regard these men as basically children. They would thus not fulfill the role that she sought in men, to act as the leader.

This woman ended up being artificially inseminated, and became a single working mother.

This is why I say that men must take the leadership role. Even as they fight ceaselessly for power, women will not tolerate a man that concedes to her leadership. There is no “partnership.” You can’t run a relationship, with two people, by committee. There is no majority. Eventually, there will be a difference of opinion. One way or another, the difference will be resolved: someone will get their way, and the other must acquiesce, or the relationship ends. It can be over a very minor issue. One person wants to eat Chinese food and another wants to eat pizza. If a woman insists “I must have pizza or I will make your life a living hell,” then a man might naturally say: “OK, it’s not really that important to me, let’s eat pizza, although I think we should eat Chinese food.” The woman has made the decision. However, a man, in a leadership role, can take a woman’s view into account. For example, he can say, “I prefer Chinese food, but since you really want to eat pizza, let’s eat pizza.” Seems similar, doesn’t it? But in this case, the man makes the decision to eat pizza, to satisfy the woman’s interests, because men like to do that. Men like to please women, and if women make it easy by saying what will please them, all the better. (“Velvet”) If the man had said instead: “I know you like pizza, but we had pizza last time so let’s eat Chinese food,” then the man has considered the woman’s preferences, but has made the decision that the pair will eat Chinese food. (“Steel”) The woman must then acquiesce to the man’s leadership, and not try to fight and battle until she gets her way, and the man says: “OK, you can have your way.” Even though this is a trivial issue, a woman actually hates this, and it has significance beyond merely what to eat that night. In the case of our forty-year old single career mom, it was a dealbreaker.

In short, a man should treat a woman as a woman, not like a man. If two men were arguing over where to eat, and one said: “OK, it is not that big a deal to me, let’s have pizza,” it would indeed be not that big a deal.

Indeed, between two men, an egalitarian “partnership” is the norm. Let’s say that there are two men who agree to cooperate together. They might share a practice in plastic surgery, or they might like to go fly fishing together. In these cases, if there is not an overt employer-employee relationship, a loose egalitarianism is the norm. There may be a mentor-student relationship. One man may acquiesce to another’s expertise: let him choose the wine, since he knows more about it. There may be recognition of superiority: he is much better at fly fishing than me. Probably any man would be repulsed at some cooperation between two men, in which one took the overt leadership role, unless that was defined in the beginning (as for an employee for example). Even if a man is an employee — if one man hires another to do the gardening — he is not regarded as a child. But, this model doesn’t work for women.

Fascinating Womanhood , by Helen Andelin, was published in 1963, but was based on some pamphlets written in the 1920s and 1930s. Even in its time (which was a little before the “sexual revolution” but when feminism was still thick in the air nevertheless), it was a traditionalist expression, with a Christian theme. It has since sold millions of copies, and has been the subject of numerous books that are commentaries on the original. The book has its own page at Wikipedia.

Mostly, it is a practical guide of specific do-this and do-thats. But, within it lies a more abstract principle of what makes a good wife, in any era. Implicit within this is also: what makes a good husband. Andelin’s own husband, Aubrey Andelin, also wrote a book about this, Man of Steel and Velvet, which takes up this topic in more detail. This is also a worthwhile book, although it is not so timeless or important as Fascinating Womanhood, and also, to read the first implies the second to some degree.

At first, I considered the title to mean “how to be fascinating (to men, and thus manipulate him to get what you want),” and the contents do address this, but now I take the title to mean that “being a (traditional, stay-at-home) woman is fascinating” — that marriage, home and family is a complex and rewarding milieu, and does not involve only changing diapers, or cooking without shoes. When we consider how many “smart, educated” women fail at this miserably, even as they dismiss it as too menial for their oh-so-specialness, it would seem that it is a task today that would strain even the ablest women.

I consider both books to be required reading for both men and women today.

Even the idea that anyone might have an opinion about “how to be a good wife and mother” will probably drive some women to apoplexy. And yet, if one is to be a wife and mother, shouldn’t you do a good job in that role? Does anyone suggest that you should be an employee of a company, and not be a good employee, but rather, a bad one? Does anyone suggest that you be a student, and not be a good student, but a bad one? Or that it doesn’t matter? Any woman who rejects, in principle, the idea that she should be a good wife and mother, rather than a bad wife and mother, is unfit for marriage and motherhood. Unfortunately, these women often get married and have children.

At the same time, there are millions of men who lament that the women in their lives are not good wives and mothers, or lament that it is hard to find a single woman with some promise of becoming a good wife and mother, but these men rarely ever express what it is that they seek, except that it might involve making sandwiches. Probably, they don’t know themselves, in a rational way, and just assume that these women’s mothers will tell them. It is “woman’s stuff” that we just expect women to know how to do, like apply eyeliner. But do these young women’s mothers even know themselves? I think they do not.

Thus, one of our goals around here is to express, in a fashion that a fourteen year old girl can understand and apply, what it means to be a good wife and mother — how to excel in that role.

If women don’t want to be wives and mothers, that is OK. Then they don’t have to be good ones. If 20% of all women were unmarried and childless, by their own choice and design, it wouldn’t be that big a deal. But, it seems that women almost universally want to become wives and mothers.

Today, about 56% of college students are women. This might sound like it is almost 50:50, but actually 56:44 means that there are 27.3% more women than men. In 2018, 36% of women born in 1980-1984 had earned a bachelor’s degree, compared to 28% of men. Not surprisingly, men are losing interest in institutions that are militantly anti-male. The figures for students today are likely to be more skewed toward women.

At the same time, these women have a lot more college debt than men — 66% of all college debt is held by women. No wonder these women are focused on career instead of family — they have debts to pay. Nor are men very interested in marrying women buried in debt, many of whom will struggle to pay it off by age 40. After all, the men themselves are hardly able to pay the debts of these girls. While going to college in the 1950s and 1960s often meant an improved ability to marry higher value men (in part because of access, and also, because an educated housewife was more valued), today, going to college often creates even more barriers to marriage, not that there weren’t enough already. If a woman goes to graduate school, including law and medicine, she spends more years as a student (accumulating more debt), and then has more debt to pay afterwards, thus chewing up still more time out of her limited window of prime fertility between ages 16 and 32.

These women might like to get married and have children “eventually,” but for now, they can barely afford to pay their rent, after making their loan payments. How would they be able to raise a child as well? Who would want to marry in to such a load of problems? Where are the men that are making much more money, and therefore could pay her debts and also pay for children? There are such men, but only a few. Women know this, which also tends to make their relationships transient.

If I propose that women focus on marriage and family first, and basically skip any college education, does that mean that women should be uneducated? Not at all: young women, whose ambitions went beyond a public high-school education, would be educated at their father’s house. Actually, not much education is happening in universities these days anyway (besides vocational training), so even today, the only decent general education (“liberal arts”) that a woman gets is likely to be on her own time. This is true whether she has only a high-school diploma, or is a graduate of Princeton.

The daughters of the wealthy typically had private tutors. But, any woman today can get a good education from readily-available materials. I am a fan of the Harvard Classics. This is a fifty-volume collection, produced in 1909, that represented an in-depth undergraduate liberal arts education of that time. It was compiled by Charles Eliot, president of Harvard University, with the help of some associates. If a woman today began to read the Harvard Classics at age 18, and finished at age 21, she would have a better general education than 99% of women today, including the graduates of Harvard. A young woman can do this living at her father’s house, or as a young housewife. You can buy a used print copy of the Harvard Classics for less than $300 today (that’s $6 per book). Or, as it is now in the public domain, you can get it online, in free .pdf format, here.

In the past — the 1920s through the 1960s — many women went to college. In 1960, 54% of young men and 38% of young women attended some sort of college. But, one of the main reasons that women attended college in those days was to meet a good husband; and also, to meet the expectations of a high-value wife, which was to have some higher education, which she would then pass on to her children. This was a time when the median age of first marriage was about 20. Commonly, if a woman was married before she finished her undergraduate degree, she would quit her formal studies.

If college once served as a way to get married to high-value husbands in the past, today I would say that women follow the general principle of studiously avoiding any commitment that might lead to marriage while they are at university. It is expected that any relationships during this time are transient. After graduation, a man and a woman’s path are expected to go separate ways, as they pursue different careers, in different cities, or attend a graduate school of some sort.

The same principle serves during the high school years. A woman who might go to a four-year residential college expects that any relationships formed during her high school years are transient.

In the past, a woman might begin her search for a husband at age 15. Laura Ingalls, the author of the Little House on the Prairie series of books, began “courting” Almanzo Wilder at age 15. (She also had a job as a schoolteacher at that time.) Almanzo was ten years older. They were married when she was 18. This is how women got married at age 18 — by starting at age 15. Today, that process is short-circuited by the expectation that all romances at this age will turn to dust; and then, all romances during the college years will also turn to dust. A woman does not even begin to search for a husband (if that happens at all) until age 22.

The women today who do manage to get married before age 30 often find their future husbands around this time, age 22-25. They begin monogamous long-term relationships, in effect junior marriages, often involving cohabitation, which they formalize into actual marriages around age 28 when they are “old enough.”

Instead of forming stable, long-term monogamous relationships, a woman has in effect been “training for divorce.” Her relationships during the age 15-21 period, a time when important habits and precedents are formed, have been transient by design. No surprise then that her first relationships after college, beginning around age 22, are also transient by design, as a long-term “boyfriend.” Often this works out and the couple gets married around age 28. But, sometimes it doesn’t work out (since they are transient by design), and a woman finds herself single at age 28.

To that we must of course add the incredibly harmful environment that universities have become today, of alcohol abuse and “hookup culture” combined with feminist/SJW brainwashing of the most toxic sort. If this weren’t bad enough, we also see that virtually no meaningful education takes place, except perhaps for some vocational training. A parent who is concerned about their daughter’s ability to form a successful family should recoil in horror at this spectacle; and certainly not send their children there, at great expense. But, this is apparently not a priority; instead, it is apparently all justified by what little vocational training their daughters receive. Because, with her ability to find a husband and form a family now seriously in doubt, she is going to have to make a living for herself.

Today, we have a conflict for women between “career” and “family.” We have already determined that the natural time for a woman to have a family is when she is young and at the peak of her fertility. A woman that marries at age 18 might have a full set of children by age 25. This means that her youngest children will likely be out of the house by age 45. This leaves a good twenty years of time when a woman can get any necessary vocational training and have a productive career, without any conflict with family. In practice, a lot of women today instead take this “empty nest” period to become women of leisure; and this has not been a bad solution. But, a more ambitious and energetic woman might be bored with that.

Consider if a woman gets married around age 32, and has her first child around age 33. She finishes having children around age 40, and these children are out of the house around age 60. She has no time left over for a meaningful career, including any necessary training. Since the woman presumably has been supporting herself somehow until age 32, and probably has been juggling “relationships” and work through her twenties as well, this leaves a conflict between work and family that persists through her whole life. This is a problem not only for women, but also for husbands and children as well.

There will always be individual situations where a woman is simply destined for a certain career, perhaps at a young age. Some women just want to be doctors, or actresses, and why not let them? But, it would be best if the majority of women followed a pattern such as this: family first, and then career. Because, you can’t really do it the other way — career first, and childbearing after age 40. It seems that a lot of women want to try anyway, with failure a certainty.

Since we are discussing wives and mothers, we should address the question of whether women should become wives and mothers at all, especially since it seems we are telling young women something like the opposite of this these days.

We have a couple options here:

Spinster/Corporate Workerbee: not a wife and not a mother.
Working Single Mom/Welfare Queen: not a wife, but a mother.
Barren DINK/Woman of Leisure: a wife but not a mother.

Obviously there are a lot of opinions about all of these, but what we find is that, despite all the feminist brainwashing, and argumentative horsepuckey, American women today seem to be unanimous on these points eventually. By age 45, 92% of American White non-Hispanic women have been married, and 85% have had children. When we consider all the women that are grossly fat and ugly, all the women that are grossly stupid, grossly ill-behaved, the degenerate sluts, the feminist nutjobs and purple hair girls with noserings, the lesbian experimenters, and the girls whacked out on prescription brain meds, or crystal meth — in short, all those women who are grossly ill-suited to being anyone’s wife and mother — this is a little amazing. If we consider those women that wanted to get married but didn’t, and those that wanted to have children but didn’t (we sure hear a lot about those even though they are a small number of women), we can see that virtually every woman in America today wants to get married and have children, at some point in their lives.

The main problem, it seems, is that these very same women don’t want to get married and have children, at the very best time to get married and have children, when they are at their peak of beauty and fertility. No, they want to get married and have children at the time when they should be caring for their brood of children around age 5-12 years old. This is pure dysfunction.

Let us form some basic assertions, and see what leads from them.

1. A woman should bear children during her peak childbearing years; this is basically 18-32.
2. A woman should be married before getting pregnant.
3. A woman should not have sex before getting married.
4. This is difficult, since a woman naturally has a high sex/coupling drive during her years of peak fertility.
5. A woman should be married when her attractiveness is at its peak, as this is the time when she would presumably get the highest-value husband. This also corresponds to her years of peak fertility, ages 18-25.
6. Having born children, the woman ideally becomes a dedicated housewife.

From this, we conclude that a woman should be married at a young age, ideally around 18-20 and practically between 16-25. By age 25, the woman would be both “on the market,” and also horny as all heck, for ten long years of celibacy, which is already more of a “season of singleness” than should be asked of anyone’s daughters.

A woman today might be expected to bear three children. In the past, it was more: Catherine of Aragon married Henry VIII of England at age 23. (Her first marriage, at age sixteen, ended five months later with her husband’s death.) She was pregnant seven times with Henry, but bore him no male heirs. One daughter lived. Six other children were either stillborn or died soon after birth. Her last birth was at age 32. Times were hard then: this was a woman given every possible advantage and comfort. If we say that a woman might bear three children before age 35, age 25 at marriage is not so early to get started, with the first child born at age 26. If a woman is married at age 18, she could have three children by age 25. Thus, marriage in the 18-25 window leads naturally to a full complement of children within the woman’s window of peak fertility, which is really up to about age 32 although you might get some children even to age 40.

There is another aspect to this: a woman’s peak childbearing years also correspond to a woman’s natural inclination toward infant care. It is often said that the care of young children is best done when the parent is themselves young. The manner of a typical four-year-old can be very trying to a person in their forties, who is naturally inclined, at that time of life, toward the education of adolescents in preparation for adulthood.

If we are marrying our girls at (ideally) age 18, they would likely be paired with men older than them, probably in the 23-35 range. A man must be both interested in and able to start a family. It is possible that an 18-year-old girl could marry an 18-year-old boy, but this is most sensible when the young man’s future is more-or-less assured: perhaps he is the heir of a wealthy family, and expects to inherit the family farm, business or estate. He is perhaps attending a prestigious university, or is able to get a secure and well-paid union job, or there is open land available from which a productive farmstead can be hewn.

We can also see that there is little need for a woman’s career here, as she is plenty busy caring for a household with (perhaps) three children. From this, there is little need for a woman to go to college, from where she is going to emerge, at age 22, already at the tail end of her peak 18-25 marriage years, something different than what a sensible man wants in a wife, which at a bare minimum may be described as: a debt-free virgin without tattoos.

This is not to say that a woman should not be educated. She can also wear shoes. There is not much “education” happening in universities these days anyway. The daughters of the wealthy were educated at their fathers’ house, where they lived until their marriage. This often involved private tutors — a major plot device in, for example, Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew. Catherine of Aragon didn’t go to the University at Salamanca, but she was certainly educated. At age 21, she held the position of Ambassador of Spain to England, the first female ambassador in European history; a job she (naturally) quit after marrying Henry two years later. At age 27, while her husband was away at war, she served for six months as Regent (that is, temporary king) of England. During this time, she made an emotional speech about English courage, which is said to have served an important role in Henry’s victory at the Battle of Flodden.