Did Jane Austen have the key to a happy marriage?

Jane Austen

Heaven forfend – they've formed an attachment!

An attachment – formerly understood as a binding promise of marriage – was strictly verboten for titled young men and enterprising Cinderella types. (Poor Edward Farrars of Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" was cut off without tuppence for forming a less-then-desirable alliance.)

Young ladies were watched and warned against attachments to rakes and reprobates, too. (Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" takes a pivotal turn when a gullible and giggly Lydia courts ruin for the whole family by dallying with the nefarious Mr. Wickham. Easy pickins' is nothing new.)

Contrary to thinking ahead, today's kids are bred to attach themselves to self-will. Not the family name, and surely not the family fortune – their parent's or their own. The mantra of women marrying up is passé. Modern women support themselves! Modern misses aren't misses. They're Ms.

Looking to a man for support – unless we're talking emotional enabling or being a rage sponge – is lurid, disempowering, and utterly reprehensible. A woman seeking a partner upon whom she can rely financially is beyond reproach.

Got it? Well, many women have. Men have, too.

The result? Feminist utopia? Actualized personhood flowering in mutual appreciation? Happy home husbands? Stable unions grounded in respect with a marked lack of labels? Um, no. And absolutely not if kiddies arrive. Children, the former given of healthy marriage, are hammers, driving the nail of human nature and practicality into this modernist coffin. (No wonder parenthood is advertised as bad for one's health … and bad for the planet!).

But for rational thinkers – a rare breed – Suzanne Venker reveals the facts on Fox News: "It's well-documented that most women leave the workforce for a period of time after they have children and thus need a husband on whom they can rely for a period of time. If a woman has married 'down,' she will be less likely to have this as an option. It's a predicament that can, and often does, foster resentment. … At the very least, it creates financial strain that can weaken the marriage."

No kidding? And that's only the short term. Long-term issues also take a toll.

"Another problem with women marrying down is that the sociological data on divorce rates among this group are grim," notes Venker. "One reason is that at some point down the line, many of these wives lose respect for, or become dissatisfied with, their low-achieving husbands. This is either because the two don't share the same drive, or because the man's inability to earn enough money puts undue pressure on the wife to produce."

Gosh. Sounds like these ladies – sorry, women – aren't thinking. Emotions are getting in the way. Disrespect, resentment, buyer's remorse? A smart and educated woman can surely think about long-term dividends.

Apparently not.

And the woman is only half of the equation. Men, contrary to what is promoted today, have feelings. Not the female variety projected onto them; we're talking standard issue Y-chromosome oomph that every inductee of that army purportedly from Mars (remember "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus"?) must master, like it or not.

While women resent being the breadwinner, Venker says: "Husbands, on the other hand, are emboldened when they take on this role. Men are made to provide and protect for their families. When they're stripped of this power, it isn't pretty. As just one example, a 2010 Cornell University study found that a man is more likely to cheat on his partner if he's more financially dependent on her."

The survey seems to call out this self-will attachment as a loser. Couples should be well suited. The prospect of children – and their support – should be considered before marriage. A man should be able to provide for his family. And a woman, when she has children, should have the leeway to care for those children.

Who'd have thought? Why Jane Austen, of course! A woman who neither married nor had children … but obviously gave serious thought to the nature of attachments. Maybe that's why she avoided them.

Time to cut the cord with your cordless

Attachments are nothing new. Tradition – that is, doing things the old way simply because it's old (and often worked, but that's a big secret!) – used to be the norm. Today, everyone and his brother are hooked up to some electronic device, devices that become old or outdated in months, not millennia.

What's weird is the increasing creepiness surrounding these gadgets. Some even say there is an attempt to humanize them.

Don't believe it? Take a look at this pulsating electric power cord intended to juice up your devices in the most organic way possible:

Dis-gusting!

But hey, if folks will buy it, it's gonna sell. Take a look at some other innovative peripherals to make your electronic gadgetry even more invasive than it already is:

Good? Bad? Doesn't really matter. Smart Phones, iPods and PCs are here to stay … at least for now. And if you don't have one, everyone else does – which makes interacting with those around you increasing challenging.

Snowflake alert! Snowflake alert!

The Washington Examiner reports an earthshattering development: "Comedian Steve Martin's rendition of 'King Tut' is triggering social justice warriors at Reed College because they see it as a form of cultural appropriation."

The horror!

Entertainers – not Egyptian and certainly from the age of the Pharaohs – are donning costumes and, more disturbing, a round sense of humor to engage in a lighthearted spoof of the life of North Africa's most well-known but understandably less-understood celebrities.

Translation: Very funny! And absolutely unacceptable!

Obtaining a hard-hitting interview with sensitive but probing Christiane Amanpour would be preferable. Fitting. King Tut was a head of state! But considering the boy-king has been dead since 1323 B.C., any opportunity for interview is past, and so is any speculation – comedic or otherwise – as to what his life may have been like. ("Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" can't touch that!)

But the Reedies (of Reedies against Racism) at Reed College in Portland, Oregon are adamant in their objections to the skit they were "forced" to witness during a required humanities course.

The SNL skit, according to one member interviewed by the Atlantic, was "like somebody … making a song just littered with the N-word everywhere. The gold face of the saxophone dancer leaving its tomb is an exhibition of blackface." As if King Tut and not his sarcophagus was rendered in pure gold.

Take a gander at the damning material up for review in the following video:

Good grief. Won't anyone teach these poor waifs how to think for themselves? Or think, period? If you laughed, by gum, you must be racist.

How funny is that?

Anne Bolyn, second wife of King Henry VIII

When charm doesn't work

Attached to your charming manner? Think you're really different? Didn't work so well for Anne Boleyn!

(Okay, granted, she's not that great to look at … but her personality – trust me, you will love her!)

That blind date line is often just a line. Not so with Anne Bolyn.

Recall your Renaissance English history, particularly the foibles of Henry VIII (he of six wives). History Extra reports Henry's second wife, Anne Bolyn, wasn't much to look at: "The Venetian diplomat, Francesco Sanuto, said she was 'not one of the handsomest women in the world; of middling stature, a swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised.'"

And one of Anne's friends (yes, a friend!) said she was "good-looking enough." But what Anne had was personality plus. Apparently, she was pretty enough too.

After seven years in the French court, the raven-haired Anne had polish to burn. And Henry VIII of England was flaming over all that "cosmopolitan glamour, conversational wit," and – considering it was the highlight of courtly grace and the perfect place to shine – Anne's dancing prowess. Wow!

That's "wow" to the tune of pronouncing himself head of a purposefully minted Church of England, dissolving his marriage to the noble and popular Catherine of Aragon, being excommunicated while holding the title of Defender of the Faith in the Catholic church, and basically wreaking havoc hither and yon to scratch one's itch.

And that was an itch that – after no magical male heir was produced – was sufficiently quenched. The ammo used to rid Henry of this affliction? Anne's quiver-full of attributes that saw her purportedly lure other men to her boudoir. Her brother was added to the list of paramours just to make sure she was outta there – yuck.

So much for the lovesick Henry who doodled her initials in his prayer book: "On one page, depicting a picture of Christ as the Man of Sorrows – which Henry evidently thought a fair image of himself – he wrote to her in French: 'If you remember my love in your prayers as strongly as I adore you, I shall hardly be forgotten, for I am yours, Henry R[ex] forever.'"

Attachments come and go. When it's over, it's over.