The western values you're contrasting them to likely have similar inspirations... pale women didn't have to work out doors because of their wealth

I know. I said precisely that. I talked about weight and skin shade and how those factors have shifted the idea of beauty.

And the fertility argument only goes so far... a woman who's had kids would be at a PREMIUM if that's what "beauty" was short-hand for, but you certainly don't see much in story and song about the lucky guy who snags a widow

A woman not at the start of her childbearing phase is more valuable than one just about to embark? I don't see it myself.

There is certainly beauty for beauty's sake--don't get me wrong. Hey, that's what mistresses are for, I guess. But it would be weird to omit dowry and childbearing ability (wives got cast off for not bearing heirs and workers, didn't they?) from the list of things that make a woman valuable.

I know. I said precisely that. I talked about weight and skin shade and how those factors have shifted the idea of beauty.

So I'm unclear as to what point you were arguing. My premise is "historically, nothing is more important to a woman's value than her beauty" and your response was "there are lots of standards of beauty".

A woman not at the start of her childbearing phase is more valuable than one just about to embark? I don't see it myself.

Women died in childbirth, babies died, it was a crap-shoot to say the least. I'd think a woman who had shown her ability would be very valuable... just not as good looking. Yet you dont see them much sought after historically.

I never omitted money and fertility, I beauty was pirmary.

What YOU said is that beauty didn't matter except to the gentry and the poor would be ga ga for strong-handed chicks. I don't see any evidence of that anywhere.

your response was "there are lots of standards of beauty".

No it wasn't.

YOU said is that beauty didn't matter except to the gentry and the poor would be ga ga for strong-handed chicks

No I didn't.

I'm saying that beauty often reflects other things about a woman. Beauty can be saying "Healthy, lives a life of leisure, should live through childbirth." It's just code, in that case. If you pick that woman, you're picking her because she's rich (dowry) and can bear you heirs or a pack of hand labourers.

Now, there are also standards of beauty that have nothing to do with some other sort of value, and values that aren't reflected in a woman's physical presence. Never denying that.

But to say that a woman's currency is less her beauty now ignores that there were times when her beauty was either not her primary value, or it reflected other factors that made up the primary value.

Thriftiest/ smartest/ most hard working/ kindest/ proven fertile/ best cook/ brillinat at weaving are all clearly valuable and have never, in any big way, been more important than pretty. They aren't the subject of story, song, and legend. Beauty is. Just about always.

Can you name an example otherwise?

Jacob wanted Rachel over Leah because of her beauty, they had the same dowry, etc. Leah ended up giving him bunches of sons and Rachel was still his favorite. That story is not seen as some wild stunning exception to the way of the world, its not deemed silly or unrealistic.

They aren't the subject of story, song, and legend.

But neither is real life.

And there are endless stories of falling for the unsuitable unattainable beautiful woman. Doesn't matter that she's poor, or an actress, or her father is disreputable etc. -- he loves her because she's beautiful.

You never see the opposite -- you don't get epic tales of the man falling for the unsuitable funny looking chick because she's just so darn nice or fertile or can really thresh.

But neither is real life.

Its a reflection of real life. And, in the case of the non-nobility, its the only description we have of their lives and what they valued.

I suppose its possible that your average peasant boys sat up late nights pining for the girl down the lane who was really great at stretching a dollar... but the ballads we have talk about the pretty ones.

I'm pretty sure there's a midrash saying that the reason Jacob preferred Rachel was that, the first time they meet, she gives water to the camels first, and then drinks herself. (Actually, there's a similar thing where Abraham's servant first meets Rebecca -- he asks for water for himself, and she not only gives him the water she'd just drawn, but also goes and gets more water for his camels. Lots of water imagery around getting wives in the Bible.)

The only thing that's said against Leah in the Bible is that "she had weak eyes." Lots of interpretations of that.

Poets might pine for the beautiful maiden, but a farmer is a sucker if he doesn't marry someone who can get the best price for eggs.

Not a great example in a Jewish understanding then. Unless my Christian teaching of it was unusual the Christian understanding seems to be that she was less lovely.