What is a woman worth That is the question that has to be faced by divorcing couples and by their lawyers. The answers seem to be getting curiouser and curiouser. Last week a judge ordered an insurance broker to give his former wife a settlement of ￡48m. She had earlier refused his offer of about ￡20m, which is why the matter went to court. No doubt Beverley Charman was an exemplary wife, and it is written in the Book of Proverbs that the price of a virtuous woman is above rubies, but even so, 348m seems a little steep. It would buy a couple of continents" worth of rubies. What women are really worth is beset with confusion and contradiction. There was a time when what women wanted was equal pay for equal work. One of the logical consequences was that no woman was entitled to take out of a marriage any more than she brought into it. That view was later softened by a recognition that childbearing and childcare present a serious opportunity cost to most women. So now people tend to agree that at divorce a woman should be compensated both for the real value that she brought to the marriage and for the opportunity cost to herself—her long slide down the career ladder, her loss of a personal pension, her reduced chances of finding another spouse. Then there is a surprisingly unliberated tendency among women, and among men, to make estimates that are unfairly biased in favor of women. The judge in the Charmans" hearing said that this was one of the very small category of cases where the wealth created is of extraordinary proportions from extraordinary talent and energy of the husband and therefore the husband could keep more than half the assets. That still left the wife with 48m(37% of the assets). But then the judge made some odd remarks about old-fashioned attitudes. Discussing John Charman"s determination "to protect what he regards as wealth generated entirely by his efforts", he said: "In the narrow, old-fashioned sense, that perspective is understandable, if somewhat outdated." Wrong. It is the judge who sounds old-fashioned. This country is awash with clever and hardworking men who make huge sums of money while their wivesdo little to contribute to domestic comfort and not much to advance their husband"s careers.That does not mean they are not entitled to proper compensation on divorce, but I think the assumption that they are entitled to half the fruits of the marriage, unless there is good reason why not, is absurd. What does the author mean by "do little to contribute to domestic comfort and not much to advance their husband"s careers"(Lines 2-3, Paragraph 4)

A. Wives are always of little value to their husbands and families.
B. Wives contribute less in improving the family"s living standards.
C. Wives" efforts are not enough to make their offspring comfortable.
D. Wives are dispensable unless they can help with their husband"s careers.