become part of the man’s wealth. Socrates and Critoboulus go on to use money as an example. If a man does not know how to use something, it is therefore not his property. With money, if a man does not know how to use it then he should not consider it as his property. Socrates makes the argument that a man's assets are not property unless he learns to use them diligently and wisely. This relates back to his points about effectively managing a household and leads him to talk about his conversation with Ischomachus. When Critoboulus asks about the practices involved in household management, Socrates pleads ignorance on the subject but relates what he heard of it from an Athenian gentleman-farmer (kaloskagathos) named Ischomachus. In the discussion related by Socrates, Ischomachus describes the methods he used to educate his wife in housekeeping, their practices in ruling and training slaves, and the technology involved in farming. Approximately two thirds of the dialogue concerns the discussion between Socrates and Ischomachus. There is no final reversion to further discussion with Critoboulos. Commentary and interpretation Leo Strauss wrote a political-philosophical commentary on the dialogue. He took the Oeconomicus as a more ironic examination of the nature of the gentleman, virtue, and domestic relationships. Michel Foucault devoted a chapter in his The History of Sexuality (1976–1984) to "Ischomachus' Household". He took Xenophon's depiction of the relationship between Ischomachus and his wife as a classical expression of the ancient Greek ideology of power, according to which a man's control of his emotions was externally reflected in his control of his wife, his slaves, and his political subordinates. Following Foucault, feminist scholars and social historians such as Sarah Pomeroy have explored the Oeconomicus as a source for Greek attitudes to the relationship between men and women, but successive interpretations have differed. Some see Xenophon's attitude toward women as misogynist and patriarchal, while others maintain that he was a proto-feminist in certain ways. Some have taken Xenophon's use of Ischomachus as a supposed expert in the education of a wife as an instance of anachronistic irony, a device used by Plato in his Socratic dialogues. This ironic line of interpretation sees Ischomachus as a target of satire rather than a stand-in for Xenophon. Some have suggested that the Ischomachus of the dialogue is the same man whose family became the subject of ridicule in Athenian political oratory.