One being the fact that I didn't say such a thing. I only said that humans are the ones that give it a certain symbolism and it greatly depends on the audience too. There are audiences where certain objects hold no value.
And that same example can be used to show the exact opposite as there are many people who shy away from all that. Some are against consumerism, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, others have a different religion and some simply have no concept of money. It depends on the audience. Amongst pen aficionados pens can still have a status symbol, maybe even amongst certain professions such as lawyers but most people will not see a pen as a status symbol.
But again you are also missing the point: it was about an object being specifically designed as such where they aren't because we humans tag something as a status symbol or not and as I explained, this depends greatly on the audience and the biggest audience doesn't care about pens. This has been discussed many times on fpgeeks.com and fountainpennetwork.com and hardly anyone there agrees with you (read the many negative remarks people have gotten concerning their pens). Pens have lost their magic for the majority of people and are no longer a status symbol. The people who still think they are, are living in the past. That's the sad reality of 2016 (or as a colleague once put it: "isn't it time you upgrade to something more of this day and age?"). Any pen company still designing their pens to be a status symbol is going to go out of business rather quickly as the pen business isn't doing that well at the moment (OMAS and Visconti don't seem to be doing well and Montblanc isn't even focusing on pens any more, watches are their main focus now).
Now, three points occur to me, that I wish to make at this stage.
Firstly, in general, I will not argue - and have not attempted to argue - that fountain pens have been designed as status symbols. I accept that they have not. Primarily, they have been designed as writing instruments, and have come to have been perceived as items of value, and thus, of respect in some quarters.
Respectfully, however, - and this brings me to my second point - I suggest that there might have been a number of reasons for why such values have been accorded to pens: Fountain pens acquired symbolic value in societies which respected reading, writing and the ability to craft the written word. Societies and cultures which valued literacy, are ones which will accord and afford respect to the instruments which are used to write, perhaps taking pride in crafting beautiful writing instruments.
This also includes societies where literacy is in the hands of a small clerical elite, or, where illiteracy is widespread, (I have worked in such countries, and yes, expensive fountain pens and expensive watches are used as status symbols in some of these countries by powerful, wealthy male elites).
The third point - and what flows from it - is so obvious that people tend to overlook it. Historically, men have wielded political, social, cultural and economic power, and traditionally, - especially in recent centuries, in the western world, and in countries influenced by, and ruled by, western imperial powers, men - even powerful men - have been restricted in what adornments, or jewellery was considered appropriate for them to wear. Charges of effeminacy would have been levelled at a man who sought to cover himself with precious stones.
However, a richly adorned, and beautifully designed fountain pen was considered an acceptable accessory for a man to carry; yes, he carried it to write, but he also carried it to advertise his status, power and wealth. Thus, the linkage of pens with powerful males - especially in poverty stricken uneducated societies - and the linkage of education (and literacy and numeracy) with possible social mobility - all conferred an unintended social status on pens, those who owned them and those who wielded them, and possession of a good pen - an expensive and well made pen - was something that a powerful, wealthy man cold have carried quite happily until the middle of the twentieth century.
My final two points are intended to address the 'sad reality of 2016' argument, the 'isn't it time to upgrade to something more modern' argument you have made:
Firstly, there is no incompatibility is using old and new simultaneously; I use Apple computers and write with fountain pens. I Skype, yet still get some of my news from the radio (a better and more thoughtful medium for current affairs than much of what is broadcast on TV) - so the introduction of one form of communication does not necessarily render others obsolete.
Secondly, technological advances do not roll out across the world automatically; the fact that Alexander Graham Bell invented - or patented - the telephone in 1876 does not mean that the world was instantly awash with telephone exchanges - it took a few decades for this invention to find its way into the advanced world as a tool used on a daily basis, and parts of the first world - rural parts, certainly - were only linked up to automatic exchanges as late as the 1970s - a full century later. So, making the argument that something "is so 2016" (which implies that something else is not) misses the point that the extent and influence of technological breakthroughs tend to be pretty uneven.