From what looks to be a late 19th Century pamphlet advising women to heed the approach of The Wall and to abstain from the life of a dissolute party girl, (h/t @KaliYugaSurf):
Our ancestors were wise. There was no “40 is the new 20” back then. A single woman at 40 has lost all her feminine charms; a sexual market outcast, for sure, but also a social outcast. The two designations tend to go hand-in-hand for women who remain unmarried and childless. (To a much lesser extent, this is true for men as well, but men have the option of several compensating social and sexual status-boosting pursuits that mitigate any marginal ostracism from remaining unmarried and childless.)
It was also assumed by our wise elders that women would have children by age 26, committing them to a life of home of hearth and removing them utterly from the field of courtship. Today? Eh…. not so much.
Chaim Amalek writes: All true: Our ancestors were wise. There was no “40 is the new 20” back then. A single woman at 40 has lost all her feminine charms; a sexual market outcast, for sure, but also a social outcast. The two designations tend to go hand-in-hand for women who remain unmarried and childless. (To a much lesser extent, this is true for men as well, but men have the option of several compensating social and sexual status-boosting pursuits that mitigate any marginal ostracism from remaining unmarried and childless.)
It was also assumed by our wise elders that women would have children by age 26, committing them to a life of home of hearth and removing them utterly from the field of courtship. Today? Eh…. not so much.
