You are correct. Which is why it was traditional that a man gain the approval and agreement of the girl's PARENTS (who presumably WOULD have the wisdom and experience to decide if the man would be good for her) before being allowed to court her and ultimately marry her.
The current trend of women marrying later and later in life (in 1960, the median age of first marriage was 20, now it's 26), and thus having fewer children, is not good for society.
You are probably right. But life is overall longer so I can see how this all came about. Education is lasting forever instead of ending at 17. Older teen boys nor girls are not ready for responsibilities yet. And their parents can’t take over running the family compound or farm because they are at work full time still. It’s a different world.
You are correct. Which is why it was traditional that a man gain the approval and agreement of the girl's PARENTS (who presumably WOULD have the wisdom and experience to decide if the man would be good for her) before being allowed to court her and ultimately marry her.Today, we have the age of consent as 18. Maybe somewhat arbitrary, but high school girls just don’t have enough wisdom and experience to handle what thirty year old men know about sex and human relationships. - Yaelle
The current trend of women marrying later and later in life (in 1960, the median age of first marriage was 20, now it's 26), and thus having fewer children, is not good for society.
Anecdotally, the median age of first marriage seemed even lower than 20 in 1955 - seemed like every female H.S. graduate I knew in the Class of ‘55 was married before the Class of ’56 graduated.Let’s face it - “homemaker" is a trade traditionally learned under the supervision of a mentor known as “Mother.” And it is therefore understandable that a girl who expected to follow in her mother’s footsteps might consider high school as a social opportunity more than as serious preparation for life. Or was, before women stopped viewing motherhood as their life’s work. That, too, was “artificial.” The women were subject to “arbitrary” prejudice in any profession other than teacher or nurse (and the nursing profession itself is not exactly an ancient tradition, tracing back only to the Civil War era). But when there is no distinction between men and women in professions and jobs, and the man has no unique role in the economy and in the family, that creates its own problems.
Add in the occasional girl who is able to start on a Little League team (putting one boy on the bench, and knocking another one off of it) to discourage morale in the median-talented boy (who is not of course permitted to compete on the girls’ softball team) . . . If neither men nor boys are respected, what do you expect boys to learn? Can you say, “inner city?” I knew you could.