06/16/2026
RE: NYTimes Opinion column last weekend, “I’m a 53-Year-Old Woman. Stop Telling Me I’m Invisible”
Initially, I thought this would be a refreshing point of view, until this, regarding women like herself, “This woman is solvent, capable, desiring and desirable, happy with her years and looking at decades and decades more ahead of her.”
And I just thought, well, bully for you Mireille Silcoff, but you haven’t got a clue as to what your not so solvent sisters (and brothers) are going through.
I searched the comments for “solvent” and found several references, including the one below by Anonymous, none were among the 33 comments the writer chose to acknowledge
“The argument here rests on a foundation the author never examines: class. The women she describes - solvent, accomplished, desirable, overwhelmed by career and family in equal measure - represent a particular stratum, and a fairly narrow one. For those of us without rewarding careers, without assets and portfolios, without the social networks that confer relevance, invisibility is not a myth. It is a defining fact of daily life.
“I am 61 and invisible in exactly the ways this article dismisses. And I’ll say plainly what the author’s framing made me feel: shame. Not because I believe invisibility is my fault, exactly, but because articles like this one make it very difficult not to internalize it that way. If so many women are thriving and visible and in their prime, what does that say about those of us who aren’t? …
“Visibility after midlife is a privilege, and it adheres to a specific class of women. Pretending otherwise doesn’t extend that privilege to anyone. It just makes the rest of us feel worse about not having it.”
I agreed with the reply from Fred, “ I scrolled and scrolled looking for a comment like this, and finally found yours Thank you for writing — you’ve described something significant that the author of this piece is overlooking.”