Spinsterhood/Catladyhood

[author_by_night]

So apparently, Jennifer Aniston has declared that she is okay with being a "lonely single girl."

This is hardly the first time I've seen it declared that to be single is to naturally be lonely. I even read an article that suggested learning how to play one-person games and not being shy to order pizza for yourself, because of course nobody associates with the single girl. People see the single girl as forever alone, loveless and desperate.

Is there ever truth in that? Well, let me look at myself, a single girl headed for "spinsterhood." (Actually, I think the modern term is "cat lady." Because women with significant others hate cats.)

- I have a job that helps me pay for my basic needs.

- I have a supportive family, who I love.

- I have supportive friends, who I love.

- I'm generally happy with where I am.

Now, of course a man in my life would be nice. And I'm not going to lie, I've had guys I was interested in, and I've felt longing for a relationship. If I met a man this week and discovered we both had feelings for each other and both did not want to be apart, I'd gladly pursue something deeper. 

But why does every woman have to be in a relationship to be considered complete? Queen Elizabeth I defeated the Spanish Armada without a man. Back then, you had the choice of being married to a man and popping babies every year until you finally died in childbirth, or being unmarried and making history. I'd personally rather make history.

When two people find each other, a special bond is made. It's definitely something worth wanting for oneself. But it's not anything that should be an obligation, because platonic love counts for a lot - as does self-confidence.

Headed for spinsterhood/catladyhood? Eh, hopefully I'll find a man someday. But if not - I know I will be okay.

Comments

[parsimonia.livejournal.com]

Back then, you had the choice of being married to a man and popping babies every year until you finally died in childbirth, or being unmarried and making history.

History nerd in me must nitpick: there was birth control back then, though I'm sure not everyone was aware of it or practised it. Although as Queen she would be expected to have children so as to carry on the royal line, I would imagine that if, say, she got married and had a few kids, she would have been able to access some form of contraception if she wanted it. And I also want to add that lots of women who did have children before birth control was more widely used (and information about it more widely available) did make history as well.

But yeah, I think for various reasons, society just doesn't know what to make of single women, so the default is to assume there's something wrong with them, rather than assuming that they are happy the way they are or that they are single by choice.

[author-by-night.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know married women with kids made history. I was just pointing out that a single woman was strong enough to make it.(And in retrospect, not being married doesn't mean she didn't court).

[edgiko.livejournal.com]

She had boyfriends but yeah, never married. I think it had to do with she didn't want to share power with a king.

[edgiko.livejournal.com]

SHEEP'S GUT! Or I forgot what they used. I know a lot of upper class Roman families decided against children and would try all sorts of methods.

[parsimonia.livejournal.com]

I know there were some herbal remedy type-things used by women, but yeah, I'm sure that all sorts of things have been used as condoms over the years.