| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Sources for Stories > Topic: Single Women, ... . |
Topic: Single Women, ... .
| Author | Message |
| romina.c | Posted – 2/26/2007 9:05:28 PM | show profile | email poster Looking for opinions from single women who have stopped looking for the love of their life.... I'm doing a piece on the idea of spinsterhood and what it means to be a single woman in this day and age. |
| ClaraLee* | Posted – 2/27/2007 9:25:27 AM | show profile | email poster A Single Woman Who Has Never Looked for the Love of Her Life How about single women who are happy and always have been? I'm a single woman who has never had the desire to find the love of my life--I find singlehood preferable and always have. "Spinsterhood"? Works for me. Feel free to email me off the board. |
| Katie | Posted – 2/27/2007 11:31:17 AM | show profile | email poster Spinsterhood? A little outdated term don't you think? Being a single female is as much out of choice as anything these days. If you take the divorce rate into account I think you'll find that women like being in control of their own lives including financial, social and philanthropic endeavors. I'm not looking for a man because at this time in my life, who needs the aggravation? |
| gstalker | Posted – 2/27/2007 12:32:06 PM | show profile | email poster I am happy to be quoted. I am about to be 32 and have a wonderful life and refuse to settle or be sad about not being married. Email me off the board. |
| ClaraLee* | Posted – 2/27/2007 3:19:17 PM | show profile | email poster I'm not looking for a man because at this time in my life, who needs the aggravation? Hallelujah to the above. |
| catlondon | Posted – 2/27/2007 4:09:10 PM | show profile I actually would prefer to be married, but I stopped looking when I realized I have really terribly judgment when it comes to men. I actually like the term spinster, but that may be because of my academic background in Victorian lit. |
| ubitiq | Posted – 2/27/2007 8:27:19 PM | show profile | email poster Both my sister and I are presently single, and she consistently refers to us as the 'spinster sisters'. I actually stopped looking for the love of my life after my second divorce..sort of resigned to the fact that I might never find this person.. |
| writesonwater | Posted – 2/27/2007 11:39:27 PM | show profile | email poster old thread There was a thread on here about someone doing a book about happy spinsters ... might look it up, we got into a huge debate about the use of the term, and whether it was denigrating or not. |
| Stressed | Posted – 2/28/2007 9:27:58 AM | show profile Having experienced both my feeling now is that we should just use them for sex and run fast run far if they want to move in or, shudder, marry you. I realize there are happy couples out there but many of us have found marriage to be indentured servitude! You seem to automatically become their mother once you settle down with them. |
| SPF 30 | Posted – 2/28/2007 2:06:52 PM | show profile | email poster Yes! I don't think "the One" exists. I'm happy being single, and I have a full life (awesome friends and family, lots of travel, and what I consider to be an overwhelmingly good career ... most of the time!). It's only very occasionally that I get the what-ifs, in terms of the love of my life, having children, and "settling down" in the traditional sense. Then I look at the calendar, realize it's hormonal, and go back to my usual self. ;) Oh, and I'm 35. By all measures, I should be freaking out about my biological clock. But instead, here I am, planning a trip to Italy and the South of France. Feel free to email me off the board -- great topic. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 2/28/2007 3:36:21 PM | show profile >and "settling down" in the traditional sense> Any relationship with the word "settle" in it seems a little depressing. I've never equated being with someone, even married to them, with 'settling down' (makes you sound like a broody hen), but maybe many women, and men, do...? I also wonder if there is one great love in your life or if loving your whole life means you hope to find a man who fits into that terrific life. Some men want to BE, and insist on being, your life. Run, fast. |
| sd-edit | Posted – 3/1/2007 9:55:19 PM | show profile For lots of resources on this topic, see the Scholars of Single Women network. http://www.medusanet.ca/singlewomen/ |
| writesonwater | Posted – 3/1/2007 10:24:46 PM | show profile | email poster I'm married, and after a lengthy separation (2 years) I came to the conclusion that the romantic ideal isn't out there. Richard Gere in Pretty Woman, Tom Hanks in You've Got Mail or Sleepless in Seattle, Robert Redford in Up Close and Personal, whatever. And if they do exist (I say if) they're probably looking for Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan and Michelle Pfeiffer. A friend of mine was searching for a soulmate, a guy more touchy-feely, who was crazy in love with her and thought she did invent sliced bread. She found him -- and he drove her nuts. She needed space. It was like his feminine side was too strong or something, although on the outside he appeared made to order. That "you ... complete me" crap is crap. Marriage loses its rosy glow quick, especially if you have kids, or if you get old. Even if we don't have kids, we do get old. So the key is to be able to be friends with someone, and to be realistic with someone, and once in a while or more than that if you're lucky, to get lucky with that someone. I think having kids makes marriage more practical and more essential -- not for the paper and the ring, but for the help. And a few guys aren't even much help. I know happy singles and unhappy marrieds -- and vice versa. I guess the thing is to savor your space, whatever it is. |
| SPF 30 | Posted – 3/1/2007 11:49:36 PM | show profile There needs to be a better phrase than "settling down," but I can't think of one. I love Merriam-Webster's definition: "To take up an ordered or stable life -- often used with 'down' "Ordered and stable." Hm. If I were to ever find someone I wanted to marry, I wouldn't want to be ordered and stable. Who needs that when you can have spontaneous and adventurous? I suppose "stable" has its benefits, but then you get into the various definitions of that word ... and, yes, I do require that the guys I date be (mentally) stable. Which is neither here nor there, but there ya go. |
| Katie | Posted – 3/2/2007 2:24:07 PM | show profile | email poster What hasn't been mentioned here is the natural progression of women being caretakers. If we have had children, that gene is that much more pronounced. So...how's this for a take, I'm staying single to protect myself from myself. Get a pet! |
| romina.c | Posted – 5/18/2007 12:40:16 PM | show profile Thanks for the posts I'm still working on this piece,... any further thoughts would be appreciated... do I buy a cat or join match.com? |
| justthefactsman | Posted – 5/30/2007 8:59:57 PM | show profile No looking anymore... I stopped looking about six months ago because I realized that it wasn't going to happen and I was just making myself unhappy. I no longer care if he calls back, asks for my number, or asks me out. I'm good hanging out, doing what I want to do by myself. When I've gotten stood up or he's late, I'll wait a half-hour without a phone call and then I'll go by myself. I'm an African-American, college-educated female in my 20s with a career and I rarely (if ever) go out on dates. I'm not unattractive or difficult to get along with. I'm an equal opportunity employer so dating outside of my race isn't a problem for me. My friends are not African-American and many of them are attached, married, or at least have someone that they can count on. I doin't think I"m ever going to have a life that has children or a husband in it. I've read the studies saying that over half of African-American females will never marry and I've just resigned myself to believing that I'm one of them. Part of me is really sad about it, but the other half feels free because I'm not waiting for my life to start... I'm living it right now. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/30/2007 10:57:31 PM | show profile either extreme is crapola Yes, of course marriage loses it's rosy glow, and all that, but married people fare better than single people--financially, emotionally, psychologically, physically. I think there was a study that stated that even marrieds in bad marriages fare better across the board when compared with those who remain single into midlife and beyond. I never believed in a soul mate--I have a good marriage because we were friends first for a long time before getting married. And I don't need that "rush" of falling in love to feel good about myself or my life. I don't buy scented candles or role play with my spouse, and he doesn't buy me flowers anymore. But the day-today fulfillment we get from watching our kid grow--a kid we had late in life after years of doing our hip, happening stuff -- is beyond beyond, words cannot express. Now, I think it's as bad to blather stereotypes about those who remain single -- I know and adore many who have chosen to remain this way. But reversing the stereotypes and getting immediately defensive ("I'm just fine without a mna! I'm a happy, confident independent woman who doesn't need a ring or a man or a squalling brat to make her happy and give her life meaning...") doesn't really prove a point (methink thee doth protest too much) and is just the same crap reversed. The key is balance. RElationships are work. If a relationship with someone isn't worth the work, or you're unwilling to work at being in a successful relationship because you prefer concentrating on your own life and happiness, that's fine. But I think any story that makes sweeping generalizations is a story not worth reading. And if this is for a women's magazine, how ,uch you wanna bet that's exactly what it will be? Unless this is a story that contradicts every stereotype and says something(s) that have never been said before, how about asking to do a profile on Christie Brinkley's Ageless Beauty instead? |
| beenthere | Posted – 5/31/2007 12:49:22 PM | show profile AGH! Single vs. Married Mommies vs. Childless Career vs. Stay-at-home Fit vs. Fat Trendy vs. Eccentric Nympho vs. Prude Rich vs. Poor Why do all women's magazines pit female stereotypes against each other? Is it some nagging need for each group to have its glory month of superiority on the newsstand? Who READS these mags? Seriously . . . no matter how the angles are presented, these articles generally serve no other purpose than to cause rifts. Just read this post -- It's exactly why I stopped reading these mags a long, long time ago. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/31/2007 1:08:33 PM | show profile beenthere, it's because women are so "conflicted" -- based mostly on being so overly concerned about how they look in everyone else's eyes and being so overly eager to hate/put down other women. How often do you see "Single VS Married" or "Career or kids?" in the pages of Esquire or GQ? That crap wouldn't sell to men. I'm a woman, and frankly, most women I can hardly stand. Bash each other, break up into camps, keep each other paranoid and concerned about superficial shit.It's what a lot of powerful people out there want. Bickering and catfights among the powerless and underpaid... despite all the recent women's mag articles you've been reading, written by women making more then their spouses (keep in mind more than a few of these women are in an age bracket where honey retired early, or made a bunch on Microsoft stock and invested well, so aren't earning anything). Stats show it just isn't the norm: Men still outearn women by just a penny less than they did last decade. But that doesn't stop these women's mag editors to ferret out and champion yet one more divisive topic among women : Those who outearn their husbands vs those who do not. On an unrealted note, did you see that one women's mag editor say her motto was, "Go big or go home?" WTF? So, if you go home to care for a sick parent, child, or husband, or even to raise your kids, you're not going "big"? If you don't work for some big oversexed glossy magazine in NYC, you're not "going big?" Tell that to Michael Chabon. It's just another example of how women do this: it's fine to be competitive, but be competitive over things that MATTER: where excellling is a matter of hard work, diligence, integrity, overcoming obstacles and personal limitations, being the best at what you do. Not slamming other people for simply not doing what you've done or not doing things the way you do them. They have two words for this: catty and bitchy. When you see this kind of shit in the women's magazines, these questions directed primarily at women, you realize it's no coincidence that these are 'female" terms. |
| TGirl | Posted – 5/31/2007 10:14:48 PM | show profile | email poster We Have NOT Come a Long Way... We have ALL been brainwashed--uh, sorry, "enculturated," "socialized"--since birth to view ourselves and other women in strictly defined and HIGHLY damaging terms. This concept is nothing new. But is anything REALLY changing that much? Look at the categories and measures we are all applying to ourselves and one another. Are any MEN out there reading articles titled "Have you GIVEN UP finding the love of your life?" That's an unthinkable topic for a men-tailored publication. MEN DO NOT DEFINE THEMSELVES BY THESE STANDARDS. Why do we??? Has anyone noticed the silent victory the Disney Company has attained over the hearts and minds of young and not so young girls? The chief propagandist of the Cinderella Complex and all of her lesser cousins has slowly creeped into every nook and cranny of young people's lives --Disney Couture is sold at HOT TOPIC!--and is seen as harmless, cute, and fun. Girls are bombarded by a constant onslaught of sexist, retrograde images--Be the Princess and NOT the Ugly Stepsister! Win the Prince! Win the game! You are DEFINED by your attractiveess and love life and marital status!--and no one says a thing about it. And what about these mall stores catering to "princesses"? Little girls can go in and play dress-up and be princesses for a day. That is the goal we are STILL setting up for young girls--not president or CEO or astronaut. Princesses--who are defined by their beauty, wealth, and ability to rope a prince. And then we wonder why these girls grow up to define their identity by their love lives and ability to "CATCH" Prince Charming? How many young boys are being taught that their self worth depends on finding the love of their life? I just thank god my parents NEVER thought of me as their little princess nor emphasized my looks or ability to catch a man. I do not in ANY WAY define myself by my relationship status, and neither does anyone who knows me. To do so would demean me. And, like doglady, I have almost no female friends. I just cannot stomach the brainwashing and insecurities. |
| romina.c | Posted – 6/11/2007 3:37:16 PM | show profile I wholeheartedly agree Thanks for ths posts. |
| catlondon | Posted – 6/11/2007 4:28:55 PM | show profile Um...to the two with almost no female friends, how do reconcile lambasting stereotypes and then stereotyping all women as people who buy into the stereotypes and therefore unworthy of your friendship? I couldn't imagine life without my female friends--who would I go to the opera with or argue about whether Shakespeare was really Shakespeare or if Bill Richardson is strong enough on foreign policy to overcome his dark-horse status and unfortunate appearance on Meet the Press (or was it Hardball?)? And don't you know any lesbians? They are pretty certain about the not needing men thing and most aren't interested in a being a princess. |
| parcell | Posted – 6/11/2007 6:23:32 PM | show profile | email poster Single women... Are you still working on this? I'd love to add my thoughts if you are. |
| Ms_M2you | Posted – 6/17/2007 11:10:02 PM | show profile | email poster This is why I read men's magazines. BTW, "spinster" is more commonly used by women actually do spin wool (for fabric arts, etc. ------ Kristine Maitland writer, critic, blogger http//www.kristinemaitland.com |
