Rachel’s Musings

I just finished Lee Virginia Chambers-Schiller’s wonderful book “Liberty: A Better Husband. Single Women in America: The Generations of 1780 – 1840.” It is a great read for any single by choice because it provides some historical grounding: there were women in antebellum America who chose to remain single for various reasons and some of them were actually rather happy with that choice. Chambers argues that the Cult of Domesticity gave rise to a Cult of Single Blessedness that was built on the notion that it is better to be single than miserably married (17). Her book follows several women through their life - using their journals, letters, and in some cases professional publications. They struggle with finding their place in society, often making great personal sacrifices to live with the choices they made. Largely, though, they were accepted by society - until after the Civil War. Then things changed. Singlehood became a “great social disease.” Singlism was born.

The arguments brought forth sound strangely and sadly familiar: “The root of the great error of our day is, that woman is to be made independent and self-supporting,” warned Reverend John Todd in 1867 (190). It wasn’t God’s will for her to be something other than a wife and mother. And just like today, the specter of damaging health consequences was raised. Edward Clarke argued in 1873 that women’s blood cannot support their reproductive organs and their brains at the same time. He forecast that women end up “hermaphrodite in mind.” And of course, putting all that blood into the brain has painful consequences for the single woman. Since she hasn’t used her reproductive capacity, the organs will shrivel up and a painful menopause sets in (192). (Maybe these are the theoretical underpinnings of the recent headlines that marriage makes people smarter? Oh, wait, no, that would be the other way round, right? Because if you were married back then, you’d likely have all your blood tied up in the reproductive system, which would leave any blood for your brain, so you’d be stupider… I am digressing, though.)

But the impact of celibacy is not limited to the reproductive organs. No, the medical community of the late 19th century warned, spinsters will die younger: “Very carefully prepared statistics show that between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, more unmarried women die than married, and no instance of remarkable longevity in an old maid is known” (193). Of course, ignorance is not evidence but that argument was pre-baloney detection kit… (Then again, if you’re male and live in Australia, you’re still pushed into marriage with the carrot that you’ll be living longer. Having read much of Bella DePaulo’s work debunking studies like this, I suspect that this finding is as solid as thin ice… Update: One of the Rachel’s Musings readers pointed me to an article on a recent U of Michigan study that is also debunking that marriage is the only way to stay healthy. I’ll incorporate more in a future post!)

If it doesn’t kill us, it will drive us nuts: “throughout the civilized word there are every where three to four single to one married woman in the establishments for the insane” (193). Being exposed to these kinds of attitudes can indeed lead to insanity…

To make sure that the single woman can safely be marginalized in society, everything considered not “normal” was brought together in a sure-fire mix to discredit the health of a spinster. As Chambers puts it: “Celibacy, often a symptom of that new female sexual disease, frigidity, would result in physical and mental degeneracy. Homosexuality and female independence were degenerate in and of themselves. Thus the epidemic of spinsterhood had to be quashed. The progress of civilization and the health of women depended up it.” With that much danger, it is surprising that single women weren’t burned at the stake. Oh, wait, that was a different century…

It is sad to realize that many of the stereotypes that were created after the Civil War are still around today. If we’re single, there’s somehow something wrong with us. We’re (supposedly!) more susceptible to Alzheimer’s disease and our blood pressure is higher. Seeing the historical continuity of these attacks doesn’t make them any less painful. Actually, it makes them more painful! And they make me wonder: Why are single women so threatening? Oh, wait, I think I know: If you make the whole existence of civilization dependent on marriage, of course, living single would be a big threat. That is the myth we’re up against.