Is "childless spinster" an insult?

[Tabitha1960]

Elsewhere on social media was a thread about a lady born in the 1880s and downthread a poster asked, did this lady have any descendants? The OP, a female historian, replied, "No, she died a childless spinster."

This caused some considerable uproar, with several posters vehemently attacking the OP for insulting the lady in question by using that phrase to describe her. The OP returned to say she was merely being plainly factual, and that she is, herself, also a childless spinster and sees no insult in either word.

(A great many on the thread appear to be American, is it perhaps an insult there but not in the UK?)

A childless spinster is a woman who never married and never had children - if that describes the lady in question then fine, no problem.

From a factual perspective, it's probably correct, but it's true that spinster has some negative connotations. Also - it's irrelevant. If the question was whether she had any descendants, what's her being married got to do with it?

In the circumstances you describe people are being ridiculous.
Would I use that phrase to or about anyone in social chat etc., no I wouldn't

Spinster is very dated and tends to hold negative connotations. Many women don't like it. However, fair play to her if she's reclaimed it.

I quite like describing myself as 'spinster of this parish'

...but I have children out of wedlock, so I am also a shameless hussy

Spinster does have negative connotations. It’s a cliched character in books , always with something wrong that we’ll discover later in the book.

I do think people are being ridiculous though as it’s factual.

If it is a historian discussing someone from so long ago, it's factual and used in the right context. There's no judgement and it's not going to upset the woman.

The thing is that it's not in normal usage now, except to call back the past, making the situation seem outdated and drawing connections to attitudes in society then and now. It sounds rude when it's applied to a modern context, as if the choice is somehow backward or doesn't belong today.

The person using the term did not mean it in a derogatory manner. The person she was talking about was presumably dead, so couldn’t take offence.
So, basically, a load of people being performatively offended on someone else’s behalf. 🙄

It’s correct but does seem a bit harsh in todays world.

If you were to use it in an argument to hurt someone, then yes it would be.

If you're using it to describe someone in history and it is an accurate description, then no it isn't.

Spinster might have negative connotations, but so does "childless". What should we call her? A childfree, husbandfree woman?

It’s old fashioned language

Childless spinster - has historically meant she wasn’t picked by a man

Eternal bachelor- a male too busy being brilliant to get round to marriage and kids

just as likely they both mean they were both homosexual

It’s totally correct, historically speaking. Modern day sensitivities are not up for accepting it. Having said that I do still hear the word quite often in general conversation. The spinsters usually have cats too apparently.

Well it's sexist, as there isn't really an equivalent term for a childless unmarried man. Maybe 'batchelor', but that doesn't sound unpleasant.
Spinster implies someone who just sits on their own using a spinning wheel/sewing thing?! Like they are just doing mindless toil. It doesn't sound like fun does it?
Why not just say she died single and had no children? That could be applied to either sex and is purely factual. And just because she wasn't married doesn't mean she was necessarily single. It's just that women weren't allowed to have 'partners' back in those days.

I also have a cat.

I'm quite happy with my life.

Surely "spinster" is only a derogatory term IF you believe it's wrong, sad or embarrassing that a woman remained single all her life? That her worth is tied to having landed a man, or been chosen by a man?

The same argument could be used to read "lesbian" as a derogatory term.

If spinster has shameful connotations it's only because patriarchal beliefs think an unmarried woman is a social failure.

Surely it's time to reclaim and celebrate the word and the concept of a woman having a happy and successful life sans wedlock and childrearing?

Just because you are talking about a past person doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use modern language.

I don’t blame the youngsters kicking off, there seems to be an undercurrent at the moment that “more white western babies” need to be born.

So yes if I was young right now I would probably kick off about this (mildly kick off) because it feels like female reproductive rights are being scaled back and who as a female wants that? (And it’s men who are demanding this)

So accepting “childless spinster” back as a description is part of this. But sctually the young tend to have quite good fun with this sort of nonsense they are likely to make t-shirts with “wanna childless spinster” on them! It will backfire if they think they can get the feminism genie back in the bottle.

I've just been told that there are a range of "spinster" mugs and tee shirts on Etsy so perhaps the word is indeed being reclaimed as a positive thing to be.

But spinster was around when being a single woman, if you had no family money, wasn’t happy and carefree.

A rich woman of the times would be described differently, no direct heirs, never married.

That's like saying it's OK to call someone fat, as it is accurate. And that the fatty must just reclaim it and celebrate it.

You're using a term that society has long used, and still uses to judge. So yes, it is an insult.

Spinster is only derogatory if you considered single women to be a bad thing or a problem for society. Which obviously, even today, some men do.

Many will see it as a purely factual term (which would have appeared in the death certificate, I believe) and others might want to reclaim the term as a positive.

I see nothing wrong in being a childless spinster and am one myself. But both the word childless and spinster are almost exclusively thrown at women to insult or to pity them.

She was single and didn't have children. Or she remained unmarried and didn't have children would have been both factual and a less jarring description.

I’m pretty sure a rich woman would be described the same back in the days when such terms were used. Why not?
It’s factual but not a term really used today. I wouldn’t find it offensive if somebody used it about me though, I’d laugh, and probably quite like it.

Since when have all unmarried people been homosexual???!!?!?!?!

The poster made a choice describing her that way. They could also have chosen to say, no she didn't have children, which gets the same relevant facts across with less loaded language.
I've never read the phrase childless spinster used anywhere as a compliment, or as a positive phrase. It's loaded with suggestions of societal failure and sadness. I'm happily single and childfree, if someone tried to describe me as a childless spinster they'd get short shrift.

That's like saying it's OK to call someone fat, as it is accurate.
I think it’s fine to refer to someone as fat, as a description. You wouldn’t say it to their face as it’s impolite to comment to someone’s face about how they look generally. Like, I have wild hair. I don’t appreciate constant comments about it, but have no issue being described as “ the one with wild hair”.
Fat is only an insult if you attach a value judgement to it. Personally I don’t think it’s a moral failing to be fat so I wouldn’t mind being described as that either.