Guardian Article on the Joys of Being a Single Woman

[IcedPurple]

Had a quick check to see if this article had already been posted but seems not. I guess you could file this under 'tell us something we don't already know' - it's long been known that well-being stagnates or declines for women on marriage, while the opposite is true for men - but still good to see it being talked about. And in The Guardian, of all places!

*For years, the feminist writer Linda Hirshman courted controversy by advising that marriage, unless to an exceptional man, is often a “bad bargain” for women. With every child a woman has, she sees her pay and long-term professional opportunities decline, particularly if she leaves the workforce for a significant period of time.

Furthermore, marriage has historically presented women with two options, neither good: marry a man and sacrifice your autonomy and career goals to become financially dependent on him. Or marry a man and maintain your own career but be prepared to have a “second shift” career taking care of him and the home. Even among more open-minded millennial men, the female spouse still ends up doing the majority of caregiving and housekeeping.

More women, however, are foregoing marriage and motherhood. In doing so, they trade in their “second shift” and instead begin taking care of themselves. To use Hirshman’s language, they are rejecting a “bad bargain”. This new status quo frustrates men who feel entitled to female companionship, such as angry male “incels".*

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/13/you-dont-have-to-settle-the-joy-of-living-and-dying-alone

Or you could just hire a house keeper and a nanny (if you have children). Women just need to be more assertive instead of just doing what is expected of them.

Yes, I think having children is the real game-changer.

Not only is being a single parent financially unviable for the vast majority, it's also extremely stressful and emotionally wearing to bring up children alone. So reasonably enough, those women who want children - which is to say most women - will want to do so with a parnter, who is very likely to be the children's father.

Again, I'm so grateful that I have never wanted children and therefore have had no practical motive to seek marriage or long-term partnership.

it's also extremely stressful and emotionally wearing to bring up children alone.

I don't know. Admittedly I am only now about to give birth, but a lot of my coupled up mum friends tell me I actually have the right idea! If you've got no support at all, maybe, but you only have to look at threads on MN (and at relationships around you) to see that a hell of a lot of dads are actually an extra person to take care of rather than an extra child carer.

I am probably having to make alterations to my career that I may have not had to make to the same extent if I had a partner (although that would not have been the case with my ex who absolutely would have left me at home with the kids while he did whatever he wanted). But aside from that, I'm not sure I'm missing out on that much even from a parenting perspective. I am lucky to have a lot of family support, but I know the rest is going to come from me alone and therefore I won't have the resentment so many of my friends have at being left to do almost all the childcare while their OHs head off down the pub or to their hobby. I won't have a man coming home after a day wrestling a toddler complaining about the state of the house or moaning that he hasn't got a home cooked meal or that I am not slipping into a sexy little number.

As one wise Mumsnetter said to me when I was talking about doing this "parenting alone is a lot easier than parenting with a twat".

I do think though that having children is a major motivating factor for many women in seeking a long term relationship, it certainly was for me. That became really clear for me after I headed down the solo mum route, because suddenly, I really don't care about ever being in a relationship again.

Or you could just hire a house keeper and a nanny (if you have children).

Many people do not have sufficient disposable income to cover housekeepers and nannies!

I'd imagine having children by yourself is a lot easier if you have family and friends around you to help. In these globalised times, people move around a lot for work, even across continents. Many women won't have family members they are close to and trust. Rising house prices make it hard for generations to continue living in the same neighborhood.

I did read a really good article once though about a group of single mums who decided to live together. They rented a big flat and all said it was a really good experience because they could all rely on each other and take turns looking after the kids, preparing meals and so on. Eventually as the children got older, they moved out and some of the mums got into other relationships.

However, the overall idea seems like a good one. There could be a housing association set up to facilitate this kind of joint / communal living for single mothers.
They will be able to share costs and childcare responsibilities allowing them to take on part time work or study etc.
Women don't have to default to living with a man to share the financial burden.

@IcedPurple @AutumnRose1 Sorry for delayed reply - I should have said "I'm not sure being alone is better than a good relationship for the majority of women". Obviously there are exceptions and it comes down to the individual. But I suspect the "Time and again studies show that single women are happier than married women" finding @IcedPurple mentioned might be different if more married women found themselves in properly equal relationships.

Nevertheless I totally agree that marriage and babies should not be presented to women as the ideal/ only state but just one option among many. For many years I didn't want kids AT ALL, only gradually changed my mind in mid-late 30s. Even now I have them, motherhood is only one part of who I am.

Complete bold fail 🤦🏻‍♀️

I don't know if they still do it, but our local primary school used to stage mock weddings each year with the 'prettiest' girl dressed as a bride and the most 'handsome' boy as the groom. One of the children (presumably a less obviously attractive one) played the vicar, there were bridesmaids and choirs and walking up and down an imaginary aisle and a party afterwards. The groom was expected to kiss the bride. Some lesbian parents protested and I believe it was suspended for a while. I've been told lots of schools still do it. The indoctrination starts very young.

I'm horrified by the number of young women in my family and friendship circle who are Mrs X or Mrs Z on their FB pages. It's like a return to the 1950s. Lots of Stepford wives posting about their perfect children and perfect lives. So glad not to have taken that path.

Yes the number of women who have their wedding dress as their fb profile pic is astounding- often the groom isn’t even there.

And I’ve yet to EVER see a man have a pic of himself as a groom as his profile pic.

Marriage isn’t an achievement for men but it is marketed as so for women.

I know it always gets mentioned on here but despite being happily married (as in, actively happy, my husband makes my life significantly better in every way) I absolutely found the book Wifework totally life-changing. The way it puts things into context and identifies the pressures we place on women.

I've often wondered why a "successful marriage" is considered to be one that lasts. Any other contract or coalition would be considered "successful" if it delivered on targets for both parties. It wouldn't be expected to run and run long after it had stopped making one or both parties happy.

But I suspect the "Time and again studies show that single women are happier than married women" finding @IcedPurple mentioned might be different if more married women found themselves in properly equal relationships.

So married women would be happier if their marriages were happier?

Well, of course.

But thing is, women STILL end up doing the bulk of the emotional - and other - work in relationships. Plus women tend to be much better than men at building supportive social networks. So the reality is that marriage is usually a better deal for men than it is for women. Obviously there will be expections, but that appears to be the general rule.

I've often wondered why a "successful marriage" is considered to be one that lasts. Any other contract or coalition would be considered "successful" if it delivered on targets for both parties. It wouldn't be expected to run and run long after it had stopped making one or both parties happy.

I agree with you about relationships in general. Just as most people don't have one job for life anymore, neither do they need to stick to just one partner for life. And just as changing jobs isn't neccessarily a sign of failure - often the opposite - neither is moving on from a relationship.

However, aren't marriage vows - even secular ones - explicitly meant to be forever?

I don't think it's very surprising really that this is from the Guardian. They tend to take this tack with relationship stuff and the "childfree" thing too. (And I actually really hate that term. I don't think taking a category of people and placing "free" with it is really a very positive approach and we'd all likely be a little horrified if we did it with other types of people who we have responsibilities for. Yes, having no children to be responsible for can be nice at times and it's a choice some people make as individuals but it's all a bit Thatcherite to put it that way.)

Yes, having no children to be responsible for can be nice at times and it's a choice some people make as individuals but it's all a bit Thatcherite to put it that way

The term 'childfree' isn't perfect but what's the alternative? 'Childless' implies a loss, as though having children is the default state.

I am not 'childless'. I never wanted children and consider myself much better off for not having them. What term would you use to describe the millions of women - and men - like me?

I have no idea what the political significance is but I like the term childfree.

I also choose not to have children but I don't class myself as childfree. I just say, I don't have children, I'm a person without children.

Childfree reminds me of smokefree home, it implies having children is something bad. I don't think it is, its just not for me. I'm neutral about it.

When marriage vows were created ‘forever’ was a lot shorter than now!

I don’t ‘like’ fb posts declaring marriage, it’s not an achievement but that is how it’s put to this generation of women. Wifework should be essential reading to all fiancées

Childfree reminds me of smokefree home, it implies having children is something bad.

But for some of us having children would indeed be something bad. That's why we chose not to have them. That's why we are childfree.

I just say, I don't have children, I'm a person without children

Which is fine, but still leaves open the possibility that you would like to have children but for whatever reason do not. And you can be certain that many if not most people would interpret it that way, especially if you are a woman.

I really don't get the issue people have with some of us considering ourselves 'childfree'. If you don't like it or feel it doesn't apply to you, by all means don't use it. But for some of us, it accurately describes how we see ourselves.

"Childfree reminds me of smokefree home, it implies having children is something bad"

Yes, it would be bad for me to have children. Childfree is short for "I'm childfree and very very happy about it". Saying "I don't have children" doesn't cover that. It's also been useful I guess, because when friends had children they knew I wouldn't be offering to babysit etc and knew that I'm not child friendly which helped keep my "visits from toddlers" a bit more under control than they might have been otherwise.

The term 'childfree' isn't perfect but what's the alternative? 'Childless' implies a loss, as though having children is the default state.

I don't really think it does, but I would go with "I have no children".

While it is the case that some people don't want children, it's also the case that sometimes you end up with them anyway, and not necessarily your own either. I don't want to end up with elderly dependent relatives, but chances are I will. I don't want dependent disabled kids, but that could potentially happen. Even if it was a relief to have those burdens lifted one day, I'm not going to say I'm elder-free, or dependent-free, or disabled child free. Elderly people, disabled people, people who are children, shouldn't be referred to in a way that implies their existence is a burden, or we only need to take care of them if we choose to.

How do you end up with children though? Having children is aLways a conscious choice?

I ended up with an elderly dependent mother. It was not my choice. I didn’t choose to have a mother?

I had a relationship with a man who had children, I ended the relationship as I didn’t want children

The thing about "I have no children" is it often elicits sympathetic faces, which is kind of annoying.

"shouldn't be referred to in a way that implies their existence is a burden, or we only need to take care of them if we choose to."

But I wouldn't need to take care of children unless I chose to?

X post with Madam Batty

I wouldn't say my elderly mother is dependent

But I will say that although she is a fabulous person and I love her to bits, if she becomes dependent there a fair chance I'll die first from stress

I am also glad I'll never be anyone's burden. Yes, you can find me on the EP board!

And I’ve yet to EVER see a man have a pic of himself as a groom as his profile pic.

DH has a B&W wedding photo of us as his profile picture on FB (we got married in 2001 after six years of cohabitating). I strongly dislike FB and am rarely on (maybe 2× a year like Happy New Year or whatever) so my profile picture is of one of our dogs as a puppy. He feels that marrying me was an achievement (he looked forward to being married in his future and hoped to be a father) I on the other hand never dreamed (or was interested) about getting married or having children. We are individuals invested in a romantic and financial partnership. Either of us could walk away from everything today and start over alone easily. I am here because I want to be and the same goes for him.

I took his last name but I don't advertise being married. I don't try to hide it but I certainly don't go by "Mrs DHsurname". Changing my name was weird on a visceral level but I felt no real connection to it as it was ultimately my father's/etc. name and not really mine at all. Plus, my original surname when paired with my first initial sounds like a reference to voiding your body of excrement so no love lost there. I liked his surname better and he liked mine - in no iteration did his name or initials evoke disgust but mine did and as a woman in my profession I prefer to use my initials + surname and prefer to not be associated with shit. Funny but true.

Some friends of ours did something quite cool when they married four years ago (we were a little peeved we didn't come up with it). They spent months doing word play to come up with a unique name for their family - not tied to either of their original surnames. Their last name is unique and holds great meaning for them and their daughter (from a previous relationship) who opted to take the name as well.

I love being alone - I am alone most of my week every week. Being single isn't scary, I don't need a partner. I do enjoy sharing my life with DH but if the enjoyment stopped and could not be recaptured I'd have no problem moving on.

Being single is fantastic for some and painful for others and the same goes for marriage. There is no right answer and one's answer may change over time. Individuals experience marriage and being single differently based on many variables.

Choose happiness (whatever that means for you single/married) the status quo and any judgements can get bent.