| |
 |
 Appeared in NYT.
By PHOEBE HOBAN
Contemporary culture has never lacked for compelling images of
the single woman. They've run the gamut from glamorous to
Gidget, from the original Cosmo girl to Carrie Bradshaw and
company on "Sex and the City." And while such thoroughly
modern millies as the singleton Bridget Jones or the
sex-addict Samantha are hardly real-life role models, they
represent the idea of the single woman as a viable and even
enticing entity, one that needs no more justification or
documentation, say, than the domestic habits of the dedicated
bachelor. But apparently this female demographic still
requires a bookshelf all its own.
It has been nearly 40 years since Betty Friedan attacked the
conventional notion of the role of women in marriage in "The
Feminine Mystique," ushering in the first wave of feminism.
According to the Census Bureau, single women over the age of
15 now represent 48 percent of the female population. But
recently the literature seems to have regressed.
Consider two books on the subject that have just come out this
month that try to validate this lifestyle both historically
and anecdotally, as if it were a fringe phenomenon rather than
a rapidly growing segment of society: Betsy Israel's "Bachelor
Girl: The Secret History of Single Women in the Twentieth
Century" (William Morrow) and "Solitaire: The Intimate Lives
of Single Women" (Macfarlane Walter & Ross) by Marian Botsford
Fraser, a Canadian journalist. Both suggest that single women
are still perceived as a special-interest group, although,
according to Ms. Israel's book, they number a staggering 1.95
million in New York City alone. (The Census Bureau puts that
number at 2,060,000.)
"Single women have always been portrayed and depicted in the
mass culture in a negative and nasty way that influenced the
lives of many women, and at the same time was competely
untrue, and these images, some of them 150 years old, are
still being played out and the ideas are just being recycled,"
says Ms. Israel.
"Bachelor Girl" traces the trajectory of the single woman in
America, from the turn of the 20th century to the present,
from the spinster — working immigrant women who literally spun
for a living — to "outspoken and very cool-looking single
celebrities" of the 1960's and 1970's like Gloria Steinem.
There are thumbnail sketches of poster girls for singlehood
like the Brontë sisters, Louisa May Alcott and Florence
Nightingale. (Who, despite her status, was not exactly a role
model for single living. After revolutionizing military
nursing standards during the Crimean War, she took to her bed
more or less permanently at the age of 40 with a mysterious
malady.) Rife with Dickensian detail, Ms. Israel's book
provides a useful (if depressing) history of single working
girls and new women of all stripes, from the shopgirl to the
Gibson goddess to the swinging single.
Ms. Fraser's book calls single women "a potentially powerful
socio-economic group" but one that is "still widely perceived
as disadvantaged or insignificant, subordinate or invisible."
As evidence she collects oral accounts of 150 women she
interviewed across Canada, from a nonagenarian living alone in
a trailer on a remote farm to young professionals at work and
play in Toronto, to the hospice care of a terminally ill woman
by her coterie of friends. The collective voice of these
single women is decidedly ambivalent.
"I think it's human nature for there to be ambivalence about
stuff like this," Ms. Fraser says. "I think people want the
freedom, the autonomy, the independence and in some cases the
greater security of being single, but they also want to be in
relationships. No matter how well you put your life together,
it's still nice to have sex now and then."
It's hard to imagine their male counterparts being subjected
to similar treatment, a history of single men, say, or a book
about bachelors that didn't celebrate their sexual prowess
with Rat-Pack-style martini glasses or a winsome picture of
Hugh Grant or some other signifier of this debonair demimonde
on the cover, excerpted, perhaps, by Esquire or GQ.
Next page >

October 12, 2002.
|
|