Men are glorified for being able to remain single yet have a free sex life with (many of) whomever they want, when they want - i.e. the confirmed bachelor. To do otherwise is to be 'henpecked'.
Women are expected to get married (to a man), stay faithful no matter what, and to reproduce. To do otherwise is to be a 'spinster'.
It's unfair and utterly stupid, but our general american society is stuck this way. I hope it changes soon.
To paraphrase: "From next Thursday it will be a tradition in this school that boys do not walk on the grass in Big School Quadrangle". "Spinster" was the word for an unmarried woman because back in the pre-mechanical era spinning was the default occupation of virtually all women.
If you're going to coin a new word, you need to base it on something that was equally default for men.
Thinks: "spinster" gave us the 'distaff' side for the maternal side of a family. The paternal side was the 'spear' side....
And, surprise, surprise, a bachelor was once a squire or a knight's tenant and hence would have carried a spear were he to go off to war with his lord.
This might interest you: The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tartarus of Maids (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/MelPara.html) by Herman Melville.
I don't think it's true that we don't have a word for males unlikely to marry. They get called all kinds of things, from hobos and bums to fags to mama's boys, etc.
I'm thinking it should be some archaic job associated with old men. Like whittling or something. An old whittler. It does have the right ring to it. Though I don't know if it is archaic enough.
I suspect that the word exists for females because after a certain age they are unlikely prospects for producing heirs, and hence there is no matching term for males.
Well that's why, but it needs correcting. After all men get useless after a certain age. Or at least we did before viagra. <grin> How about "lamplighter"?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 08:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 08:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 08:28 pm (UTC)CU
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 08:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 09:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 08:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 10:48 pm (UTC)Just a thought.
I fit into the "career girl" category.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 09:57 pm (UTC)Women are expected to get married (to a man), stay faithful no matter what, and to reproduce. To do otherwise is to be a 'spinster'.
It's unfair and utterly stupid, but our general american society is stuck this way. I hope it changes soon.
-jude
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 11:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-30 11:04 am (UTC)If you're going to coin a new word, you need to base it on something that was equally default for men.
Thinks: "spinster" gave us the 'distaff' side for the maternal side of a family. The paternal side was the 'spear' side....
And, surprise, surprise, a bachelor was once a squire or a knight's tenant and hence would have carried a spear were he to go off to war with his lord.
So, reclaim "bachelor"?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 10:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 10:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 11:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 10:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 11:04 pm (UTC)splitting heirs
Date: 2004-12-29 11:05 pm (UTC)Re: splitting heirs
Date: 2004-12-29 11:13 pm (UTC)