Elizabeth Montagu (1718 – 1800) was a leader of the Blue Stockings Society
As a single woman in STEM, I am interested in learning more about how single women navigate STEM fields. A lot has been written about science “power couples” like Marie and Pierre Curie. Many have written about the “motherhood penalty” for women in STEM.
Few have really explored what it’s like to remain largely single and childless as a female scientist.
Until recent decades the majority of women scientists in the United States were not married to men.
It makes sense, back then. Women who spent years battling against low expectations and sexism, toiling in laboratories, memorizing equations, and writing lab reports were probably unwilling to give up their passion to be a stay-at-home wife. Furthermore, lack of access to contraceptives made pregnancy almost inevitable for many women if they did marry. Other time-saving devices like dishwashers, microwaves, and washing machines weren’t readily available so many chores were very labor intensive. Blatant sexism and anti-nepotism laws made it difficult for married women to actually get a job.
There was a lot of cultural pressure to marry (also single women have a difficult time getting credit) . Many derogatory terms were leveraged towards single women scientists not only now but for centuries.
Spinster. Bluestocking. Atypical. Frigid. Childless Cat Lady
“Science” even tried to prove the “negative” effects higher education had on women.
However, unmarried male “geniuses” like Isaac Newton have very positive cultural perceptions.
Until recent decades, at least ¾ of women scientists in the United States remained unmarried.
Many took on the world. Discovered new things. Won prizes. Became celebrities. Were spies and at the frontlines of wars. Had close-knit friendships and domestic partnerships. Inspired others to science as teachers. Worked for and influenced Presidents. Won prizes. Lobbied for those without a voice. Created cozy homes and peaceful domestic lives. Or they just did solid, good work and were financially independent.
In the 1950s, the era of the so-called “MRS degree” 1/3 of female college graduates did not marry. They saw the trap.
Now it’s the opposite.
Today, women with higher education are more likely to marry than those with a degree.
And women who are married spend more time on active child care than stay at home mothers did in previous generations.
Why are highly educated women more likely to marry?
Decades of fear-mongering about the horrors of singledom and “marriage advice” convinced women to find a husband in college or grad school, and stick longer in unhappier marriages.
Despite many women’s efforts to portray not marrying a man women internalized this fearmongering.
Capitalism and materialism does not help. The pressure for home ownership, dual car ownership, and “lifestyle” (on top of healthcare being astronomically expensive) makes it hard to resist the dual income lifestyle. Many others before me have critically examined and even lampooned the very narrow ideas of what life should look like. Heterosexual Marriage. Cookie cutter house in the suburb. A puppy named Bella. White Picket Fence. Live/Laugh/Love signs. Dual income until the baby comes. Retirement in sundown towns.
These expectations are suffocating for everyone. And when women do leave marriages, they are more likely to be at an economic disadvantage than their male partners.
We need to help women to learn to be financially independent to avoid entanglements with undesirable partners and avoid the dual income trap. We need to build community. We need to envision different lifestyles and find what our true sources of fulfillment are.
Subscribe for free to get the Feminist Scientist in your Inbox!