Talk:Spinster

Title of Notable Spinster section may be offensive

Could I please change the title of the notable spinster section? In the article itself, it is admitted that in most modern day definitions spinster is "a derogatory term, referring or alluding to a stereotype of an older woman who is unmarried, childless, prissy, and repressed". A previous editor said we should stick to the title of the page, but in the equivalent Bachelor page, the exactly equivalent section is titled "Men Who Never Married" so I don't think changing the title to "Women Who Never Married" will cause considerable confusion. I think this language is more neutral and better suited to an encyclopedia, and breaks down disparities between genders. I hope I was not being disruptive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saver002 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Saver002. The word Spinster has already been referenced as derogatory. This is an article about the etymology and usage of the word as well as about how unmarried women, not necessarily always referred to as 'spinsters,' have been portrayed in popular culture. Having a list of real life examples of unmarried women seems to be important in an article that includes cultural as well as etymological descriptions. I support the more neutral description of Women Who Never Married, similar to Men Who Never Married under the Bachelor article. ABF99 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

List of famous spinsters

Elizabeth I is notable for never marrying, given the importance of marriage to the political future of an absolutist monarchy. ProfessorFokker 09:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

By definition a "spinster" is a woman who never married nor had any relationships.

Old Maid (card game)

There's a bit of a conflict between this and Old Maid, the card game. Looking up Old Maid instantly takes you to this page, making the article on the card game much harder to find. I'm posting this on the Old Maid discussion page as well. Vadigor 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Heterosexist?

The descriptions of modern "positive redefinition" of "spinster" only mentions spinsterhood in relation to men and marriage. What about queer spinsters? Asexual spinsters?Illusi0nist 23:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In today's rewrite, the distinction is made here: feminism "asserts that even heterosexual women might wilfully choose not to marry"; by implication, gay/Queer women are presumed not to want traditional marriage to a man. I also inserted a reference to lesbianism as one of the 18th/19th century stereotypes of spinsters. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

in modern times the term has fell out of use, rather than been redefined. The term has to do with traditional gender roles. the male equivalent is a bachelor. therefore we can concluded that the modern term is a bachelorette. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the term "spinster" was created in a time before gays were in the "open" so to speak. However, lesbians can marry (or form de facto marriages), become pregnant or adopt children. There are many lesbian couples who have children and who share custody of children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.118.60 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible origin

In german, the word "spinnen" means both to spin thread and spider. Used as a verb, "spinst" it means one is senile or crazy. This could point to the terms origin being a mocking term for a senile elderyly(spider-like) spinstress, by calling them a "spinster"(adding "-er" in German has the same meaning as in English: "one who does something".) It seems possible, as there has been quite a bit of exchange between German and English over the centuries. Just thought I'd share my musings.--Scorpion451 05:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete

I came to the page to find out what the occupation of "Spinster" was. I found it in a list of occupations of immigrant in the mid 19th century. They obviously were oblivious to the negative connotations (unless being Irish was negative enough) http://content.ancestry.co.uk/iexec/?htx=View&r=5538&dbid=8769&iid=PAM425_47-0194&fn=Eleanor&ln=Ryan&st=r&ssrc=&pid=10465837 (I do not know if a membership is required to view that reference.) At least in the mid 19th century spinster was an occupation and I am interested in when it stopped being so. I imagine the decline in spinning as an occupation had something to do with the changes in steam powered spinning machines in the 19th century. In mirriam webster www.m-w.com a spinster is still "1: a woman whose occupation is to spin" before "2 aarchaic : an unmarried woman of gentle family b: an unmarried woman and especially one past the common age for marrying 3: a woman who seems unlikely to marry". The wikipedia article doesn't add anything to this and seems to go well off topic into "old-maids" and seems instead to be an article on "unmarried women". This may be a valid subject for an article, but is not about "spinster". Wiredrabbit (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone looking for a discussion of the occupation of spinster, as you and I were, will be sorely disappointed in this article. Even the (all-too-brief) discussion of historical usage is far too colored by anachronistic -- and unsupported -- conclusions such as the assumption that spinsters were attempting to live "independent of a male wage", or that the term meant women who were "unwilling or unable to marry". I seriously doubt that the vast majority of medieval or Elizabethan-era textile spinsters, most of whom where in their teens and early twenties, were motivated by desires to "live independently of a male wage". And the fact that the Church of England used the term to describe women where were getting married hardly seems to fit the article's assertion that such women were "unwilling or unable" to marry.

CNJECulver (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete, as well

See, we have the incorrect and unfair "stereo type" and then how that has been demolished in modern times.

but actually, spinsters were more liberated than wives - wives had to stay at home but spinsters were allowed to do certain jobs.

But there is more required to complete an encyclopedic entry for spinster that discussion of differences due to womens lib.

. arent we missing

• how to handle someone who had plenty of lesbian relations, but is now single. (will spinster become a word meaning "old lesbian" ? )

• reasons for remaining unmarried
• no acid test - A spinster may have been married or have given birth , previously - death of children, rape, adoption out of children, abuse by husband, or sexual dysfunction might be the cause of her avoidance of close relationship.

• most common cause is difficult with sexual relationship. - due to physical, (gynocologic problemsm even just dryness ) or psychological cause.. fear of the penis could cause sexual dysfunction .

• discussion of what role spinsters have in modern western suburbs. yeah, those people who dont deserve a mention.

eg contribution to society eg church, womens groups, commmunity organisations, and carries out all manner of occupations - I guess this is where womens lib steps in, they can now focus on a career and rise to be politician, business manager, surgeon , even sex therapist.

and, therefore, has no children

The opening paragraph starts: "A spinster (or old maid) is a woman or girl of marriageable age who has been unwilling or unable to marry and, therefore, has no children."

Why do they therefore have no children? There are plenty of unwed/single mothers in the world. Is an unwed/single mother a spinster or is a spinster a woman that has never married and also has no children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.92.243 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest drastic reduction of article

The current article contains a lot of information that, IMO, is not needed, and often goes into the realm of a discussion of a much larger phenomenon in a manner that is not really in order.

I suggest that this page is reduced to briefly explain the expression; possibly, by limiting the text to the introduction (which, by the way, is not internally consistent).

The rest of the discussion should be either removed or moved to more appropriate topics after being filtered. (Such topics could include feminism, women's roles, and similar. Considering the length of the article, I am not able to give anything even near a complete matching at this time.) 88.77.132.122 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I keep taking out sections that discuss spinsters as if they're women who have simply failed to get a man, or who have become over picky or cold or something--and somebody keeps putting those sections back in. They are inaccurate and only add to the stigma that women who are unwed are unwanted or cold, rather than the many, many reasons why a woman might remain unmarried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.210.206 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed dubious "Francis" claim in intro

I removed this from the intro section:

In late 2009 the term spinster became more synonymous with a little stirling girl called Frances who lay in bed all day with her hair tied up whilst she slept.

There's no citation, and I can't even figure out what it's referring to. I'm assuming it's some recent pop culture reference, but even if that's true, I don't think it's commonly known or relevant. If someone wants to add it back, please dig up a citation first and justify it here. James A. Stewart (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Miss Marple

You may want to include Miss Marple as an example of a spinster heroine. --Error (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

38?

Whence comes this notion of a spinster having to be 38 years or older? There is no reference to that particular "fact" mentioned. In the sense used by the Book of Common Prayer, a spinster is any unmarried woman of marriageable age, and that is how it used in the Banns of Marriage. Beowulf (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

what is the marriageable age? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In most Western countries it's over 18. Roger (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

pair bond?

why this term? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Why? Pair bond is a scientific term about the bond that forms between male and female, ultimately resulting in a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.118.60 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Wouldn't that be a mating bond? A pair bond would be any pairing up. Pairing up for dance lessons, or to play chess. 05:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight Risk (talk • contribs)

Make up your mind.

"childless" is incompatible with Bette Davis playing a "single mother" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.235 (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute Template

I have added a neutrality dispute template to this page. There is obviously dispute over whether the article is heterosexist, sexist, biased against single mothers, and biased against single women. The article appears to buy into many derogatory stereotypes of single women--and in fact, the term "spinster" itself is considered derogatory in common contemporary English usage (see New Oxford American Dictionary and others.) Suggest that if this article remain at all, it discusses only the historical origins of the term and the stereotypes associated with that term up to the present time, without buying into and propagating those stereotypes. Artekka (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what is not neutral in this article? Could you quote the parts that are sexist or biased against single mothers or single women? It isn't clear where there is bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.118.60 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since my posting, you or someone else with your same IP address seem to have cleaned up the article substantially, so the clarification is no longer as necessary. However, the areas I was particularly targeting included the opening, where it was originally not indicated that the term was considered derogatory or that there was any debate over it at all, and the social stigma section, which merely quoted writers and psychologists who bought into the stereotype of "spinsters" as picky or afraid of commitment without interrogating those sources at all. When I attempted to clean up these areas, other editors kept undoing my efforts. Thank you for cleaning up the article.Artekka (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is horribly confused. The article may purport to be about the word, but time and again the inaccurate stereotype - that women who don't marry by a certain age are pathetic unstable repellent worthless figures of fun fit only for humiliating, contemptuous ridicule - is just assumed to be true, and the article written accordingly. This includes tone and selection. For example, why is some media-created reality TV "cat lady" nonsense the first example of unmarried women? Why is "cat lady" mentioned more than once, if at all?

I propose we get rid of all this insulting cat lady crap (haven't any of you ever worked at a humane society? The vast majority of cat hoarders are men) and structure this article more like "bachelor", with only slight mention made to the inaccurate crackpot stereotype. (Look at how "bachelor" handles the pejorative meaning of "confirmed bachelor" - succinctly and without it taking over the article.) This article could benefit from the hundreds of academic studies of historical unmarried women living their lives as normal people instead of reality TV nonsense supporting the ridiculous assumption that women who don't marry are subhumans only worthy of contempt and ridicule. This is Wikipedia, not Fark. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you ideologically. The difference between this entry and the one on "bachelor" is that for the most part, the term "bachelor" is not considered derogatory or closely allied with a stereotype, as "spinster" is. Perhaps we should look to entries like negro for a better example of how to make this entry non-derogatory. Is there someone with some authority we can appeal to to achieve this, or shall we go ahead and plan to give the article a total overhaul and see how it goes over?Artekka (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely stereotypes around bachelors. I'm not sure why people think the term and this Wikipedia entry about spinsters is "derogatory", beyond the fact that one dictionary defines the term as derogatory. Do a google news search and you'll see that people are referred to as spinsters all the time. It is a word that defines someone -- if you are an older, unmarried, childless woman, you are a spinster. If you are an older, unmarried man you are a bachelor. These are facts, words to define the status of people. There is nothing derogatory about either of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.118.60 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree heartily with you. The fact that people use it all the time doesn't mean it isn't derogatory. The problem with the word is that it has a negative connotation that is connected to many offensive stereotypes. While there are some stereotypes about bachelors, they are not what immediately jumps to mind when one hears the word, as is the case with spinsters, and the stereotypes about bachelors are not nearly so deeply ingrained and offensive. The stereotype associated with spinsters is that of a bitter, humorless, emotionally and sexually cold, sexually frustrated, ugly old woman (probably owning forty cats) who simply either failed to get a man or was too picky to take one when he came her way. The term is associated with a centuries-old, pervasive (though these days almost invisible to many) sexism in our culture, which doesn't mind much if a man stays single but considers romance, marriage, and probably family to be the end-goal of every mentally/emotionally/sexually healthy woman's life, and thus judges single women more harshly than it does single men. Use of the word "spinster", with its negative connotations which the term "bachelor" does not share, only reinforces these stereotypes and underlying beliefs about women and their "proper" role in nature and society. While the article could arguably fruitfully discuss the origins of the term and the stereotypes historically (and even presently) associated with it, the problem is that the writing in some portions of this article imply that the stereotypes are correct, thus reinforcing them. I think that the most egregious of these areas have now been cleaned up, but there's still PLENTY of room for improvement.Artekka (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to be mostly a collection of facts about spinsters (i.e., unmarried, older childless women). Many feminists, like Sheila Jeffreys, embrace the term. There is a term that millions of people use to describe women who are in this category. There are of course some people who have negative beliefs about both spinsters and bachelors -- many bachelors are automatically labeled 'gay' even if they are straight. That doesn't take away the fact that the word 'bachelor' exists and it defines a class of men —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.118.60 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, although the article has been cleaned up a lot and is significantly less offensive than it was, it still subtly reinforces some negative and false stereotypes about spinsters. Yes, some feminists (I don't know about "many") embrace the term in the same way that some members of disadvantaged racial groups have embraced terms that were before considered derogatory. That doesn't discount the fact that the term is still associated in the minds of many with derogatory stereotypes. The word "spinster" does exist and does define a set of negative stereotypes about older, unmarried women. Many derogatory racial epithets also exist and define a set of negative stereotypes about certain racial and cultural groups. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be careful the way we present those epithets in public encyclopedias.Artekka (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean "no point of view". It means that all reasonable and widely accepted points of view should be represented with a sense of proportion. According to your user page, you're on a "crusade" to get this article how you like it. That's not neutrality, that's just a different kind of bias. Wikipedia is not a place to carry on ideological battles. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated: I feel that MOST of the offensive material has been removed from the article. It now presents both sides: that some still apply the label and the stereotype of spinster, and that others find it derogatory. While the article still seemed to strongly support the first point of view (reproducing that stereotype without questioning it), it was not neutral. It is now significantly better, though could still use going over with a fine-tooth comb to really make sure it's cleaned up. Obviously, some users such as NellieBlyMobile still find its neutrality questionable, and I would be interested to hear what she believes to still be offensive. The subsequent conversation between myself and the unnamed user has been about parallels between the term "spinster" and others such as "bachelor" or racial epithets, which is an ideological discussion, not a battle about any specific changes made to the page. When quoting sources, please quote them in their entirety so that YOU can remain neutral. Doing otherwise is known as a "straw man argument." My page says that I am, and I quote directly, "on a crusade to fix the stereotype and bias in the spinster article". Fixing bias means making things more neutral, which is what I have been intending to do, and I feel that the major part of that work has now been done. I suggest we take this conversation back to the article itself. You see if you can find anything that you think is overly biased in it, and I and other will do the same, and then we can all compare notes. My intention with the article is not to sit here on the discussion page and to get into flame wars (I imagine that's no one's intention), but to improve the article, a "crusade" I hope you'll join me in. Artekka (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the article presents both sides it should have this neutrality dispute template removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.42.123 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity spinsters

Is this section useful? I don't see why a reader would come here looking for examples or how examples help them understand the term or its cultural connotations.  jorgenev (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2011

True. I think it was probably first included in order to make the article sound more positive, but the inclusion of Lizzie Borden in the list hardly helps on THAT front, does it? Plus there's the debate over whom can be considered a "spinster" according to the commonly held definition. I mean, Jane Austen was 42 when she died. That meant she was definitely "on the shelf" according to the customs of her time and social group, but so was every woman over 25! Do we really think that an unmarried woman of 42 deserves the term "spinster"? She probably hadn't hit menarche yet, so not only could she still theoretically have been married, but she could still have had children, too! If I'm not careful I'll start preaching from my soapbox about how this is one more reason the term shouldn't be in common usage these days anyway, but to the point: do you think this section should be removed from the article?Artekka (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden, who was never convicted of a crime, is one of the most widely recognized spinsters in American history and is even being called a "spinster" in press reports about the upcoming movie based on her life. The rest of the section is relevant because it identifies other famous spinsters throughout history. Just as the articles on "German Americans" or "Danish Americans" mention famous people in those categories, this article does the same for spinsters. Why would it make sense to remove this important information from the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/71.146.96.14 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do the articles on German Americans or Danish Americans mention famous people in those categories? Why is this considered "important information? What does it add to our understanding of spinsters?

It's definitely helpful when reading an article on any group to know who the notable members of that group are. For instance, the "bachelor" article could really use such a list and is lacking without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.84.43 (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A wiktionary:spinster is an unmarried woman. Her age is of no relevance. Within Anglican Church at least, the banns of marriage are announced as "Jane Smith, a spinster of this parish".

Wiktionary is a wiki. All dictionaries identify spinsters as older, unmarried, childless women. So do scholarly books and articles on the subject.

The stigma against being an old and unmarried woman is not the same as being a spinster. Largely because a spinster is not necessarily old. Just because a word is "commonly" used as such, does not make it technically correct, nor does it mean that it is always used like that. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. A spinster is older. Note the research by Robin Lakoff.

I believe the factual inaccuracy dispute icon should be removed as no fact in this entry has been disputed. The article is reliably sourced. The Oxford dictionary and Robin Lakoff, a noted scholar, are the chief sources of the definition.

Sometimes used as just a single woman, not necessarily old

Nobody uses it--ever--in the United States unless it is meant to be derogatory. sn 15 December 2017

I was looking at genealogical records and found a marriage registration from 1915. For the man there's a choice of Bachelor or Widower, and for the woman: Spinster or Widow. The 18 year old bride was listed as Spinster. So it's pretty obvious the meaning then was a previously unmarried woman. Link to New Brunswick records Chromatikoma (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That definition may have applied a century ago, when the average life expectancy was 56 for a woman. A 28 year old was actually middle aged back then. So the definition has changed, as noted by both the mainstream dictionary definition and by scholars that have looked deeply into the meaning of the word. A 20-year-old single woman is not a spinster. A 40-year-old single woman without children is indeed a spinster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.42.123 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster: this article spends far too much time attempting to deconstruct one modern connotation without adequately addressing historical usages. Like another poster upstream, I came here from my genealogical research looking for information on the occupation and marital condition of spinsterhood and instead found an article that came off sounding very much like a crusade against modern perceived stereotypes while failing to provide any actual useful information. Even the single throw-away line mentioning historical usage ends with the anachronistic (dare I say feminist agenda-driven?) and unsupported conclusion "... in order to live independently of a male wage." I seriously doubt that the vast majority of textile spinsters of the medieval period, or even the 19th century, most of whom were in their late teens and earlier twenties, had any such motivations at all. And the fact that the Church of England regularly used the term to describe women who were in the process of getting married mitigates strongly against the presumption that the word historically described women who were "unwilling or unable to marry".

And note that the OP was describing an 18 -- not 28 -- year-old woman. An 18 year-old, even a century ago, was nowhere near middle aged.

CNJECulver (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. We live in a modern age. Spinster is an unmarried woman without children. A single mother is not a spinster. A nun is not a spinster either. One could argue that a lesbian who is not married is not a spinster either. It's a single, heterosexual woman, unmarried, childless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.203.3 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WRONG. "Spinster" is obsolete and an INSULT to never-married women. Period. sn 15 December 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.32.10 (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Initially I removed a passage that was identical to that found at urban dictionary--now I'm not so sure that it wasn't used here first. As for the statements that are sourced to the Oxford Dictionary So single mothers would not qualify as spinsters. Neither would older women who are divorced.--is that derived directly from the source, or WP:SYNTHESIS to underscore the above point? Does the dictionary explicitly mention single mothers and divorced older women as not being spinsters? JNW (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This version of a year ago strikes me as more layered, and touches on the variety of usages succinctly: [1]. JNW (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that the paring of the lede was done thoughtfully, in conjunction with moving much of its content to the body of the article [2]. At this point consider my hands properly cleansed. JNW (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

JNW the change you made has been erased, in essence, as I was in process of restoring the research undone by the user whose name begins with 24. and thinks I am vandalizing the article. The American English definition from the Oxford dictionary was added as a cite by 24. so I looked it up, and it did not support the points made. It says the term is derogatory in contemporary usage. So I hope this editing can get calmer now. I put a note on 24. talk page, but I do not know if will be read. Wait and see. I did not like being called a vandal, I must say. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite alright. For my own part I resist the urge to describe something as controversial, regardless of ambivalence or disagreement the subject may provoke, unless it's been so described by reliable sources; it's a word that's often overused in articles here to dramatic effect. That said, your edits can in no way be construed as vandalism. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

all British, there are other English speaking nations

This article has only passing mentions of the term spinster in other English speaking nations. I do not know today's practice in the US (2014) but when I first bought property with a friend in the US, the legal documents identified me as spinster and my friend as divorced. I thought that men were not labelled as to their marital status in similar documents. Perhaps editors with knowledge beyond England and its 19th century marriage banns could add to the legal use or non-use of the term in documents like property ownership. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No controversy or debate over the term

No controversy exists over the meaning of the term or the existence of the term, despite the desire of a certain editor who keeps vandalizing this article. Spinsters are spinsters. They are literary figures as well as real figures. If you refer to a "spinster" in literature, there is no controversy about whom you are talking about. If you describe a woman as a spinster, you know what the description means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.203.3 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The argument that a particular editor keeps vandalizing the article is a personal attack, and a very severe one. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that you should not claim that a content dispute is vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of the use of the words controversy or debate, but there's basis for such description, given the sourced passages on current attitudes toward the term. That these passages have been referred to as vandalism is unfortunate, as are recurring attempts to add unsourced and argumentative passages like this to the lede [3]. I'm also concerned that several different IP accounts have made this their nearly sole interest. JNW (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

JVM: You seem devoted to claiming there is some kind of controversy surrounding the word "spinster." None exists. There is no debate over use of the term anywhere, except apparently between you and the entire world. Every dictionary recognizes what this word means. A spinster is an old maid. Always will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8180:E85:8876:CC95:3BE3:5C99 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC) JNW: Please refrain from adding bias to the article. There is no debate or controversy about the term spinster -- just a sense of stigma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8180:E85:8876:CC95:3BE3:5C99 (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the edit lock, thanks to those who knew how to make it happen. This article talks about more than the dictionary definitions, if that is the only focus of the person who is autosigned and always changing things back to some other wording. The dictionary definitions changing over time are an indication of the word's meaning changing over the centuries. The disparity between its legal usage and the social usage suggest the term continues to change, as women's roles change. That is why this word merits an article and not simply an entry in Wiktionary or other on line dictionaries. That is my view as to this article. As to future edits, I think the article needs a bit more from someone who knows legal terms better than I do, and thus the appropriate references, for the use of the term in contracts. The changing connotation of the word, from fairly ordinary and practical a few hundred years ago to derogatory now suggests it might get dropped in legal usage in favor of terms not derogatory, or not used when marital status is irrelevant to the legal document. That possibility interests me. Documenting the strong reactions women have to this term and their social status is the heart of the article, beyond what a dictionary would say. That is why I added the quotes from the articles reviewing or responding to a book on women finding or not finding a husband. I was putting something behind why the dictionary would label it as a derogatory word in current usage, that is the need for the articles in my view. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank JNW for pointing out that the term controversy and even debate can be overused in articles; I had not realized that. It will take some time to think of a better word for the strong feelings I see the word provoking in women, more precise than a word JVM says is overused to make it clear a topic is important. The only point the person who keeps changing things makes, that I understand, is "everyone knows what a spinster is". If that were the case, the whole article should be deleted, as I see it. But it is not the case and the article is of value. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC) --Prairieplant (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Prarieplant, I don't think a lengthy defense of your edits is necessary; there may be ways in which this can be improved, but real discussion is not possible so long as disruptions continue. The objections raised above appear to come from a single user who's IP hopping, and amount to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT; there's been no cogent rationale offered, only spurious claims of vandalism, original research and an unwillingness to engage thoughtfully. Stamping one's feet doesn't constitute credible engagement, nor does is justify calling this a content dispute. I'm disinclined to edit the article any further until such disruption can be effectively dealt with, but a restoration of your edits would be in order. Page protection was appropriate, and may be merited for a longer period. JNW (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad memory for your user name, and I had opened only this section to edit. I corrected my error above. Thanks for the explanation. We just wait now, I see. I thought describing my view might give an entry point for the other person to give that cogent rationale, but you seem more familiar with this kind of situation than I am and how to handle it.

And in the end, the article is as the person using multiple IP addresses left it, open for more rounds from other IP address editors, but the last one was caught by a Bot. Glad to learn of this sort of hit and run editor, so I can avoid articles in which they involve themselves. What a waste of my own time, otherwise. Better to link to a dictionary definition that to this Wikipedia entry. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that a single editor has exercised WP:OWNERSHIP using multiple IPs. They've removed sourced edits which provided interesting context for modern usage and installed a weak lede. I tried, referring this to several noticeboards and administrators, but the best we got was temporary page protection. I agree, Prarieplant, that to continue is futile. JNW (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In Canada, Spinster is a legal term that means "unmarried female." It is the official female title; "bachelor" is the official male title. These appear on the marriage licence. In Canada, the word is nothing about spinning, or being "unlikely to ever marry" or "old". Nothing about any of these is implied by the legal term "Spinster." I just thought that would be mentioned in the article, but it seems to be all about it being a "derogatory term". In other words the article is incomplete, because it did not mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.73.209 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge. Mkdw^talk 16:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

---

I propose that Catherinette and Sheng nu be merged into Spinster. I think that the content in the Sheng nu & Catherinette articles can easily be explained in the context of Spinster, and the Spinster article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Sheng nu & Catherinette will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. KhabarNegar ^Talk 05:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am going to have to oppose this suggestion, quite strongly, for a number of reasons. Namely, the words actually have subtle to large differences in their meaning. They not only come from different languages, cultures, and eras, but they each have a significant amount of history associated with each. Some of the articles are not in good shape, but others, such as sheng nu are WP:GAs. Specifically in regards to "sheng nu", the article goes into great length about the etymology, history of the term, and use in Chinese culture. Merging that information into an article about an anglophone word from the mid 14th century with essentially a different meaning (a women past marriageable age versus a women who is in their late 20s and unmarried) and especially with sheng nu having no relevance in Europe, and Spinster having no relevance in China, would be inappropriate. Additionally, the length of Spinster already borders WP:TOOLONG and adding an entire full length article into subsections would greatly exceed that limit. Lastly, I do not see any solid benefit to merging them. While they may have similar meanings, they are still very separate words with different histories, context, origins, focuses, how they're used, impact on culture, etc. Unmarried women is a universal social dynamic but sometimes one article is not better than two or three articles that focus on the unique traits of the words. Mkdw^talk 05:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This encyclopedia is not constrained by shortages of either paper or ink, and these are discrete though related concepts in different cultures. Adding "See also" sections to these three articles, referencing the other articles, is a far better solution than merging. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support These pages on related subject have a large overlap... Remember Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. there does not need to be a separate article for one concept, in different languages. They can be explained in an article on Unmarried women universal social dynamic. there does not need to be a separate entry for one concept, in different languages.(Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary). KhabarNegar ^Talk 05:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is not a valid rationale for merger in this case. The articles spend very little time defining the terms, they cite already existing dictionary definitions, but rather spend significant portion of the article looking at the etymology and cultural histories and impact. Using WP:NOT in this instance is not correct nor the point Cullen328 and I were trying to make either. Each culture treats it differently. I would need to see some significant support in reliable sources to support your theory as in all my reading on the matter very few academic sources are willing to make that statement. Otherwise I worry the point of merging is largely based on original research and an unnecessary need to merge articles other for the sake of oversimplifying a complex social culture. Mkdw^talk 14:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of original research where you incorrectly redirected 3S Women to Spinster. 3S does not mean "Spinster". If you think it does, I would like to see your reliable source that makes that comparison. The reason I say that is because I know from when I brought sheng nu to good article status that 3S means "seventies, single, and stuck" and directly relates to the word "sheng nu". This is directly mentioned in this New York Times article, this Times of India article, and this China Daily News article. 3S is almost entirely predominately used in Asia. In fact I have never seen it in reference to spinster. Mkdw^talk 14:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too American?

The pejorative use of "spinster" seems to be much more common in America than in the UK. Over here the word isn't necessarily connotative of an "old maid", so I'm rather disappointed to see so much of the article devoted to this aspect of the word. Could this perhaps be addressed? Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous

This term is obsolete and should be termed such.184.145.94.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

what may go away

Calling something "notable" most assuredly does not MAKE it notable. That list of examples is at best trivia. Worse, none of the entries calls out a credible source that would support their being included under the "spinster" banner. It IS NOT the job of other editors to support the fleeting fanboy notions of whover populated the list. Therefore, it can be removed at any time.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think at the very least we could change the section title. At the very least I think it should be made to match with the Bachelor page which calls the list "Men who never married" (I started a section above after I edited improperly last night). Total deletion is preferable, but I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to go about it amicably, and have fairly strong feelings on this subject which I will try to not express harshly. Saver002 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Saver002

As mentioned in my response to Saver002's earlier comment, I believe the list should stay, but should revert to the original title of Women Who Never Married. There is example after example on this page of fictional women who never married; it seems a bit odd NOT to balance those descriptions with a list of actual women who never married. Notability is conferred upon these women by the very fact that they have a Wikipedia article to begin with. I do agree that references supporting the fact that they never married would be useful. ABF99 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spinster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207232242/http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/spinster.html to http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/spinster.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)