Singled Out

[Joan and Terry]

Having just read a review on this book,as a Woman,I feel rather ashamed that I did not realize that so many Women would suffer the way they did because of the Men killed during WW1.To quote one sentence given by a senior Mistress to a group of six form girls,"I have come to tell you a terrible fact Only one out of ten of you girls can ever hope to marry,nearly all the Men who might have married you have been killed" This was said in 1917,so by the end of the madness,one can only guesss what the chances were of getting married.

Joan

[truthergw]

Without in any way wishing to downplay the losses of the Great War, both my Grandfathers lost their lives, I would suggest that the senior Mistress got her maths badly wrong. A look at census figures after the war show her figures to be a gross exageration. For a start, many of the men killed or disabled were already married.

[angelab]

I have just read in "The Week" an article reprinted from the "Mail on Sunday", which is in turn an extract from a book called "Singled Out: How Two Million Women Survived Without Men After the First World War", by Virginia Nicholson.

It describes how a generation of women in Britain were deprived of potential husbands.

One headmistress is quoted as spelling out to her sixth-form girls in 1917 that only 1 in 10 of them was likely to marry, and that the rest would have to struggle to support themselves throughout their lives.

Nicholson says they went into factory work, domestic service, teaching or nursing.

It set me to remembering how the two headmistresses and the many elderly spinster teachers at my school in the 1940s and 50s must have been of exactly this generation. As, too, would have been the succession of genteel ladies who were employed as companions to my great-grandmother. And so would some of the forceful women for whom I worked at the BBC in Birmingham in the early 1960s, who had obviously started as secretaries there during the 1930s and slowly risen to positions of responsibility. My husband's stepmother, too, was of that era. She married my father-in-law (himself a survivor of WWI) when she was 60, after the death of his first wife, but until then she had no doubt thought she was doomed to eternal spinsterhood, too.

Angela

[Greyhound]

The CWGC entries reveal a surprising number of war widows who subsequently remarried.

[avidgenie]

Both sound fascinating. I was just reading a short article about that topic in the Calgary Daily Herald [Alberta, Canada] from the March 27, 1919 issue: Over Million Women No Chance To Marry: Surplus of Marriageable Women Over Men is Estimated in England http://www.ourfutureourpast.ca/newspapr/np...de=n52p0497.jpg .

[sjustice]

'lo Angela,

I read that article, which is actually a review of Nicholson's book (the article is available online HERE).

In Singled Out, Nicholson would appear to be setting out her stall as the 'Lyn MacDonald' of nubile Britain in the post-war years. In her review Spalding notes that, "She [Nicholson] does not browbeat us with statistics and social trends, but instead tells stories about individual lives." I don't know if the figures in the article are the author's or belong to the reviewer, but they should both note that the total British casualties for the First Battle of The Somme were around 420,000 (1st July to 18th November); not deaths, as quoted. Readers wishing to get further inside the numbers and trends should look at Jay Winter's scholarly work on the war's effects on demographics in Britain.

It looks an interesting book and whilst I'm not entirely convinced of the "ground breaking" label, it's definitely on my "wanted" list; even if for nothing else than the fact that I, along with many others, was captured by Lyn MacDonald in the first place.

Thanks for posting

Kind Regards,

SMJ

[Joan and Terry]

Surprised by the replies,I will certainly purchase the book and find out more on the subject,what little information given in the review written in the Sunday Telegraph certainly differs from remarks on the Forum in response to my post.

Joan

[Joan and Terry]

Posted the same story in the Book section of the Forum,the two replies so far seem to call into doubt the figures mentioned,untill I have had time to search the subject in greater depth,will keep an open mind.

Joan

[sjustice]

Hi Joan,

Always best to keep an open mind. However...

In this case the fact is that either the author or the reviewer (or both) are using a number to represent a figure for deaths in the first Somme campaign which is, at the same time, wildly inaccurate and wholly misleading.

Although it could be a typo, my bet is that Ms. Spalding has either misread the statistics or has misunderstood what a casualty is in the nomenclature of war.

I struggle to believe that the author would make this elementary mistake but I'm interested to see if the figure is repeated as such in her text.

Kind Regards,

SMJ

[Joan and Terry]

Hi SMJ,

The review I read was written by Selina Hastings in the Sunday Telegraph,as the reviews seem to be similar in context,could both have been by the same person,as in nom-de plume,also the senior Mistress was talking in 1917,which was the year following the Somme.

As I have already mentioned,I shall purchase the book and make up my own mind,which ever point of view you take,the fact remains a lot of Women suffered,Wives,Mothers,Sisters and those who never had a chance to marry.

Joan

[Guest geoff501]

The CWGC entries reveal a surprising number of war widows who subsequently remarried.

Around 20,000 by my reckoning. However not all have additional info, so the true figure may be up to double that. Also some may have remarried after the final verification was sent out, I suspect these forms took many years to process.

[sjustice]

Hi again Joan,

Agreed, a lot of women suffered.

Also, from the review, I don't think the quote from the headmistress is linked to the erroneous figure for mortality. As I said I do think this figure was most likely used by the reviewer in error, but please let us know when you have the book.

Enjoy

Kind Regards,

SMJ

[Greyhound]

There's a related discussion here.

 

 

Edited 2 October , 2018 by spof

[Sue Light]

I haven't read the book yet either, though I do have it on order via the library, and I suppose it's never wise to make too many comments in ignorance. But I wonder who chose to publicise this book using the '2 million' figure? It refers to the fact that the 1921 census shows that, at that time, there was a surplus of two million women in England and Wales. If this is true [which I haven't seen verified], the number is useless without knowing the age groups of these women. Presumably many of them would be in an age group which was likely to exclude them from marriage anyway - over 40/50/60/70 - however one defines 'too old', and similarly, many could have been too young [16-21?].

As there had been approximately 750,000 British service deaths by August 1921 [many of them married men] this would seem to be the maximum figure that could ever be attributed to the ensuing 'problems' of single women. I hope that when the reviews suggest that Virginia Nicholson doesn't get bogged down with statistics, it doesn't mean that it relies only on emotive first-hand accounts, not backed up by in depth research.

And not to forget - married women were, and still are, just as likely to 'suffer' in life as their single sisters.

Sue

[sjustice]

And not to forget - married women were, and still are, just as likely to 'suffer' in life as their single sisters.

Sue

Amen, Sue.

Interestingly, the publishers of The Daily Mail have deliberately edited my comment on the article to defuse the problem it presents (in terms of misrepresentation of British mortality figures). Instead of using my comment as posted in my first reply here, they have missed out the words, "...not deaths as quoted".

Kind Regards,

SMJ

[Gunner Bailey]

Without in any way wishing to downplay the losses of the Great War, both my Grandfathers lost their lives, I would suggest that the senior Mistress got her maths badly wrong. A look at census figures after the war show her figures to be a gross exageration. For a start, many of the men killed or disabled were already married.

Tom - agree entirely. One man in twelve who went to war was killed. there were still plenty left for the girls back home. The rise in population up to the 1930's confirms that much returned to normal after the war. Sorry about your grandfathers. In my family and that of my wife, all 4 went and all 4 came back alive.

Joan - suggest you read 'Mud Blood and Poppycock' as well. It goes into good detail about the supposed 'lost generation'.

Gunner Bailey

[Joan and Terry]

Gunner Bailey,

Please do not take this the wrong way,I have just read several reviews on Mud Blood and Poppycock,and to be fair,quite a few say that the book is rubbish,these reviews can be found on Amazon.co.uk.Now having not read the book,I cannot pass judgement,just to say,each to his own,why should Mud Blood and Poopycock be more factual than Singled Out-How Two Million Women Survived Without Men.I will now read both books and make up my mind on what to make of the whole issue.

Joan

[truthergw]

As one of those who queried the figure suggested, may I quickly add a comment on the subject of women and the Great War. Married women, especially of the working class, suffered greatly from the very small amount of pension received. There was also a problem convincing the pension boards of entitlement if a man died after the war. Much of the Ex-Servicemens' Associations' work was related to this. Great strides were made during the war in accepting women's equality. This was reflected in the work that was seen as acceptable. Unfortunately. after the war, economic factors caused a downturn in production which was felt worldwide. One of the results. mass unemployment, undermined women's position in the workplace. Rightly or wrongly, it was thought more important for a man to be working rather than a woman if the choice had to be made. There were exceptions in trades such as textiles where women were seen as the accepted workers and men struggled for a job. As well as jobs available, women also saw a drop in income and this was a universal phenomenon. As unemployment reached very high levels and The Depression of the late twenties and thirties bit deeply, widows and single women were very vulnerable and suffered more than most. These world wide economic factors were almost wholly an after effect of the war and its disruption of world trade.

[Gunner Bailey]

Joan

There have been some criticism of it on this forum too. Mainly about small factual inaccuracies, that I think are rather nit-picky. However, Gordon Corrigan presents a large amount of factual, statistical evidence that proves people like the senior mistress in your book as being completely wrong.

In no way do I say 'Singled Out-How Two Million Women Survived Without Men' is all wrong, merely the person you quoted was wrong. I'd have to read it to say more.

MB&C is a good book. It is slightly tabloid in the way it presents facts but I think it is a very valuable contribution and and should be read by more people. It cuts through a lot of myths and predjudice especially regarding the lost generation, courts martial, contribution of the USA etc.

Please don't write it off as rubbish without reading it, and I don't think you will if you do.

Gunner Bailey

[centurion]

re 'the lost generation' - a great example of muddle as the phrase originally referred to those who survived!

The original quote that started it all came from a British author describing a conversation with the proprietor of a French garage, one of whose mechanics was being less than deferential and generally 'bolshie'. The garge owner says to her to the effect 'it is the same with many of those who were in the war, alas he is one of the lost generation'. Lost means lost to decency, morals etc. There was a school of thought at the time that the war had generally corrupted civilization.

Wars can affect subsequent birth rates - statistics show that the population of New Hampshire took neary three generations to recover from their losses in the ACW (the highest in propotion to population of any state in the Union) and the subsequent fall in the birth rate. Some towns in the South were similarly affected (I have seen memorials in Virginia where the dead from the ACW greatly exceeds those from the Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam put together).

I've seen no reliable evidence that a similar effect was experienced in Britain after WW1. The figure quoted of 2 million women forced into spinsterhood implies a loss of a similar number of eligible men and the statistics just do not bear this out.

[PhilB]

Like to hazard a guess as to how many single Britishmen were killed? 300,000? I estimate 5 million women in the eligible age range, so perhaps 1 in 17 or so might not find a husband?

[Guest geoff501]

It refers to the fact that the 1921 census shows that, at that time, there was a surplus of two million women in England and Wales. If this is true [which I haven't seen verified], the number is useless without knowing the age groups of these women.

From Preliminary report, England and Wales 1921 census page xvi :

Might be a bit more difficult to get age distribution data...

[Guest geoff501]

Might be a bit more difficult to get age distribution data...

Get your slide rules out!

marital conditions by sexes in age groups, 1851-1921 England and Wales:

(single, married, widowed)

http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/PageBr...=150&zoom=4

[Joan and Terry]

Have just ordered both books,looking forward to reading the different views the authors have put forward.

Joan

[Sue Light]

Geoff - thanks for that - great figures.

And my first, very quick impression is that in the three most 'eligible' age categories of the 1921 census, i.e. 20-24, 25-34 and 35-44, only the last shows a surplus of single women over single men. In the first two the figure for single men is higher, and considerably so for the 20-24s, which would appear to disprove completely the schoolmistress' dire warning about the fate of her girls born circa 1900.

After the age of 44 the figures seem to show a constant surplus of single women, but as the age goes up, it would seem less likely that their single status was as a result of the war.

Any different views of Geoff's figures?

Sue