Virginia Nicholson: Singled Out: How Two Million Women Survived without Men After the First World War

Most Reviews | Big Lies site

Review of WW1 Virginia Nicholson: Singled Out: How Two Million Women Survived without Men After the First World War

Fantastic confusion—ideas, sources, overviews are all over the place, 22 Sep 2010
Published in 2007. Subtitled 'How Two Million Women Survived Without Men after the First World War' (author's capitals). My first puzzle was numerical: about 700,000 dead British soldiers, and 1.5 million or so wounded—but how seriously? 'Two million women' might be an exaggeration. I don't think the author is strong on statistical surveys: she implies, but doesn't show, that the headmistresses' warnings that only one in ten of her girls (in paid schools) could expect to marry seem to be based on selective class death-rates. It's very clear that Nicholson prefers impressionistic bits and pieces to reliable overviews. Let me try a sensible crit: -

[1] The sources are an odd mixture of novels, published non-fiction including biographies and autobiographies, and unpublished material, mostly I think memoirs. There's a long list of acknowledgements, which appear to be not reflected in the book itself; I'm reminded of American mass market books with a huge list of credited assistants, who on average must have done almost nothing.

[2] The chapter headings are gnomically baffling. For example, chapter 5 is entitled 'Caring, Sharing...'—surely 1970s phrasing rather than 1920s. Its contents include (my list, not taken from the book): Loneliness, as reflected in novels and modern non-fiction works and biographical works; Companions—i.e. women inseparable after the War; Sisters—including two who struck lucky with radio showbiz, and three Dillons, one of whom refurbished Dillons bookshop; Mothers and daughters; single women resigned to being unmarried; Nannies—including some comments from Gasthorne-Hardy's book; Pets, as exemplified by Elizabeth Gould's huge lifetime totality—Gould also had a companion; and commentary on lesbians.

[3] I'll try to further convey the odd disconnected ramblingness of 'Singled Out' by listing the material starting chapter 5: (i) Bertrand Russell quoted on love; (ii) a quotation from 'The Single Woman and Her Emotional Problems' (1935 book); (iii) the regrets of May Wedderburn Cannan, whose fiancé died; (iv) 'Oxford scholar Enid Starkie' who never found a permanent relationship; (v) a novel by Winifred Holtby—Virginia Nicholson treats novels as evidentially on the same level as all the other sources; (vi) accounts of the lives of Norah Elliott, Ethel Wragg, both teachers; (vii) Harriet Warrack, a lab worker....

[4] Some authors impressed Virginia Nicholson more than others: Winifred Holtby appears passim throughout the book. Poor Ludovici, who wrote both on women and men, is represented only by one short book, despite his defence of women—he thought women were evolved to seek to produce new life. On the other hand, as might be expected 'The Well of Loneliness' and Marie Stopes figure fairly prominently. There are some illustrations, from Punch and women's magazines and the like, which at first sight seem interesting, but in fact turn out to be rather commonplace and unilluminating.

Let me try to summarise Nicholson's attitude:-
*** She doesn't come to any sort of consistent conclusion. Some women's attitude to male deaths was purely selfish: Barbara Cartland said (in effect) it was a tremendously exciting time, because all these men thought they would die, so they wanted to seduce you. Real excitement, eh! One glaring omission—once you notice it—is that women's supposed expansion into what were men's roles does not include anything military. Let the males die! Equality here is entirely undesired!
*** Her accounts of women's post-war achievements are two types: very extreme and atypical—Rani Cartright 'celebrated catwalk model' who was half what's now called Thai; a woman stock exchange manager; a 'courtesan' who had 'thousands of boyfriends' and never paid for anything; the Dillon woman. The others are, as might be expected, teachers and nurses. And some domestic workers. Nicholson hasn't made much effort to unearth plebeian stories.
*** Another aspect of female achievement, which is of course infinitely depressing, is the lack of any female progress in anything needing a lot of thought. (Rowbotham's 'Century of Women' and Robinson's 'Bluestockings' fail to make the same point—see my witty reviews of them, and the large number of 'unhelpful' votes they attracted!) This lack of progress applies to all the big issues, notably the avoidance of war, but also money and industry. For instance, if it's damaging for men to make money, why would it be good that a female stock exchange manager should emerge? Nicholson doesn't even begin to consider this point.
*** I think it's fair to say that Nicholson admires, or envies, or thinks it's better, to have some forms of activity, which for want of a better word I'll call exciting or stimulating. Some of the bohemian activities for women mentioned are smoking pipes, dancing to jazz music, wearing bright clothes. I'm not sure millions of deaths world-wide were justified by the the thrills offered by such things! Nicholson doesn't put much stress on sex and affairs; she states at one point that affection between women exceeds anything possible between a man and a woman.
*** Nicholson simply cannot decide whether marriage is desirable or not. If survival without men was so admirable, why not recommend man-reduced living? If not, why despise women who were desperate to marry? Her whole book veers one way or the other, depending on the accidental situation of the woman she happens to be writing about. Incidentally there are extracts from a lonely hearts magazine of the time, and its advice to readers, which read remarkably like Internet dating sites now apart from the disabled men aspect.
*** Another huge gap is the population and eugenics issue; Nicholson's frivolity is a bit alarming. She doesn't seem to be aware of the 'race suicide' alarms. Ludovico thought single women should have children; I don't think this possibility is considered by Nicholson. She is also weak on the legal aspects—some things must have been perfectly legal, and yet conventionally frowned on.

A very unsatisfactory book. I'm teetering between one and two stars—I think I'll pick two since there's some evidence of effort.