Single women in Italy on the rise: why? Because they can

Social and political interventions have allowed millions of girls to choose when, with whom but above all whether to get married but the cultural impact of feminist texts and also of narratives on empowerment kindly provided to us by the more pop media should not be underestimated. So thank you, Samantha Jones

I can buy myself flowers

Never have so many women been single, as a percentage: says a report on the population of the United States that has been around all the newspapers with a lot of political elaboration on the subject (single women & work, single women & children, etc.).
Most women in the United States – the 52% – until 2021 they were not married or civilly united.
And unless millions of people got married in the last year and a half, the percentage will be about the same.

And in Italy? mashed potato. Istat says it, our country is full of singles and there are drama queen who think and write that we are living a “family crisis” because the number of singles is even exceeding that of households (if singles were allowed to adopt it would not be so, if all families were recognized it would not be so).
And again according to Istat, generations have nothing to do with it, in short, for once it’s not the fault of the millennials: even people over 65 prefer to stay and live alone. One out of two, across generations.
And indeed: precisely among the over 70s there are more women who choose to be alone, more than one out of two against just over one in 5 men.
Nb: reports on intimate relationships of the population are made on the basis of some specific criteria, in this sense for “single” means people who have not entered into a marriage or civil union or who live alone or in any case not with their partner.

Single because it is no longer mandatory to get married

Singleness therefore grows to reach 7 million people, which would be just under 14% of the Italian population: the 2022 annual report is precisely what certifies in Italy singles (33.2%) outnumber couples with children (31.2%).
But why are so many people single? Because they can.
Interventions of a social and political nature such as facilitating entry into the job marketcontraceptives, access to levels of high school education and the abolition of the system whereby the fathers chose when and with whom to get married their daughters have allowed millions of girls to choose when, with whom but above all whether to get married.
And even though for many, many years, women who chose not to marry were still viewed with an eye to plunge into unhappy unions – and to stay there – because then the people who have to thinknot today.

A family law particularly fond of the discriminatory policies of the Fascist period, it was hard to change but it was done.
A culture particularly fond of maternity as “the only space in which a woman can be satisfied”, together with the domestic one it is hard – it still is – to unhinge: but in the end perhaps many of us managed to make peace with your nature.
Of course, in some contexts there are still many people who distort the nose in front of a single woman: who is not behind the times at best thinks poor thing, she’s alone and at worst who knows.
Luckily we’re not in his head.

Furthermore, the cultural impact of feminist texts should not be underestimated but also, perhaps to a greater extent of empowerment narratives kindly provided to us by the most pop media.
Movies, books, tv series, music videos have normalized The single woman character.
Not without leaving behind injured on the field between parents who screamed “what are you looking at? Turn off!” or the sanctimonious friend of the moment who said “it is impossible to be happy without a husband / partner”.
And with all due respect to all those who still think so, if today Miley Cyrus she teaches the very young by singing I can buy myself flowers it’s because she too grew up under the wing of Samantha Jones.

And just like Samantha Jones

Along with the other three protagonists of Sex and the citySamantha (Kim Cattral) was part of a cultural phenomenon, one of the very first products that focused on sex, emancipation, relationships, work, discrimination, consent – well in advance – even money and class struggles, from a gender perspective.
The show has normalized women’s real issues and although looking at it today it may seem dusty and also triggering for how it deals with some topics (it was the nineties, be merciful) it was really revolutionary.

Reviewing it today, however, we realize how much Samantha was the real protagonist and Carrie an excellent shoulder as well as an excellent narrator: she’s more of a feminist icon than Carrie and there are more than enough scenes and plots dedicated to her in all one hundred seasons of Sex and the City which prove that Samantha didn’t need men. Nor of other protagonists perhaps.
She vigorously supported her willingness to stay single even with her friends, when she said that the perfect man is just a myth and they have to stop waiting for it and start living their lives.
Samantha has taught several generations of women about self-love, not to feel guilty for prioritizing herself and her needs or for taking decisions that society discourages(it goes).
Yes, Samantha is known to be one sexually independent woman: but it’s not about “going to bed” with freedom, it’s about not being influenced by scowl of neighbors to lead a lifestyle that doesn’t hurt anyone. On the contrary.
While casual sex was already covered in many other TV series, it was always a male character who enjoyed the benefits, up to Samantha Jones.
Samanta Jones was able to embrace her sexuality, (even fell in love a few times huh) and have fun throughout the series and today are many the female characters that wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for her.
Which raises another question: who thinks new seasons of Sex and the city, and just like that without her are not the same thing raise your hand.

Don’t panic, we won’t go extinct

Videos of Jessica Genco


advice, news, curiosities and much more!

Falling in love is extraordinarybut it’s perfectly fine not to be in a relationship.
For starters i singles have more time for themselves, to devote himself totally to building the life of his dreams, embark on ever new adventures without asking the partner if he agrees, travel, move to another city for career opportunities.
People who are in a committed relationship tend to stop doing things independently and have less time to focus on personal development and growth, cultivate your own values without the influence of the partner.
You can be who you want to be, do you want to go to a boozy brunch with friends? Nobody is stopping you. Want to take a year off to travel the world? You don’t have to ask anyone’s permission.
It doesn’t mean not having relationships: focusing so much on keeping the flame alive with your partner often means sacrificing other interpersonal relationships.
We all have that friend with one Serious relationship that has disappeared from the face of the earth.
And it’s not even his fault, he just forgot that the girlfriends and single friends are the social glue that holds everything together.

Finally: no, we will not go extinct on this wave of autonomy. The drop in the birth rate is rising, fewer children are born in some parts of the world but not zero children.
Especially in the most fragile contexts and in the less advanced areas of the world, birth rates are very high.
So no, human civilization is not in danger because of women who are not satisfied of the first idiot who asks them out.

Eugenie Nicolosi

She is a journalist, writer and feminist and LGBTQIA+ activist. She is a member of and works with several associations and organizations that promote gender equality and the equality of…

Source link

Leave a Comment