Bachelor life in Pittsburgh can be tough. Unmarried men were once considered poor citizens, wedded to wickedness and vice. Years ago, some folks suggested a “bachelor tax.” Such a levy would coerce a few of those nightclubbing men to get on their knees and pop the question.
It made sense to a man named Mr. Hennessey. “Why shouldn’t there be a bachelor tax?” he asked in a 1907 Pittsburgh Press article. “There’s one on dogs.”
Unmarried Mr. Dooley took offense.
“I suppose ye expect next year to see me trottin’ around with a leather collar an’ a brass tag on me neck,” he said.
Mr. Dooley was part of a fraternity of “comely bachelors” and considered himself quite a catch.
“Bein’ very beautiful, we can afford to be haughty and peevish,” he said. “It makes us more interestin’.”
Using a tax to bully men into marriage was a terrible idea, said a Pittsburgh Press writer in 1921. Any man who could be driven to matrimony by such a tax “would lack the nerve and stamina necessary to make him a successful husband …”
The wife of such a man, the writer continued, would certainly be annoyed that her husband’s motivation for matrimony was not love and romance but an overwhelming desire to avoid paying a $5 tax bill. Forget about diamonds and pearls.
In 1902, a bachelor named Frank Harper expressed his frustration with women who continually asked him why he wasn’t married. He suggested this reply:
“Madam, that query can be best answered by your own sex.”
But Mr. Harper would never say such a thing. Bachelors, he said, are gentlemen.
Identifying unmarried men in a crowd was an issue addressed in a 1912 Pittsburgh Press story. One suggestion: Give bachelors special pins identifying them as unwed. Maybe it should be a law.
That wasn’t good enough for Mary Coleman. “The distinguishing mark I’d suggest is a black necktie,” she said. “They [bachelors] should be in perpetual mourning because they are so foolish as to stay unmarried and deprive themselves of the comforts of a wife and home.”
Of course, as the decades passed, we as citizens became more enlightened and tolerant of men who chose to remain free of a wife and family. Or not. Pittsburgh Press reporter Barbara Cloud was told by one bachelor in 1961 that when he tells his old high school girlfriends that he’s not married, “they give me the evil eye.”
Bachelorhood does have advantages, though. “No anniversaries to remember, no special time to be home for dinner, weekends free to go fishing, a ski trip, just being lazy,” Ms. Cloud wrote. “It’s great.”
The Press decided in 1938 to devote a special spread to advising bachelors in a story headlined, “How to Live Without a Woman.” Men struggling with unfulfilled paternal instincts should get a few cats, the piece suggested. “The most obstinate cases can be cured by visiting a few homes where there are children.”
We think he was kidding.
Thirty years later, the Press returned to the topic of bachelorhood. Most unmarried men want to get hitched, the 1968 article said. They’re just having a hard time because, darn it, the pursuit of success takes so much time.
“Something that girls should know,” mansplained one bachelor who was irritated that women placed so much value on scheduling. “You get pretty tired of planning your life two weeks ahead. You need a girl that you can call to go out for a beer in an hour. How do I know that I’ll want to talk over a beer to some girl two weeks from now?”
This guy spent his Saturday nights with the Marching Chowder Club, a group that took turns eating in each other’s homes. Why couldn’t he get a date? We have no idea.
— Steve Mellon
enjoyed the photos of the golden triangle, the North Side shows the old Kaufmann’s and Jos Hornes Warehouses also, Shore Ave that runs into Gen. Robinson St.
You really wonder why men aren’t marrying?
Just had to say. For the last ten years I have held the attributes of those who have forsaken relationships with the vile, nagging, gynocentric, raging harpy that has become the western woman. And I am equally elusive of the gold diggers outside of the west. I have never concealed my intense dislike for this devolved creature, the “woman” and my willingness and want for nothing more than for her to be gone by sunrise. Especially since I have gained currency by disregarding her over the years to the point where I have accumulated real wealth. I am sure there are exceptions to the rule in the less than fair sex. And I am equally sure I will not chance on finding that small minority.
Only in the last year have I trolled the internet to see if perhaps others felt as I. By pure accident I fell into Sandman, Angry MGTOW and of course our favorite Aussie from MGTOW 101. I had never heard the term MGTOW and had no reason to convert as I had already witnessed “the light” of being completely non envious of my divorced friends or hopelessly wrecked friends who had long lost their files to cut through the bars of their self constructed prisons. I had been told in the past that the reason for my discontent was my rough childhood with my matriarch and aunts. To which I answer: 1) I have no discontent and am thoroughly delighted in my freedom 2) thank God for my rough childhood as I now have the cynical self defense skills to never fall into the vagina trap of miserable matrimony.
Alas though I have a name–finally. I do not hide in the shadows.
Right on Charles.
All they can do is shame us, that’s it. Just like frightened little schoolchildren calling names on the school ground, near the teacher and a safe distance away. That’s all they have.
MGTOW Forever.
For decades we have had to endure the constant yammering of “men are this and men are that” and everything else under the sun that’s negative, and then they have the gall to act surprised when men decide to push back? Women get to proudly proclaim “I don’t need no man” to great cheers but men who want to remain single and free get view with scorn? And there are some who want to go back to taxing them? And they still push this crap that “men are privileged”.