Singles in Govt. Fight 'Spinster' Label

Dec. 4, 2008— -- When Gov. Ed Rendell said Homeland Security nominee Janet Napolitano was perfect for the demanding job because she "had no life," he was accused of sexism as well as a relatively new offense -- "singlism."

Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, started the mini-firestorm by commenting on the nomination of the unmarried Napolitano, unaware that a nearby microphone was turned on.

"Janet's perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it," Rendell was heard saying about President-elect Barack Obama's pick to head the Department of Homeland Security.

Soon after video of Rendell making the comment hit the Internet, bloggers pounced, reading into his words not just a sexist subtext but, as psychologist Bella DePaulo put it, a smattering of "singlism."

"The interesting thing about 'singlism' is that it is often the most achieving women who get the most put down," said DePaulo, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara and author of "Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After."

CNN commentator Campbell Brown Wednesday suggested Rendell's comments were sexist and said they "perpetuate stereotypes that put [women] in boxes."

Feeling the heat, Rendell tried to step back away from his comments, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer Wednesday: "What I meant is that Janet is a person who works 24/7, just like I do. She has no life. Neither do I."

But that comment only dug the hole deeper, said Kathleen Jamieson, professor of political communication and director of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Just because someone is single doesn't mean they don't have a life outside of work," said Jamieson. "If his assumption is that someone with a family wouldn't be good at the job, then that's a problem too.

"There is no way to parse his sentence that makes it in any way intelligible. He is either making assumptions about women and child-rearing that are obsolete, or he is somehow suggesting the opposite. Is he somehow less effective because he has raised a family?"