Happy Thanksgiving: Singletude Gives Thanks for Readers and Progress

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! You know what I'm thankful for today? Singletude readers! You've doubled since this time last year, and I'm so thankful to all of you who stop by, whether for just one post of interest or to keep up with the latest twice a week. I'm especially grateful to those of you who add your voices to the discussion, commenting on the posts and sharing your own opinions and experiences. In the coming year, I hope more of you who follow Singletude will join in the conversation. This year, I'd like to show my appreciation by giving back to you!

First of all, I'd like to know what you like about Singletude and what you want to see more of so it can better meet your needs and interests. There's a poll today, so please take a minute to give your feedback, and if you have any ideas that don't fit neatly into multiple choice answers, feel free to leave a comment below.

Second, the next Singletude Giveaway Contest will be announced the day after Thanksgiving and will run throughout the holiday season. I'm excited to have another opportunity to reward the amazing readers who have stuck by this blog and grown with it for almost two years now, even if I can only do that in a small way.

And now, in the spirit of the holiday, I want to list five advances for singles that I'm thankful for this year:


1. The Affordable Health Care for America Act
One of the most glaring disparities between singles and marrieds is their access to health care. Under our current system, a married employee can give his or her insurance benefits to a spouse, but singles have no recourse if they are unemployed, self-employed, or work for businesses that don't provide insurance. Therefore, singles are more likely to be uninsured than married couples are. The Affordable Health Care for America Act, though not as ideal as a single-payer plan, provides for an insurance exchange that includes a public option, which would eliminate dependence on employer-based coverage, helping to level the playing field between the married and the unmarried. The bill has already been passed in the House and is waiting for Senate approval. Please tell your senator to vote yes!

2. The Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act in Colorado
In April of 2009, Colorado led the way toward a more equitable legal system that values all relationships, not just marital ones. The Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act allows any two unmarried adults, regardless of relationship, to enter into a contract by which they're given many of the same privileges that most states currently reserve for married couples. These include the rights to joint acquisition of property; guardianship or conservatorship; estate and benefit inheritance; and medical proxy, hospital visitation, wrongful death suit, and disposition of remains. To read a full list of entitlements granted by the Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, see this document.

3. The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act in Washington, DC
This is primarily thought of as a bill to protect LGBT domestic partnerships. However, what singles of any sexual orientation should know is that it also protects unmarried people who want to establish legally recognized nonsexual relationships. According to the DC City Council Committee on Public Safety, "As domestic partnerships apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, as well as to non-sexual relationships, the Committee believes that preserving the right to register is necessary." In fact, the controversy over gay marriage has had the unintended side effect of calling attention to the myriad ways in which our legal system is rigged against singles. Books like Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law by Nancy D. Polikoff have capitalized on that and stirred public interest and discussion. The bill is up for a final vote in December.

4. National Unmarried and Single Americans Week
Since the 1980s, it rolls around every September, but it's only in the last few years or so that anyone has really paid attention. It's still not as widely covered as it could be, and much of the coverage it does get is devoted to analyzing the "problem" of singleness rather than normalizing it. However, a week set aside to observe the role of singles in society is much better than no week at all. Plus, it seems to have been the gateway to more positive celebrations in other countries, such as China, which started Singles Day in the '90s, and Sweden, which has Singelfest.

5. The National Singles Association (NSA)
The National Singles Association (NSA) is the only membership-based organization for single adults to offer group-rate health and life insurance. It also guarantees discounts for members at participating airlines, retail stores, restaurants, professional services, and more. There are lots of clubs and online communities for singles and even some advocacy groups, but this is the first one to function like a union in negotiating deals with powerful corporations on behalf of singles.


There have been other encouraging signs that matrimania is beginning to crumble; these are just a few standouts. We still have a long way to go before we can say that singlism has been dismantled and that singles and marrieds are truly equal, not just in the eyes of the law but in the eyes of our families, friends, and neighbors. But, little by little, as the ranks of the unmarried swell and more people count singles among their inner circle or--surprise--discover that they're single themselves, awareness is growing that the nuclear family model of yesteryear not only doesn't apply to much of the population but actually disenfranchises it. That's prompting indignation, which, in turn, spurs change. I'm thankful for the changes we've seen so far and for the changes yet to come.


What advances have singles made that you're thankful for?


Fun Link of the Day




Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have an unpublished rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"! Singletude makes every effort to republish submissions in their original form but reserves the right to edit your submission for length and clarity.

I Love You, Man: A Singletude Review

It's official! I have a crush! Since it arrived from Netflix, I've been in deep like with I Love You, Man. The bromance of the century is as spit-out-your-Sprite funny as the likes of Wedding Crashers and Knocked Up, but the themes it addresses through dialogue so achingly real it feels like a hammer to the funny bone elevate this flick several cuts above. So why am I still withholding affection? Because while the movie skewers matrimania, it still demonizes singles.

Meet Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd), a straight-laced, dependable, ambitious yet sensitive real estate agent in touch with his feminine side. Now meet Zooey Rice (Rashida Jones), sweet, attractive, easygoing co-owner of a retail boutique. The two live in a beautiful house in the suburbs of LA, and Peter has just proposed. They have it all, which usually signals the end of the movie. Not in this case.

See, Peter is missing something--friends. Oh, he has co-workers and acquaintances, even fencing buddies, but no one close enough to stand up for him at his wedding. After he overhears Zooey's BFFs critiquing his social skills, he has an epiphany: "I gotta get some f****** friends!" he vows. From that point on, he becomes a man on a mission to cleverly exploit every parallel to contemporary dating cliches. In the process, he endures misguided "set-ups" (one of which includes possibly the best projectile vomiting scene in cinematic history), discovers that men online lie about their age, and agonizes over how soon to call for that first "man date." The expected hilarity ensues, not just because Peter isn't actually romancing these guys but because it hits home that much of the same hope, anxiety, frustration, and excitement that we associate with dating applies to courting a new friend, as well.

Now enter Sydney Fife (Jason Segel), a womanizing, Cheeto-munching, bar-brawling, air guitar-riffing man's man. Here the movie takes a detour to Fight Club Lite as Sydney bonds with Peter, teaching him to speak Guy (a language he flubs often and spectacularly), obey the rules of the brotherhood, and grow a pair. It's all good, and Peter is feeling the brotherly love until his fiancee fears that their relationship is threatening to become a menage a trois.

Because this is, after all, a Hollywood comedy, alter egos Peter and Sydney must each know something the other needs to learn in order to grow and change. Peter, obviously, needs friends. Director John Hamburg has decided that Sydney needs a girlfriend. Or maybe not a girlfriend yet--mercifully, the set-up that Peter and Zooey force on him doesn't work out--but the maturity and interpersonal skills necessary to land one. Therein lies the reason for my love-hate relationship with I Love You, Man.

What the movie does right is present a positive model for a balanced relationship that is not overly couplecentric. Peter and Zooey love each other and enjoy spending time together, but, by the end, they also have fulfilling lives apart with their own friends and career interests. The message that marital partners can't be each other's "everything," that they need platonic friends outside the relationship, is so enlightened and exceptional in the entertainment world that singles with singletude can't help but fall hard for this film.

On the other hand, as much fun and heart as Sydney brings to this story, he's still a caricature of the aging bachelor who refuses to grow up while all his friends are settling down. In one troubling scene, he phones everyone he knows to make weekend plans but is rejected by one after the other. Turns out his friends have wives and children who top their priority lists. Ok, Mr. Hamburg, we get it. When push comes to shove, family trumps friends. Fine. But then you pull out the heavyweights, the three Bs, and leave Sydney looking bummed, bored, and bereft. This is a guy who supposedly has a successful investment business, a collection of high-end guitars he rocks out on, a dog he's devoted to, and friends he hangs with a few times a week. Yet the one day everyone is busy, he's presented as a pathetic no-life who can't find a way to amuse himself on his own. Then there's Zooey's token single friend, who is, of course, a whiny, desperate Plain Jane (the cool, sexy one is married) and a mini-lesson toward the end about respecting the privacy of interactions within the sanctum of the relationship. These elements combine to proclaim a message that matrimaniacs are losers, but singles are losers, too, that to strike a successful balance, one should find a happy, healthy relationship or at least accept that relationships make the world go round. I'm down with the first half of that thesis but not the second.

In fantasyland, Sydney teaches Peter what he needs to learn without ever succumbing to the vices of stereotypical bachelorhood. But then there wouldn't be a conflict, and as all wannabe screenwriters know, a script without conflict is like a platinum wedding without a bridezilla. Or something. Anyway, it doesn't sell. Though I can't commit my whole heart to I Love You, Man, as the only movie in recent memory to call out matrimaniacs and lampoon intensive coupling, it still has me pretty infatuated.




How important do you think it is for a couple to maintain separate friendships outside their relationship? What can couples do to balance time together and time apart? How do you think bachelors are usually portrayed in Hollywood? Is the Hollywood version of the bachelor at all representative of the single men you know? If you've seen I Love You, Man, what are your thoughts on the movie? Do you think it has a positive or a negative message about singles in general and single men in particular? What does it say to you about matrimania/intensive coupling/enmeshed or codependent relationships? By the end of the movie, do you think Peter and Zooey provide a healthy model for couples or not? Can you recommend any other movies that tackle matrimania?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have an unpublished rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"! Singletude makes every effort to republish submissions in their original form but reserves the right to edit your submission for length and clarity.

Single-payer Health Care Works Best for Singles...and Everyone Else

Today, Singletude was going to feature a review of Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza by Cherie Burbach, part of the gift basket giveaway contest ongoing till Sept. 28, 2009. However, with Congress in recess and the fate of the American health care system still up in the air, I feel compelled to address how our current options will affect the single population.

Unless you've been living in a cave and eating grubs with Geico actors, you know that President Obama has introduced health care legislation that would allow the private insurance industry to coexist alongside a so-called public option, which may amount to nothing more than a private co-op that could claim non-profit status but still behave like a for-profit company. (Don't believe me? Kaiser Permanente and a number of Blue Cross Blue Shield franchises are registered not-for-profits.) The proposal might accomplish a number of admirable things. It might make preexisting condition exclusions a thing of the past, forbid companies from dropping policyholders, cap rate hikes and out-of-pocket payments, eliminate gender-based discrimination, and insure single young adults for longer. It might provide a more affordable plan that would be subsidized for those earning up to 400% above the poverty line. But for all the good it promises, this "reform" is just as likely to make a bad situation worse. Especially for singles and, in particular, single women.

Singles are more likely to be uninsured than married couples are, and 49% of single women have no insurance. It's not a coincidence that single adults are also, on average, worse off financially than their married counterparts. Many if not most of these singles simply can't afford health coverage. Yet a main component of the health care reform under discussion would be an individual mandate to obtain insurance.

Although the aforementioned subsidies would help, they would phase out for singles making a little over $40,000 a year. In some areas of the country, a salary of $40k is just scraping by. Certainly in New York, an individual wouldn't even qualify for a studio on that income. What makes the government think that people in that position can afford to pay several thousand dollars a year toward health care? Some may argue that no one needs to live in a metropolitan region, but that's where the jobs are.

Switching gears to the lower end of the income spectrum, unless the government subsidy represents the full cost of the premium, how will people who already can't pay their bills bear the burden of yet another monthly charge? Some low-income adults, especially young, healthy singles, forgo insurance because it's a financial burden that doesn't pay off for them. They can save more money by paying out-of-pocket the few times a year that they need care. An individual mandate would force them to pay full price for a product they underuse. But, as we'll see, the suggested mandate is the least of our possible woes under this new system.

The reason universal health care works in other industrialized nations is because they have single-payer systems. That means there aren't any competing, profit-driven insurance companies, just one organization that covers health care expenses in each country. The people of these nations pay a tax for this, but they don't have to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays. Ever. There is no annual maximum on their benefits, after which they'd have to go into debt to pay out-of-pocket. They never have to get pre-approvals, authorizations, or referrals before they can receive the care they need. They don't have to worry that the best physician in town might be out of network. They're not kicked out of their hospital beds the day after surgery or told they can only have 10 treatment sessions, so they'd better hurry up and get well. Perhaps best of all, their health care decisions are made by their doctors, not some overpaid bureaucrats in an office far away. Good single-payer systems put the decision-making power in the doctors' hands because they're public services and, as such, are beholden to taxpayers, not Wall Street investors. To keep costs down, they reward doctors for improving preventive care rather than rewarding faceless managers for denying it. Sounds like utopia, doesn't it?

Single-payer health care works because it creates one enormous risk pool. The bigger the risk pool, the less any individual has to pay. It also works because it eliminates the tremendous expenses incurred by for-profit insurance providers and the medical personnel who have to deal with them, both of whom pass on these expenses to consumers. In other Western countries, the pharmaceutical industry is regulated, too, which prevents price gouging. That's why Americans can get such good deals on drugs from international pharmacies.

Unfortunately, Obama's health plan will do none of these things. It will just add another insurance option to the mix. He's betting that this lower-cost option will force private companies to reduce their premiums. A more likely and frightening outcome is that anyone who can't afford private insurance because they're high-risk (the poor, the unemployed, the unhealthy, and the elderly) will flock to the public option, which will go bankrupt before you can say "bailout." Meanwhile, the insurance industry and big pharma will keep on keepin' on, finding ways to circumvent the law and deny consumers coverage because these are businesses. They run on a business model. That means they can't make a profit unless they take in more consumer dollars than they pay out. That's why 77.9% of bankruptcies due to medical expenses are filed by insured Americans. For-profit insurance is an illusion of protection at best.

In 2000, the last year that the World Health Organization ranked the world's health care, the U.S. health system placed 37th, scoring behind countries like Andorra, Oman, Iceland, Colombia, and Morocco. Isn't that embarrassing? Meanwhile, the rest of Western Europe outlives us and loses fewer infants at birth. It's not because they drink wine with dinner, either. It's because they have access to free health care for everyone. Contrary to what fear mongers would have you believe, single-payer health care wouldn't mean extending the clunky Medicare program to everyone. It would mean totally revamping what we now call Medicare and remodeling it based on proven programs in other progressive countries. Yes, the government would have a hand in it. Just like it does education, law enforcement, the postal service, public transportation, and other services which--fancy that--work pretty well.

At this sensitive moment in time, we singles, both insured and uninsured, have a precious chance to speak up for health care for ourselves and everyone else. That's a big part of what we elected Obama for. Let's not sit by and watch a few greedy, self-centered politicians ruin it for the rest of us! When the House reconvenes, our representatives will finally be voting on H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, which would create a single-payer health care system for all Americans. A health care system that doesn't discriminate based on marital status! No longer would any of us have to feel pressured to get married or stay married for access to medical care. No longer would our salaries subsidize the health benefits of married employees. What a monumental breakthrough a single-payer system would be, not even just for health care but as a precedent for dismantling legalized discrimination against singles!

Here's what you can do to spread the word about H.R. 676:
--Call and/or write to your representative.
--Write to President Obama.
--Write a letter to the editor of your local paper.
--Distribute flyers at a busy place in your town.
--Canvas door to door or on the phone.
--Write about it on your blog or web site.
--Leave comments about it on political web sites and blogs.
--Talk to your friends and family about it.
--Sign petitions.

To find out more about H.R. 676, including what you can do to help raise awareness about single-payer health care, check out these links:

Change.org: Free Single Payer Health Care
Dennis Kucinich: Universal Health Care
HR676.org
HR676.org Blog
Healthcare-NOW!
John Conyers, Jr.: Healthcare
SiCKO: What can I do?
PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program)
Unions for Single Payer Health Care


What kind of health care system would you like to see the U.S. adopt? Why? How do you think the system you prefer would benefit singles?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

"Marry Well for Better Health" by Dr. Christopher Lillis: A Singletude Response

Those of you who perused last Sunday's edition of "Singles in the News" may remember the article "Marry Well for Better Health" by Dr. Christopher Lillis, which sent me into spasms of singlist-inspired horror. To quote from the Singletude summary:

Written by a doctor who is a self-described "very biased" newlywed (and takes pride in his prejudice, too), it trots out unidentified research studies to "confidently make this claim. Married men survive longer and live healthier lives than their single or divorced counterparts." Although the author admits those results were contingent on how happy the marriage was and cautions single men not to grab the nearest woman and drag her to the altar, he'd still rather advance his pet theory about the miracle drug of marriage than present hard evidence.

So, Dr. Lillis tosses out a few health measures on which married people score well while failing to mention the measures on which singles score better. (Oh, sorry. He mentions one such measure--obesity--but dismisses it since he's sure his new bride will nag him to lose weight. Let's catch up with him in 10 years and see how that's working out, shall we?)

He also neglects to inform his impressionable readers that, in many cases, the differences that do exist between marrieds and singles who have never married are marginal. If anything, he exaggerates the differences by lumping in people who have always been single with those who are divorced or widowed, two groups that sometimes do show a marked difference on health measures as compared to marrieds. (Singletude's information, by the way, comes from the CDC study "Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2000" by Charlotte A. Schoenborn and "Is There Something Unique About Marriage? The Relative Impact of Marital Status, Relationship Quality, and Network Social Support on Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Mental Health" by Julianne Holt-Lunstad, et al., discredited here by Dr. Bella DePaulo. Lillis doesn't say where his comes from.)

Even worse, Lillis takes some of these correlations and makes causal statements about them, asserting that married couples are "healthier" because they have a sense of responsibility to each other or because "getting married reduces depressive symptoms." The fact is we have no way to measure whether marriage causes any of these minor health differences or, if it does, how or why. If studies of singles and marrieds do show significant differences in, say, risk taking, perhaps that's because single people tend to be younger, and youth is associated with risky behavior. If singles do have slightly higher resting blood pressure than marrieds, maybe that's not because they're alone in their beds but because they worry more about things like health care or social security, which are more accessible to married couples.

No matter what, we can't talk about what marriage causes or doesn't cause because marriage is not a variable you can manipulate like an electric shock to get an experimental result (though some would say divorce gave them quite a jolt). See, marital status is similar to traits like age, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation in that the researcher can't change them. In order for a researcher to claim that something causes an effect, he or she has to be able to add or remove it at will to demonstrate that it was solely responsible for the outcome of the experiment.

To use a nonsense example, if a researcher wants to prove that everlasting gobstoppers turn kids blue, then she has to take two groups of kids that have never eaten everlasting gobstoppers and make sure that one group eats them and the other doesn't. In addition, she has to make sure that there are no other dietary, environmental, genetic, or medical differences between the two groups that might explain why some kids look like they fell in a blueberry bush. If, after determining that there are no differences between the groups except that one is getting gobstoppers, the researcher finds that the kids who eat gobstoppers turn blue, then she can tentatively state that gobstoppers may cause kids to turn blue. Why tentatively? Because, as careful as she was, maybe there was some other difference between the groups that she missed. That's why studies are repeated over and over again for confirmation and why most scientists are very, very careful when they talk about causation.

However, let's say the researcher is faced with two groups of kids, one that's already blue and one that's not. She wonders why some kids are blue, and she asks all the kids a bunch of questions and notices that the blue kids all used to eat gobstoppers. Well, that's interesting, and the researcher can say that she found a relationship or correlation between gobstoppers and blue kids, but she can't know with any certainty that the gobstoppers caused the kids to turn blue. Maybe the kids who turned blue were also eating snozberries, and maybe it was actually the snozberries that did the damage. Or maybe the kids who turned blue were suffering from a rare, unknown sugar deficiency that affects skin tone, so they craved lots of sweet gobstoppers.

Saying that marriage causes anything is like saying that kids who are already blue definitely got that way because they ate gobstoppers. We just don't know. And even if we could randomly assign some people to be married and some to be single and observe the results, it would still be hard to make causal attributions because, just like the researcher in the first example, we might've overlooked something.

For some reason, though, when marriage is the subject, researchers and clinicians fall all over themselves with eagerness to make causal statements. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's because marriage is popular and relatively easy to enter into, so it encourages people to hear that something they perceive as desirable and ubiquitous is good for their health. It's also possible that the reasons are more sinister and revolve around a research agenda that favors the status quo for economic or political reasons. Whatever it is, medical professionals like Lillis are highly irresponsible when they jump on the bandwagon and repeat these fallacies to patients and readers who don't know any better.

Towards the end of the article, Lillis plays devil's advocate for a minute, but even his counterargument, which posits that healthier, "more genetically appealing" people are more likely to get married, is insultingly singlist. No, Dr. Lillis, the problem is not that we singles are all Quasimodos compared to you strapping, married bombshells. It's that we singles are less likely to have health care. It's that we can't take time off work to heal from illness or injury because we have no second income. It's that we have more financial woes in general because we earn less and pay more than you marrieds do, and that's stressful. It's that we face a lot of social discrimination (the kind of discrimination you're guilty of right now), and that's stressful, too.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure Lillis can understand this logic because in the most presumptuous statement of his presumptuous article, he demonstrates an appalling lack of it. Check out this statement in all its singlist glory:

There is no real way to prove this [that marriage does not cause better health]; it is just a bitter, jealous theory of a loveless set of scientists who spend too much time in the lab to find true love.

Oh, dear, dear, dear. Doesn't Dr. Lillis realize that the burden of proof is on him? The scientific method always assumes no cause-effect relationship until one is proven. To return to our blueberry bunch, the researcher must assume that gobstoppers don't turn kids blue unless she can prove conclusively that they do. In direct contradiction to universally accepted research practice (and logic), Lillis says the exact opposite--that gobstoppers must turn kids blue unless we can prove that they don't. Good news for quack researchers everywhere! Now you can assume Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, and spontaneous human combustion exist until someone proves that they don't!

Lillis's lapse in logic might be forgiveable if it wasn't laced with all that singlist rhetoric. I'll tell ya what, Dr. Lillis, let's invert your statement so that it's both logically valid (instead of fallacious) and anti-marriage (instead of singlist) and see what we get:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just an ignorant, narrow-minded theory of a codependent set of scientists who spend too much time at home to get out and see what the real world is like.

Here's another good one:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just a desperate, envious theory of a bored-stiff set of scientists who spend too much time tied to the old ball and chain to have any fun.

Just gotta do one more! Here we go:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just a sad, pathetic theory of a lonely set of scientists who've wasted too much time in loveless marriages to admit they'd be happier alone.

Now, do any of those statements sound appropriate to make to a married patient? Would you, Dr. Lillis, want someone to make such a statement to you? Then why, I wonder, do you believe it's appropriate to talk that way to your single patients and readers?

Even if Lillis's interpretation is right on the money and marriage is the fountain of youth (which I don't think it is), I'm not sure what would be the point of saying so. A marriage certificate is not a drug that you can dispense when a single person straggles in with the flu, and if it were, it would have a pretty poor track record. If you think of marriage like a drug (thanks, Bella DePaulo, for this analogy), it doesn't work for at least half the people who try it (those who divorce), not to mention the unknown percentage who stay married unhappily. What doctor recommends a drug that's effective for less than half the people who take it?

In conclusion, I want to state for the record that I am single and in good health. I don't smoke, drink heavily, or have other substance abuse problems. I'm not a risk taker. I am not depressed. My blood pressure is so low that it actually causes problems occasionally. Despite what Lillis says about singles who don't take care of themselves, I go to the doctor when I'm concerned that something's wrong.

Interestingly, my dad, who is married, does not. In fact, when I noticed a worrisome skin lesion on his back awhile ago, my mom, his wife, said that she'd been after him to get it looked at for months. You know who convinced him to go to the doctor?

Me. His daughter.


What do you think about Dr. Lillis's article? Do you think married people are really healthier than singles?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Ms. Taken: The Fake Engagement Ring for Single Women

While combing stories for Singletude's last "Singles in the News" feature, I stumbled across an article called "Fake Engagement Rings Marketed to Single Women," which alerted me to a new bauble on the market that Reality Bling calls "a little bright lie." In case the headline I just linked to didn't tip you off, it's a fake engagement ring that's being marketed to single women. Cutely called Ms. Taken, the ring promises to help you pub 'n' club happily ever after unmolested by barflies. Just slip it on when you want to discourage a loser walking your way, then tuck it into its keychain fob when the coast is clear. It's the perfect on-again/off-again relationship.

Ms. Taken's home page is dominated by an embedded video commercial that should amuse those who like their fake wedding humor bawdy. You're also prominently invited to "Become a fan on Facebook" in case you care to advertise that your engagement is fake. That way if you really want to pull a fast one on a rejected suitor, you can flash him your faux diamond but whisper in his ear to look you up on Facebook, and then--gotcha! Suckerrrr! Neener, neener, neener! At the top of the page, a pic of the big sparkly is captioned, "On the dance floor or at the bar, nothing says 'I'm taken' like a fake engagement ring."

A click on "Product Details" reveals that Ms. Taken is a 2-carat Austrian crystal (congratulations--your pretend fiance is an investment banker!) set in a stainless steel band. It comes with the aforementioned keychain fob, a jewelry case, and, for some reason, 20 "Playaz" cards bearing images of classics like "Neal Anderthal" and "Jamaall That." If you order now, these timeless treasures will be yours to collect, trade, and preserve for generations to come. Or I guess you could pull them out if you and your friends get bored waiting for losers to leave you alone.

The ring and its accoutrement can be ordered for a grand total of $50.00. Frankly, you can buy a crystal or a cubic zirconia for half that in most department stores, though you'll have to drop it in your purse or your pocket instead of a custom-tailored keychain fob. And, of course, you'll have to do without the Playaz.

More interesting than the ring itself is the message it sends to singles. A quick scan of reviews of Ms. Taken shows that that message has been hotly debated. The article mentioned at the beginning of this post argues that Ms. Taken demeans single women, implying that they can't handle unwanted social interaction without relying on lame excuses or, worse, that they need the suggestion of a mate to prove they're worth more than lewd stares and cheesy pickup lines. Others, like "Ms. Taken = Puke in My Mouth," claim that Ms. Taken sends the wrong signal to men, communicating that it's a-okay to harass women who are unattached, that only a man's protection makes a woman worthy of respect.

Admittedly, I've donned a cubic zirconia with intent to deceive more than once, and I've never given a thought to it being singlist before. My motivation has usually been to avoid unwanted attention while out for a girl's night or when I want to run errands in peace, and now that I'm single by choice, an easy way to advertise my unavailability is even more attractive. It's not that I'm incapable of fending off punchless pickup lines with my rapier wit, but sometimes I'd rather not have to. Men in pursuit can be aggressive, especially in the metro area I call home, and some of them interpret a polite "no, thank you" as code for "you-have-three-minutes-to-convince-me-to-give-you-my-number-starting-now-GO." When I'm trying to have a good time with my friends or--God forbid--shop for groceries, drop a bill in the mail, or read in the park unmolested, the last thing I want to do is argue with Insert Random Guy about why I won't have a drink with him. A strategically placed rhinestone speaks for me (and hopefully says, "Game Over"). But, according to the bloggers above, the very fact that I expect a ring to exempt me from these exchanges proves to men that they can harass me with impunity if I'm not some other guy's property. Is this true?

I think not. I think it's unfair to men to assume they're all Neal Anderthals who view women as chattel, ripe for the plucking unless some other cowboy has left his stamp first. Today, an engagement ring is a visible sign of a woman's choice as much as a man's. In contemporary society's language, it says, "I have chosen to be in a monogamous relationship with someone. I am not interested in anyone else." Men who steer clear of an engaged woman are respecting her choice as much as the man she chose. If a single woman could wear a ring that was universally recognized to mean she wasn't open to dating, I suspect a lot of men would respect that, too. Of course, there would always be some who would see it as a challenge, but these would probably be the same cavemen who hit on women wearing engagement rings the size of the Hope Diamond. These male chauvinist oinkers don't respect anyone or anthing except the notches on their own belts and are just out to add a few more whenever they can.

Single men are susceptible to enculturation just like everybody else, and I won't claim that singlism never colors their interactions with single women. Undoubtedly, there's a man out there who won't take no for an answer because he believes that any woman should prefer his 5 AM Concerto in Snore Major to a lifetime of waking up to nothing but birds. But my guess is that most men have no such illusions when they present themselves to be chewed up and spit out on the nearest bar. Instead, they're just doing what successful hunters have always done--aiming for the most likely targets (women who are single) and shooting as many arrows as they can, hoping one will hit. If some of those arrows fall flat, miss the mark, or veer toward our chests instead of our brains or our funny bones, then the hunters have poor technique, not a special contempt for deer.

I'm not saying this to excuse inexcusable conduct. Like most people, I believe that women who are subjected to unwanted comments or contact should take steps to let offenders know their behavior is unacceptable, whether that means walking away gracefully or reporting them to management. But I don't think the majority of men set out to use Borat as a role model, and those who do don't care whether their sexytime partner is wearing a ring or not unless it's in her tongue. For the rest, a ring is simply shorthand for "no chance in hell." You could use a scowl, a slap, or puke in your mouth to get across the same message, but with a ring you can still be pretty. ;)

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe those bloggers weren't overanalyzing, and I'm unwittingly supporting singlism every time I resort to a fast, one-size-fits-all excuse rather than a nuanced rationale of why I prefer to be single while I scan the room for an exit.


What do you think? Do fake engagement rings promote singlism? Do they send a message to single women that they are "less than" or that they can't fend for themselves in social situations? Do they send a message to single men that women who aren't taken are free to be harassed? If you're a single woman, have you ever worn a make-believe engagement ring, and, if not, would you? Why or why not? If you're a single man, what do you think of women who, um, engage in this practice?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Why I Am Single by Choice

I am single by choice. I'm still getting used to saying that after years of considering myself single by circumstance. In "Single by Choice or by Circumstance?" I promised that I would explain the change of heart, and I will. But first, I want to address your response to the last post, which spawned a revealing dialogue about how we define "single by choice," "single by circumstance," and the variant "single by chance" suggested by several readers.

When Singletude has used the term "single by choice," the intention has been to describe singles who prefer to be single rather than coupled. Conversely, the phrase "single by circumstance" has been used to denote singles who would prefer to be coupled given suitable partners. However, some of your comments rightly alerted me to shades of "choice" that aren't acknowledged by such black and white classifications. Some readers proudly claimed "single by chance" as a more accurate and empowering self-descriptor, associating it with a conscious refusal to settle or give in to matrimania while keeping an open mind toward future prospects. Others pointed out that some people don't think in terms of preference, just accepting and relishing whatever life brings, whether single, married, or something undefinable. Although Singletude will continue to reference "choice" and "circumstance" for the sake of simplicity, I greatly appreciate all the nuanced perspectives that everyone has contributed to our understanding of how singles perceive themselves.

Today I am unabashedly a single by choice in the sense that if the perfect boyfriend fell in my lap, I couldn't dump his bum on the floor fast enough. That is not to say that I will never be in a relationship again. I stand behind healthy relationships as sources of love, support, companionship, and inspiration in the lives of many and encourage anyone who wants a relationship to pursue it. However, I'm now realizing that just because a romantic relationship can be a positive force in one's life doesn't mean that everyone should have one. I'm one of those people who shouldn't, at least not right now and maybe not ever.

STOP.

Was your first reaction to that last sentence a sympathetic "awwww"? Did you instinctively think, "Oh, she'll change her mind"?

If not, congratulations! Singlism can't fool you, and matrimania has no hold over you! If, however, you were just caught in the act, don't feel too bad because your reaction just proved my next point--that lots of people, even those who think it's possible to be single and happy, can't fathom that anyone would be happier single than paired. But right now, that is exactly the case for me.

Like many singles, I didn't imagine this life for myself when I was growing up. At around 14 years old, a friend and I swore that we wouldn't marry and have kids before age 25 so that we'd have time to get educated, build our careers, and see the world. From the time I was a teenager, it wasn't a question of if, but when. Then 25 rolled around...and disappeared in my rear-view mirror...and I was no closer to marriage than I'd been at 14. Somewhere along the way, I noticed that I didn't mind the interludes of singleness between relationships, but I still assumed I'd rather be married if the right man showed up.

As the years passed without a ring on my finger, it occurred to me that I couldn't keep waiting for someone else to give me a fulfilling life. I was going to have to find fulfillment for myself. While questioning how to do that, I began to deconstruct my concept of a good relationship and what it could provide me that was worth continued pursuit. However, it wasn't until I was mentally sweeping up the fragments of my most recent relationship that the answer winked back at me, bold and undeniable: not a whole heck of a lot.

For some time, the three major draws of relationships--romance, companionship, and physical affection--have been losing their charm for me. As far as romance is concerned, it's not that I don't still thrill to a poem written for me or a candlelit picnic awaiting me at the lake. But now my heart merely flutters instead of thumping right out of my chest like a car stereo at full volume. By now, I know that sweet nothings in my ear mean just that--nothing--and I've heard most of them before. To me, this isn't some tragic loss of innocence but a mature awareness that flowery words and extravagant gestures straight out of an 18th-century court don't necessarily foretell long-term compatibility or genuine commitment. It's also a kind of experiential satiation, a feeling that Ive been there and done that, enjoyed it, and no longer have a craving to be serenaded by moonlight or waltzed around under the stars. Sure, romance is exciting, but if it never swept me off my feet again, I wouldn't feel like I had missed out or been deprived of something.

Companionship, too, is somewhat overrated for me. A dyed-in-the-wool introvert, I used to yearn for that one person who would understand me better than I understood myself, my best friend and soul mate with whom I could withdraw into a little cocoon world. What I've learned in the intervening years is that no one can be the whole world to someone else. Even someone who has an uncanny connection with you will, at times, misconstrue, disagree, differentiate. Despite the poetic tradition of becoming one in matrimony, you will continue to be two separate people, and where there are separate thoughts, beliefs, and desires, there will also sooner or later be conflict. That's why it's imperative that we don't invest our entire emotional well-being in one person. We need to have other family members and friends to open our hearts to, have fun with, learn from, rely on. When lengthy spells of singleness drove me to seek out and strengthen that web of relationships, I found that they gave me the emotional and mental sustenance I longed for. At the same time, I got accustomed to making coffee runs, strolling in the park, and poking around museums on my own. To my surprise, I didn't have to have someone alongside me to delight in these activities. A book, earbuds, or my own thoughts were companionship enough.

And then there's physical affection, the cornerstone, we're led to believe, of relationships. Such a double-edged sword for me, a source of both pleasure and pain. One of the most common complaints I hear from singles is that they miss the high of sex, the closeness of sleeping in another's arms, the relief of a foot rub or neck massage after a long day, the simple comfort of a hug to remind them that they're loved, appreciated, wanted. But for all the joys of physical intimacy, there are also annoyances, frustrations, dissatisfactions. Meditating on the dark side of sex, I think of all the times I have felt pressured to offer the use of my body to someone, not because I wanted to but because I didn't want him to reject me or feel rejected. I think of all the covers pulled off in the night, the muscle cramps from sleeping in positions contorted around someone else, the snoring slicing through my peaceful dreams. I think of the hours I'm obliged to spend on shaving and personal care, the sexy lingerie I'm supposed to keep my drawers well-stocked with, the risks of pregnancy and disease and the side effects of birth control. I think of these things and remember that physical love exacts a price of its own.

Of course there are other perks that relationships offer. Convenience, support, security, social standing, the chance for children. Some people marry for these reasons alone. But I believe that a man should be more than just a woman's handyman, paycheck, or sperm donor. A woman should be more than just a man's housekeeper, arm candy, or incubator. I believe that two people should be together primarily because they love to be in each other's presence. Those other bonuses like the guaranteed Saturday night date, the shared rent, or the extra pair of hands in the kitchen are not good enough reasons by themselves to dedicate one's life to someone else. To be with someone for just those reasons is tantamount to using that person.

So I can't, in good conscience, enter a relationship for the wrong reasons, nor do I really want one for the right reasons. The benefits of relationships simply don't outweigh the drawbacks for me. They are just not enough. And drawbacks there are in spades.

I know somewhere out there someone is reading this and thinking, "She just hasn't found the right person yet." I used to believe that, too, so that's probably why I only reached this conclusion, finally, after my last relationship ended. It was then I discovered that no matter how deep the connection or intense the passion, no matter how stimulating the conversation or enriching the shared experience, no matter how compatible the interests or complementary the personalities, relationships are still work. They demand compromise and sacrifice and adjustment and accountability. And all that work just isn't worth it to me. The pain of argument is not overcome by the satisfaction of making up. The loss of self-direction is not justified by the gain in synergy. The reduction in personal time is not compensated for by the increase in companionship. The irritation of quirks and foibles is not offset by the ease and comfort of familiarity. Even when a man is everything I could want, the sweetness of a relationship is not enough to counter the sour.

Before you roll your eyes and go back to sucking face with that hottie you met at the bar, please remember that I'm just explaining my own rationale. I don't expect it to apply to everyone or even to most people. I'm well aware that I'm a rather unusual person in somewhat irregular circumstances, which affects my attitude toward relationships. For instance, if I wasn't self-employed and trying to expand my own business, my personal time might not be so important to me. If I didn't live a fairly bohemian lifestyle, self-determination might not be such a sticking point. In fact, maybe one day my life will be different enough that I'll change my mind. After all, if it's changed once, I'd be foolish to think it couldn't change again.

Nevertheless, this is the way I feel right now, in my present situation, about this particular lifestyle decision, and this is why. Although I respect and blog about other lifestyles, this is the perspective that I write from. I am single by choice. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of it, neither thankful nor resentful, neither champion nor protester. It's just the right choice for me.


If you haven't already answered this question, do you consider yourself single by choice, single by circumstance, or single for other reasons? If you are single by choice, why? If you are not single by choice, why? Do you think it's better to be one way or the other? Why or why not?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Single by Choice or by Circumstance?

Increasingly, the single population seems to be dividing into two camps--singles by choice and singles by circumstance. Maybe you've noticed it, too. Maybe you've eagerly aligned yourself with one side or the other, or maybe, like me, you've been hesitant to label yourself and even a little concerned about the repercussions of divisive language.

When I started Singletude, I intended to serve both audiences indiscriminately. The idea was not to push singlehood as preferable to marriage or coupledom but to celebrate its unique advantages, as you might celebrate any other stage of life--childhood, adolescence, parenthood, late life. Singletude was designed to meet singles where they were, regardless of how they got there, offering resources, support, and a positive attitude toward the unattached. I believe in making the most of the lives we're given and wanted to help people recognize that, whether or not they chose the single state, they could be happy living it. Furthermore, I hoped to expose discrimination against singles in its many insidious forms and mobilize others to speak out against it.

That said, I don't mind telling you that when I began blogging, I was single by circumstance. I didn't state this overtly because I didn't want to alienate those who were single by choice, although I'm sure some of my posts spoke for me. At the time, I'll admit I even thought that while it was the bees knees to be single, it was their whole honeypot to be married. I had bought into the shoddy popular science that claimed marriage was a panacea for depression, loneliness, ill health, poverty, and socks with open-toed sandals. Moreover, while I firmly believed it was better to be single than sorry, which is more than one can say for a lot of matrimaniacs, a relationship chock-full of chemistry, romance, and commitment was something I very much wanted. And, yes, dear readers, I hoped it would one day lead to marriage.

Go ahead. Lob your tomatoes at me. Just make sure they're fresh-picked organic, please.

I still don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to be married. In fact, I think monogamous commitment is the best context in which a relationship can grow. (Yeah, I'm familiar with the argument that we're biologically programmed to hook up with multiple partners, but we're biologically programmed to do lots of things we no longer do, such as spear those we don't get along with.) The desirability of marriage (to some people) does not make the single state undesirable, nor does it make unmarried people any less worthy of the perks and protections currently enjoyed by those who are legally wed. That's what this blog has always been about, not an attempt to glorify the solo lifestyle above all others or convince everyone who wants a mate to repress that longing.

In fact, I'm a little disturbed when I see what I'll call militant singles bashing those who are or hope to be partnered. True, there's a fine line between living with that hope and living for it, and I think that line trips up some well-meaning singles who worry that their peers will put their lives on hold until marriage. But they miss the fact that a single person can have a full, exciting life and yet also want to add a spouse to it, just as he or she might want to add a child or another friend. The difference, I suspect, is that the child and the friend don't provoke our resentment because people aren't rewarded in a way we perceive as unfair when they have children or make new friends. Nevertheless, our justified resentment of singlism should not justify berating singles who seek relationships, whether or not we're interested in the same thing.

I include myself in this reminder because in the past few months, I've crept over the line into the league of singles by choice. I can't tell you when exactly it happened. I didn't desert the ranks of singles by circumstance and make a mad dash for it. It was more the culmination of lessons learned in my third decade of life--not lessons that apply to everyone, but to me. Regretfully, more than once I've caught myself trying to generalize those lessons, to urge other singles off the path to joint filing and his-and-hers wash towels. But that's not right. In pressuring others to conform to my idea of happiness, I'm no different than the majority who insist that I can't be happy single. So, as I find myself changing my stance, I want to recommit myself to representing all singles at this blog, not just those who do or don't want to be.

Nevertheless, the cat is out of the bag now. I have become a single by choice. I hesitated to reveal this because I don't want to be divisive. I don't want singles by circumstance to feel that they aren't welcome here or promote a mindset that some singles are different and better than others. Neither do I want to sign up for a lifetime membership in the single-by-choice club so that I can never change my mind without feeling like I have betrayed someone. But chances are that although I will still cover all topics that I believe are relevant to singles, including dating, there may be times when my own beliefs will influence what I write, whether or not I'm aware of it.

By now you must be itching to find out why I've made a philosophical 180. If so, get some calamine; it must be poison ivy because nothing I have to say is that exciting. :) However, for the gossips, the rubberneckers, and the bored workers waiting for summer hours to kick in, Singletude will dedicate its next entry to the premature demise of my relationship-seeking days.


Have you observed a division in the singles community between those who are single by choice and those who are single by circumstance? If so, what do you think the cause might be, and how should it be addressed?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Singles and Taxes: Singles Need Tax Cuts, Too

Ah, spring. The season when worker bees begin to buzz about itemizing, everything is coming up the color of Benjamin Franklins, and those old bears in Washington get their paws on the national honey pot. On the anniversary of our country's most dreaded day, April 15, otherwise known as Bloodsuckers Day, Pocket Drainage Day, or, in some corners, Tax Day, President Obama vowed to simplify the tax code, reverse George Wallet Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and re-line the pained pockets of working stiffs with something jinglier than campaign slogans.

On the whole, I approve of what our president has done with his newfound power. I haven't agreed with every single one of his decisions, but I have supported many of them. Besides, what I like most about Obama is that he puts his money where his mouth is. From day one in office, he has wasted no time trying to make good on his promises, tackling the issues that past presidents wouldn't touch and refusing to back down in the face of partisan interests. The Wall Street bail-outs may have sparked questions about his populism, but does anyone honestly believe good ol' boy McCain wouldn't have doled out double the financial aid? Obama, on the other hand, continues to do far more for the average taxpayer than the previous Republican administration ever did, passing the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the Federal Additional Compensation Program, the Cobra Health Insurance Stimulus, and many other acts, orders, and memorandums that benefit the labor force.

However, as much as Obama has championed the marginalized--the poor, the disabled, the women and children, the ethnic minorities, the nontraditional partnerships--he has yet to elevate this nation's largest "minority," singles, to equal footing with all other American citizens guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since Obama is an advocate of the underdog, I doubt this is an intentional oversight. Most likely the president suffers from the same singlist delusions that cloud the minds of Americans from the moment they learn that all fairy tales end with "they lived happily ever after."

As singles, we have a duty to ourselves and future unmarried generations to uncloud his mind, don't you think? I propose that we write to President Obama and remind him that his intended tax overhaul should provide relief for singles, too. That we have paid through our noses to bankroll marrieds for too many years. That we are a large and powerful voting segment that has been ignored for too long. That we aren't a threat to American values but those who would see them fulfilled in the lives of all Americans.

This is a copy of the letter I plan to send to the president:


Dear President Obama:

Over the past three months, I have been impressed by the actions you have taken to help make the American Dream accessible to the average citizen. I applaud your initiatives to ensure that everyone who contributes to our great society is entitled to a roof overhead, food on the table, health care, an education, a clean environment, and a government that is accountable to the governed. Due to your efforts, the workplace is becoming a more hospitable environment for those on whose backs it is built--the workers. Now you have vowed to restore more power to the people by providing us with tax relief while tightening the belt on an upper class that has exploited us for too long.

While these plans are commendable, I have one concern. Though you champion justice and equality for all, there is a very large "minority" that is consistently excluded from its piece of the American pie--unmarried adults. At any given time, singles comprise approximately 50% of the U.S. population. In fact, the average adult will spend more of his or her life single than married. Despite these facts, singles are subject to many legalized forms of discrimination. It has been estimated that those who marry are entitled to over a thousand federal rights and benefits. What is seldom mentioned is that these rights and benefits come at the expense of single individuals, who must bankroll them. To make matters worse, singles are denied the basic protections against discrimination that are afforded to all other minorities.

This compounded inequity disadvantages singles at every turn. For instance, a single, childless man cannot give his Social Security benefits to anyone even when he has paid as much into the system as a married man who leaves his benefits to his wife...and...if he is not hired or promoted because an employer prefers a "family man," he has no legal recourse. A single mother cannot leave her house to her only, single daughter without an expensive will and heavy taxation...and...if her single daughter applies to rent a house, there is nothing to stop the landlord from choosing a married couple because he assumes they are more "stable." If a single woman is seriously injured, no one is allowed medical leave to care for her...and...she cannot get insurance because her single brother's family plan can refuse to add any adult other than a spouse.

Perhaps the most grievous injustice perpetuated against singles is written into our income tax code, which specifies that a single individual in any bracket is taxed at a higher rate than his or her married counterpart. For example, a single taxpayer who earned $60,000 in 2008 is taxed at 25%, but a married couple filing jointly who earned $60,000 combined owes only 15%. Over a 30-year career, the couple would amass $157,500 more than the single worker. That is grossly unfair! Single parents stand to lose the most since the Child Tax Credit phases out at a much lower level of income for them than it does for married couples. Our tax code also penalizes singles more heavily than marrieds when selling property, willing or inheriting an estate, or providing health care to anyone other than a spouse.

It is clear that any truly egalitarian revision of tax legislation must take into account that a rapidly growing constituency of citizens--about half the U.S. population--are denied their rightful earnings simply because they did not have the good fortune to find suitable marriage partners. If these individuals were, say, Hispanic or Muslim or women or wheelchair-bound, it would be unconscionable to demand more taxes from them, yet it is somehow acceptable because they are not married. To add insult to injury, singles, especially women, parents, and people of color, are already far more likely to live in poverty. Without the reinforcement of a second income, they need help, not further deprivation.

Going it alone is not easy. Singles contend with tremendous social pressure to marry, the financial hardship of stretching one income in an economy designed for two, and the personal fallout of loneliness and lack of support. Still, there are many reasons why they do not marry. Many would like to but are not able to find appropriate partners. Some have familial obligations or physical conditions that prevent it. Others are dedicated to work, education, or volunteer causes. Still others, aware that nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce, wisely recognize that they are not ready or able to make the kinds of sacrifices necessary for a successful long-term relationship. And, of course, many singles have previously been married but are now divorced due to abuse, infidelity, addictions, or other chronic problems that made their relationships unhealthy.

Research shows that happy marital relationships benefit couples, and if the government wants to encourage marriage, it should do so by funding pre-marital and marital counseling as well as relationship skills education in the schools. But it is wrong to treat people who cannot or choose not to marry as second-class citizens who must bear additional financial burdens because of their "failure" while rewarding those who do with all kinds of incentives which are not even proven to influence marital choices, much less ensure that those choices are careful, healthy, or lasting.

The family unit is an important building block of society, and tax deductions and other aid should certainly be provided for minor children, who rely on parental support. But in a nation in which everyone over 18 assumes the rights and responsibilities of an American citizen, there is no reason why anyone should be given a tax break to support another able-bodied adult. If a childless couple can afford for the wife or husband to stay home and take care of the house on one income, that is their decision, but single taxpayers should not have to part with more of their hard-earned cash to supply them this luxury. Higher tax rates for singles are especially unjustifiable when one considers that a couple with two incomes can split many of the costs of living while singles have only themselves to rely on. The "singles penalty" has the effect of kicking people who are already down.

I know that the subject of discrimination is close to your heart. As you reform the nation's unwieldy tax code, please remember that it is never morally acceptable to discriminate against anyone--not by race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, or marital status. The solution to this inequity is to stop treating single workers as though they are less valuable or less entitled to their share of the American Dream. We must eliminate marital status as a determinant of tax bracket. Everyone who earns a specified amount should be taxed at the same rate, single or married. If someone chooses to support another able-bodied adult on his or her income, that should be a private choice, not one that the unmarried public has to fund. Also, we must eliminate marital status as a determinant of the Child Tax Credit. Everyone who earns a specified income should be eligible for the same amount of credit per child. We should not privilege the children of married couples over the children of single parents. Further, we must lift taxes on health insurance benefits for unmarried recipients. Every childless individual, single or married, should be entitled to the same untaxed health benefit, to be used for whomever he or she sees fit. Finally, we must end the tax distinction between singles and marrieds for purposes of selling, willing, and inheriting property. All taxpayers, single or married, should be allowed the same tax exclusions on home sales. All taxpayers, single or married, should be able to leave an estate to one other individual without incurring a tax penalty. All taxpayers, single or married, should be exempt from property tax increases on a home they have inherited.

Please help us abolish the last form of legalized discrimination, recently coined as singlism, starting with revisions to a tax code that unfairly favors one half of Americans over the other. One of today's most hotly debated topics is that of same-sex marriage. But nontraditional families are not just same-sex or unmarried couples. We are single parents raising our children.We are brothers and sisters or lifelong friends sharing our homes. We are adult children living with parents or grandparents. And, yes, some of us live alone. It is high time we are all entrusted with the same rewards and responsibilities, no matter who we love or who we live with. Please be the first president to help us truly live up to our proclamation of liberty and justice for all.

Sincerely,
[Name]


Anyone who wants to personalize the above letter is free to do so. Please edit it however you wish, leave it as it is, or use it to inspire a completely original letter and send it to President Obama. Then pass it on to your single friends and family (or anyone you know who cares about civil rights) and ask them to do the same. I encourage everyone who is single to unite against marital status discrimination and stand up for our right to fair taxation.


Do you think married couples are unfairly privileged over singles in the U.S. tax code? If you are single, has tax discrimination impacted your standard of living as opposed to that of the married couples you know? How do you think we could reform the tax code to make it more equitable? Can you think of other forms of economic discrimination that singles face?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Singlism in the Military: Discrimination Against Single Servicemen

Singlism.

It's so finely interwoven in the (often ugly, synthetic) fabric of our society, there's no telling where you will encounter it or how it will entrap you. At the hospital, where you can't see your best friend because she's not your wife. Before the co-op board, which can reject you because you don't have a husband. On the road, where you pay more to drive than your married neighbor does. At the office, where your paycheck is taxed for thousands more than your married coworker's. And now in Afghanistan, where you may be blown to bits while your buddies are snuggling at home with their spouses in their private military housing. No one will miss you, of course, because if you aren't married, everyone knows you aren't important to anyone.

It should surprise no one that a country which condones and encourages the inequities above would also discriminate against the singles who put their lives on the line to serve it. But it should disturb us. It disturbed me when a good friend of mine--let's call her Melissa--informed me that her cousin, Josh, a Naval Petty Officer Second Class, was about to be deployed for a year's tour in the Al Qaeda capital of the world, Afghanistan. Moreover, he was not going to be serving on a submarine, as usual, but on the ground. Among the suicide bombers and sundry militants.

See, it turns out that when the Army's manpower is running low, the Navy can pump in some fresh blood to be spilled by sending its sailors into ground combat zones. Somehow I don't think that's what Josh signed up for when he donned his first blue garrison cap. But now the Navy owns him, and they can send him wherever they like to do whatever they like, including missions formerly reserved for a completely different branch of the military.

At 24, Josh is still a young man, the son of a widowed single mom and older brother of two sisters. He is the only male in his nuclear family. Since I'm not using his real name, I think it's safe to tell you that he also struggles with a health problem that has interfered with his job sufficiently to require rehabilitative treatment in the past. On the surface, it appears that Josh might not be the best candidate to be sent into a potentially explosive service environment (no pun intended).

However, let's not forget that Josh is also single. He's not married and has no children. The Navy would surely insist that his marital status had nothing to do with how they singled him out to be dropped into the heart of danger. But, according to Josh, the other Naval candidates for the dubious privilege of honorary Army service were all married. As we all know here at Singletude, that means their lives are more important. It would be such a tragedy for a young war bride to lose her husband and have to remarry, but it's just par for the course for an already widowed, aging mom to lose her only son.

While no one can prove that Melissa's cousin was sacrificed because he is single, the armed forces have a longstanding history of favoritism to married couples, most clearly evident in the inequitable distribution of the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), and Family Separation Allowance (FSA). The BAH, BAS, and FSA are untaxed monetary supplements, partly determined by marital status, which the armed forces pretend are not income to deflect criticism from civil rights activists appalled that single serviceman aren't receiving equal pay for equal work. However, single soldiers themselves have been quite vocal on the subject, complaining that they are denied privacy, autonomy, space, leisure, and even decent food by virtue of their inadequate compensation, which forces them to live in communal barracks while their married counterparts have their own houses on or off base. In addition to cramped, supervised quarters more suited to adolescents in reform school than hardworking adults serving our country, enlisted singles report that they are always on call and must endure the most undesirable, inconvenient duties because they can never leave the workplace. Furthermore, the FSA, which is financial compensation for the emotional hardship of prolonged separation from spouse and children, is a slap in the face to the young men and women in uniform who desperately miss parents, grandparents, siblings, nephews and nieces, cousins, unmarried romantic partners, and friends.

While reforms have ameliorated some of the inequality between married and single service members, a gulf still remains. Besides the aforementioned injustices, single servicemen are subjected to the same discriminatory policies that plague the private sector, including unequal compensation in the form of healthcare and death and disability benefits.

Perhaps in response to all these extra goodies, military personnel marry and have children earlier, on average, than the general population does. For example, the average member of the Army is 24 years old at the birth of his or her first child, an age at which most civilians aren't even married yet. Unfortunately, as marriage rates have soared, so have divorces. One wonders if some of those young officers are flocking to the altar just to get their own slice of marriage perk pie.

The U.S. armed forces are losing some of their best and brightest because enlisted singles are treated like frat house inductees in a never-ending hazing ritual. As they wise up to their status as second-class citizens, talented singles are abandoning the Army, Navy, and Air Force for corporate jobs that pay them for their skills, not their spouses. It's time for the Department of Defense to realize that the men and women who lay down their lives to protect millions of innocents are all worthy of the same respect, no matter who is waiting for them back home. And perhaps, if our government can lead the way in fairly apportioning benefits to singles, the private sector may be pressured to follow. Or at least one can dream.


Have you or has someone you know served in the U.S. armed forces while single? If so, did you (or he or she) experience any singlism, either of the kind mentioned here or of some other kind? What do you think the military could do to treat singles more equitably?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Singlism: Examples in the Media

Last time, Singletude ran a review of Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After by Bella DePaulo. In the book, DePaulo coins the term singlism to refer to discrimination against singles. Sometimes singlism is blatant and has visible consequences that are keenly felt by those who are unmarried, as with the singles tax penalty, singles travel supplements, or the lower wages paid to singles even when other differences are factored in. Other times, singlism is an attitude, an expectation, white noise in a culture of couples. Just the other day, I saw two examples of the latter form of singlism in the media.

The first was part of this quiz, called "Are You Aging Yourself?" by Gabrielle Linzer at AOL Health. The test informally assesses how your lifestyle might contribute to early aging, honing in on sleep patterns, eating habits, exercise routines, and the like. But then there's this gem of a question:

At the end of the day, you are greeted by:

A. Your loving (occasionally annoying) family
B. You're not home too much
C. A silent, empty house

Guess which choice is right, students. If you circled A., give yourself a gold star. AOL gives you a green check mark next to the "right" answer and red x's next to the "wrong" ones. In explanation, "the benefits of keeping connected" are touted, and a psychologist is quoted warning of the health risks of isolation and loneliness. In summary, "if you aren't graced with a family or someone special," AOL reminds you to hang out with your friends and keep busy with social activities.

Well, okay, but if your life's a social whirlwind, wouldn't it be safe to say that you're probably not home too much? Seems like that was the so-called incorrect answer B. Moreover, just because you live alone (and notice that the only options given are living alone or living with family since no one lives with friends or roommates apparently) doesn't mean you're automatically lonely or isolated. Plenty of singles like living alone and the peace and quiet that come with it. And living alone hardly means they don't have voicemail in their inboxes and options of who to see on a Saturday night. To top it all off, AOL points you in the direction of friends and social organizations only if you aren't "graced" with the real blessings in life--a significant other and kids. Guess I'm one of the unlucky unloved!

And how about this article by MarketWatch reporter Ruth Mantell, which made the Internet rounds last Thursday? The first sentence says it all:

Women have become increasingly vulnerable to job losses during downturns, putting families at greater financial risk during these troubled times, according to a Tuesday report from the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee.

The article goes on to bemoan how difficult it is for families when the second income earner loses her job, leaving no padding for her primary wage earner husband. Excuse me, but shouldn't these families be thankful they have a primary wage earner? The fact is that half of households in this country are headed by singles, which means that half the population doesn't have a fallback to begin with. If a single woman loses her job, she doesn't have any cushion other than her butt when it hits the street. Obviously, the same goes for single men.

Oh, but that's right. I forgot. Singles don't count. Their lives aren't important to the media or the government. Your needs are of no concern unless you're part of a family, which means a husband and a wife, preferably with children.

You see how insidious this stuff is, folks? One article here or there, maybe it doesn't mean a lot. But when you start to compound them, with all their digs, dismissals, and diminishments, they take their toll on how singles are perceived...by others and by themselves. After awhile, you almost don't notice it anymore. Of course couples with kids are healthier than singles, right? Of course families with children are worthy of more economic protection. It becomes taboo to even question the validity of these premises. If you do, you must be selfish or a child hater.

So where is the "positive" in this blog post? It's in who we are. It's in the quality of our lives and our value as productive members of society even when it's not acknowledged by the media. It's in our ability to be shrewd consumers of news who know bias when we see it and don't buy into the popular image of the singleton. The first step to combating singlism is awareness, and that's a positive thing.

You know what? I'm going to challenge everyone who reads this post to write a letter to the editor denouncing singlism the next time you see an example of it in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication. Then come back here and tell me about it, and I'll run an announcement about your letter as soon as it's published. I, too, will accept the challenge and write my own letter to the editor.

It's easy for a single voice to get lost in a crowd of families, but if we raise our voices together, they'll be 89 million strong. Think about it.


Fun Link of the Day

Singled Out by Bella DePaulo: A Singletude Review

Today I want to introduce you to an eye-opening book that confirms what many of us have suspected about singlehood but lacked the research to prove--yes, we singles are treated like second-class citizens, but we're still some of the happiest, healthiest citizens in the world. Welcome to Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever Afterby Bella DePaulo, Ph.D.

In bookstores across America, self-help manuals instructing supposedly desperate singles to settle a little more and love themselves a little less overflow the shelves. This is not one of them. Singled Out shatters the stereotypes of the forlorn spinster surrounded by cats and the messy bachelor in the midst of dirty laundry and pizza boxes and replaces them with the research-based reality of 87.5 million singles leading richly fulfilling, resilient lives in which marriage is an afterthought if it's a thought at all.

In an effort to raise awareness for the last unrecognized minority in this country, DePaulo coins the term singlism, discrimination based on relationship status, and shows how insidiously pervasive it is. When you're taxed at a higher rate because you're single, when you're denied access to a relative's Social Security or health insurance because yours is the bond of blood, not a marriage certificate, when you bankroll couples' hotel accommodations, car rentals, and gym memberships by paying the full fee as a single person, that's singlism. It pops up in subtler, more personal ways, too--at those parties you're not invited to because your friends "didn't think you'd want to sit around with a bunch of couples," in those alumni newsletters that advertise weddings and births but not professional accomplishments, in those tsks and tuts from family members when you don't bring a sweetheart home for the holidays again this year.

Anticipating the argument that marriage really is our natural state, DePaulo traces the history of the institution as a practical foundation for reproduction and its eventual convergence with the concept of romantic passion in the 18th century. While denying that she is anti-marriage, DePaulo asserts that the marital relationship has only recently been elevated to the pinnacle on which it now reigns, above all other ties of family, friendship, and community. This is an unnatural state, she declares, albeit one that our society has become invested in supporting for reasons detailed in the book. She then lays out ten popular myths about singles, scrutinizes the falsified claims undergirding each one, and systematically demolishes their flimsy pedestals, which can't stand against solid research.

You may be surprised and dismayed at how many of these myths you've unknowingly bought into, even if you're happily single. For instance, most of us singles know that we have a rainbow of interests beyond just dating (Myth #2), can be as hard-working and generous as marrieds (Myth #4), and are far from "alone" (Myth #9), maintaining strong connections with our friends and family.

But did you also know that, despite facing rampant prejudice, which has been proven to contribute to depression, singles and marrieds barely differ in self-reported happiness? On a scale of one to ten, the difference in happiness between singles and marrieds is less than a point. It's even smaller, half a point, when only never-married singles are considered. Furthermore, married individuals were happier from the outset, long before they were married, so we can't conclude that marriage made them happier. On the other hand, we can conclude that financial and health status both predict happiness better than marital status.

Speaking of health, did you know that, regardless of media propaganda to the contrary, marriage actually doesn't convey any longterm health benefits? Men who marry experience a boost in good health around the time of the marriage, and widows and widowers see a dip in health when their spouses die, but within a few years, all of these people are no more or less healthy than they ever were. For never-married singles and married women, there's no change in health status, while those who divorce are healthier than ever once their marriages end.

What about sex? We all know that married people have the most sex, right? Well, no. Cohabiting people do. Okay, but married couples have the most emotionally satisfying sex lives, right? Err, um, not quite. Never-married cohabiting women are more likely to be "extremely emotionally satisfied" with their sex lives than are married women. As for men, although more marrieds than singles report high levels of emotional satisfaction, the most emotionally satisfied men are--wait for it--cohabiting divorces. And--oh, dear--guess who complains of the most sexual dysfunction? That would be married men. Moreover, there's no data to compare how sexually active or satisfied any of these individuals were before and after marriage, so, once again, we can't say it was a white dress and a minister that made the difference.

One by one, Singled Out picks apart some of the most lauded, influential studies on marriage and shines a light on their bias toward couples, explaining the tactics they use to obscure confounds in data collection and interpretation. This could be dry, confusing, or intimidating, but DePaulo uses everyday language, real-life anecdotes, and a light, humorous tone to demystify the charts and stats. In fact, even if you have no interest in singles issues, this book is worth the read simply as a layperson's crash course in experimental analysis, after which you may forever view pop science headlines with a more critical eye.

A brief summary of the myths DePaulo addresses and refutes wouldn't do justice to Singled Out, which teems with truths about the single life that will by turns amaze, appall, and encourage you. However, suffice it to say that by the time you've read it, any stereotypes you've clung to about such maligned figures as chronic bachelors, career women, and single parents will be turned inside out. However, the main thrust of the book, once you perceive the patterns evident in the research, may startle you even more, and no, it's not that the single life is better than marriage. It's that marriage doesn't matter all that much. At the end of the day, whether you take a husband or a wife or a solo trek around the world, your life will probably be about the same. Your experiences will be different, but you'll still be as healthy, happy, and wise as you would've been had you taken the opposite path, maybe even more so.

You see, while finding a spouse doesn't appear to be a transformative event, losing a spouse is. Eventually, recovery is possible, but on numerous measures, those who've always been single fare better, making marriage, at least as it's practiced in the Western world today, a risky proposition. DePaulo suggests that glorification of the nuclear family at the expense of the larger social network guarantees that many couples will wrap themselves in the insular bubble of The Relationship, only to be devastated when the bubble bursts, leaving one or both of them flailing in a sea of strangers. The final chapter presents a vision for the future in which this trauma would be ameliorated by true legal equality, renewed emphasis on extended families and community, and respect for singlehood as a legitimate lifestyle.

If Singled Out has any flaw, it's that it may underestimate the deep-seated desire to couple that many singles have. In one vignette, when someone asks DePaulo why she's never married, she replies, "I love being single...I just love my life…the way it is." Much of the book seems to operate on the assumption that most singles would agree, but the evidence isn't entirely convincing. For instance, the oft-quoted Pew Internet & American Life Project survey does show that 55% of single adults are "not looking for a partner," but that includes the elderly, divorced, and widowed, who may not be eager for a second or third time around. But among adults in the prime marrying years, 18-29, only 38% are "not looking." This is not to say that marriage is preferable to singlehood or that the wish to marry isn't partially fueled by enculturation, but it is a wish shared by a substantial portion of the population, both men and women, and shouldn't be dismissed.

That said, if there is a tendency to minimize the urge to couple, it's a minor complaint in this remarkably clear-eyed, meticulously documented depiction of the single life with all its--pardon the pun--singular challenges and satisfactions. DePaulo is the champion that we singles have awaited to validate the worth of the individual in a "matrimaniacal" culture and advocate for our fair treatment, and Singled Out could be the vehicle for a sea change, a reconstitution of what it means to be single. Read it, enjoy it, learn from it, pass it on to other singles to inspire them and to couples to clue them in. Even with the cards stacked against us, we singles are doing okay. In fact, we're doing better than okay--we're growing, thriving, and living our lives to the fullest. We know it, and now it's time everyone else knew it, too.




Were you surprised to learn about some of the myths discussed above? Have you experienced singlism in your life? If you've read Singled Out, do you have comments on the book?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a book or web site for or about singles that you would like Singletude to review? Contact Elsie!