<![CDATA[The Happy Bachelor

<![CDATA[The Happy Bachelor - Blog]]>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 10:51:10 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[The Little Inconveniences Singles Face - Part 2]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:56:20 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/the-little-inconveniences-singles-face-part-2“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” This phrase pops into my head every time every time a coupled person complains to me about their partner or their relationship. And it comes to mind whenever singles complain about the treatment they receive without talking about how they respond to said treatment. Of course, we all need to complain now and then; it can be healthy. And Part One of this blog was complaints.

However, as an advocate, I like to offer solutions to problem. And students in my Discovery Writing class spend half a semester researching a problem and the other half aiming to argue for a solution to the problem. So, in Part Two, I’m going to offer what I see as viable solutions to said problems. Some of these solutions should come from the institutions that perpetuate these inequities; there are other things we can do to claim agency.
Traveling
Last time, I wrote about the singles supplement. Fortunately, there are companies who’ve gotten wise to the fact that more folks are traveling solo, so there are no single supplements. Take Overseas Adventure Travel.

Many Airbnbs advertise themselves as solo-friendly; on the occasions when I log on, I’ll support them first. Here’s one in my region.

I prefer Airbnbs over hotels; they’re cheaper and much more inviting. I’ve also met some very interesting owners. However, hotels can help themselves and their customers by devoting blocks of rooms to solos. Personally, all I need is a double bed, a bathroom, Wi-Fi, a coffee maker, and I’m fine.

Medical
My friend and colleague Joan DelFattore will be a pioneer in this area of advocacy with her upcoming book. Her article about being discriminated against as a single cancer patient should be read by every doctor around the world.

Hospital patients are in very vulnerable positions, so it’s difficult for them to advocate for themselves against doctors and hospital administrators, who hold the power in this scenario. However, I’m sure they undergo training with respect to unconscious bias. Such training should include how they look at single patients.

And the loved ones of patients can step in. A few years ago, a close friend of mine had a biking accident that landed him in the hospital for a couple of weeks. When the hospital was ready to discharge him before he was ready, a mutual friend of ours stepped in, and he got to stay until he was actually ready to go. Our network used CaringBridge to schedule times to help him out with certain tasks.

Housing
I’ll refer to my Op-Ed regarding more solo-friendly housing. And I think more places are starting to do this.

I also try to remember that even though I might pay more for a 2-bedroom than a couple might, the trade-off is I have my own space. And the quiet is worth the price.
Boycotts
This is the section where I get nasty. I name-shamed Alibi for banning solo drinkers. And, of course, I joined the pile-on of comments chastising them for doing so.
Not long after I moved to DC, I began experimenting with the various ethnic restaurants in the city. I tried to make a reservation for one at a Korean restaurant, which I can’t seem to find on the Internet (perhaps they closed down?). The platform wouldn’t allow me to do so. I could’ve called them, but I didn’t feel like doing extra work when so many restaurants were more accommodating toward the solo diner.

I also won’t go to events with couples discounts.

You can also post reviews online; isn’t the Internet wonderful?

Speaking Up
This does feel Sisyphean at times, but the more we speak up, the more message is implanted into the public consciousness. As a member of the International Singles Studies Association (ISSA) Board, we were asked to provide feedback to the organizers of the annual conference as to whether they should extend the deadline. There were thirty-one submissions, which I believe to be enough for a small conference.

I said the following:

If you extend the deadline, you'll likely have to extend the time people hear back. For people who have to fly, this is problematic, because prices increase the closer we get to travel time. This is an issue for people not being funded by their schools and who subsist on only one income; those both apply to my situation. Others are likely facing the same situation.

The result: a vote in favor of keeping the deadline the same. Victory!
A friend of mine happened to notice an advertisement for a travel collective that advertised at $1,000 per couple. She wrote the following:

Thanks for the information.

I would like you to consider that 50 percent of the population is NOT Married or a couple. They are single.

Many resorts, cruise lines and other businesses in the travel network are now focusing their efforts on this demographic and it is very profitable. The days of Couples marketing is changing and becoming more offensive since half of the population is Single.

Thanks for reading this and maybe it is useful maybe not.

They wrote back.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us — we genuinely appreciate you doing so.

I understand the point you’re making, and I’m sorry if our marketing came across as excluding or dismissive. That was certainly not our intention. You’re absolutely right that a significant portion of travelers are single, and the travel landscape continues to evolve in meaningful ways.

While our advertising often features couples, this is largely a reflection of our most common booking type rather than an indication of who our journeys are meant for. In practice, we regularly welcome solo travelers, friends travelling together, and larger groups, and we work hard to ensure the experience onboard feels equally comfortable and enjoyable for all guests, regardless of how they’re travelling.

Your feedback is valuable, and comments like yours help us reflect on how our messaging is perceived and where there may be opportunities to better represent the full range of guests who travel with us. We are always open to learning and improving.

Honestly, this felt like a standardized corporate response, but at least they took the time to do so. Many places don’t. But the more we speak up, the more likely we are to be heard. I recently became a committee chair for my university union; at some point, I’ll be advocating for “pawternity leave.”

And, with that, I give you the Singles Bill of Rights, a document I hope becomes mainstream in how singles are treated in a couplecentric world.

]]><![CDATA[The Little Inconveniences Singles Face - Part 1]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 13:42:48 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/the-little-inconveniences-singles-face-part-1When I was hired at UDC, my department chair was fascinated by my mentions of the Singles Studies field, which was brand new. He always used to ask, “What kinds of things do you discuss?” I had to respond that we were still new and discussions were still developing. This was in 2020.

Nearly six years later, our field has grown, and as with any academic discipline, some tensions have developed. In fields like Gender Studies and Fat Studies, conflicts develop between researchers who want to just do scientific researchers and those of us who conduct research as a platform to advocate for the population we study. Singles Studies is no exception. I’m “wed” to the latter side; I’ve published more Op-Eds than academic work on singlehood as of this writing. But I do read the scientific stuff so I can stay informed. A lot of studies have stated that couples, on average, experience better well-being than singles. I used to deny this, but I’ve come to a begrudging acceptance of the idea.

However, the assumption a lot of researchers and readers still carry is that couplehood is the solution. And a lot of singles would love to get that, even only it were that easy (one pet peeve of mine: when people say “just get married” as if it were like signing up for a gym membership; you don’t always have control over the outcome in that scenario). And if they don’t, they just give the data and don’t really acknowledge the structural singlism that exists. And, to be fair, they’re not trained to do that. When I teach my undergraduates how to read scholarly articles, I have them look closely at the Discussion and Conclusion sections to see how the findings add to a conversation in a field, not necessarily the real-life implications outside the ivory tower.

In that vein, I’m conducting my own informal research in which I ask the question: what kinds of inconveniences do singletons face, and how do they impact their lives? Here’s some condensed data from the people I asked.

Traveling

I love to travel solo. But many of my fellow solo wanderers highlighted challenges such as logistics, like getting to an airport, having someone look after a house and pet, and asking someone watch their luggage while they go to the bathroom. I usually just take it with me. And, of course, bringing in packages. I have neighbors who can bring packages in for me, but not everyone has that luxury.

And let’s not forget that dreaded single supplement.

Medical

Hospitals aren’t malicious when they require that someone accompany a patient to a procedure; after all, they’re not in any condition to drive, and there are unscrupulous taxi and Uber drivers who will take advantage of them. And, in some places, you can have a service from the hospital drive you home. For a fee.

I had a lipoma removed from my back a few years ago, and I was lucky enough to have a friend who could drive me to and from the procedure. But, I’d also lived in that area for a few years and was able to develop connections. If I’d had an accident soon after moving to the area, when I didn’t know anyone, I would’ve been out of luck, because this hospital didn’t even have that transport service.

I asked a number of my fellow singletons about these inconveniences, and one remarked, “I wouldn't call this an inconvenience. The systematic discrimination against single people has life-threatening implications.” I agree, friend.

Some hospitals and medical facilities have been reported to only allow “immediate family,” meaning spouses and children, to visit patients in the hospital. This actually violates Federal Law, which states that patients can choose their visitors. Sadly, some of the facilities are unaware of the rule.

Housing

At the risk of stating the obvious, housing costs more if you’re single and you choose to live alone. You don’t have anyone to split rent or mortgage with. And some neighborhoods are zoned for single-family housing. I wrote an Op-Ed advocating that with the rise of singletons in the Washington, DC area, we need to have more housing that accommodates singles. And this is everywhere, not just DC.

Food Shopping

I love the concept of Costco. One can save money by buying items in bulk. And I use it for my favorite non-perishables like three-pound containers of coffee and canned tuna, salmon, and chicken salad. But it’s rare that I use it for perishables. I recently underwent periodontal surgery; to prepare I bought a bunch of soft foods like mashed potatoes, pasta, and pudding but did so at the Giant Food, my local supermarket. In a conversation with my brother, he said, “Why don’t you buy the cooked brand at Costco?”

One reason: I love mashed potatoes, but I don’t like to keep them in my home under normal circumstances. They’re just so heavy in carbs. So buying them in bulk makes no sense to me.

Another reason: if I buy the cooked brand, I have a limited amount of time to eat it. I like to portion it out, but in this case, I’d have to force myself to eat it more frequently than I’d like, or I’d just have to let it go bad and time out. So I’ll just buy the small packaged, powered brand, which doesn’t expire for several months. As I said to my brother, “Costco is not the best store for solo dwellers.”

Fortunately, my friend Louise Harper has a book about cooking for one, Single Serve: One Bowl, One Pot, One Meal. While we can’t control the markets (yet), it’s good to know there are fellow single voices looking out for our needs.

Other Stuff

Couples discounts. Family packages on cell phone plans. Gym and museum memberships discounted for couples and families. When I brought this up to a class, a student said, “Couldn’t you just find a friend to go in with?” I do respect and admire that kind of subterfuge and “taking the power back” a la Rage Against the Machine, but why should one have to scrap to find another person, particularly if they may be going in with someone else? What’s wrong with $15 per person, $30 per couple?

I’ve never experienced this, but apparently, some platforms won’t let you purchase single seats for concerts or theater events. It’s just wrong. And given that 20% of Broadway theater tickets are purchased by solo patrons, those platforms are hurting themselves. And I’m going to shame Alibi, a bar that bans solo drinkers after 9 p.m. I don’t go to bars, but if I did, they’d lose my business. And if I owned a bar in that area, I’d offer specials for solo drinkers and say, “We welcome solos!”

Conclusion

As the rates of non-married and non-partnered folks have increased and are projected to do so, institutions are going to need to change their practices. In Part Two, which I’ll post next week, I’ll throw out some ideas.

[CW1]Check the expiration date on it.]]><![CDATA[The Dark Side of Fairy Tale Romance]]>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:44:14 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/the-dark-side-of-fairy-tale-romance

The Disney films of my childhood sit somewhere in the recesses of my memory, right between the horror of my first dentist’s appointment and joke-telling in the school cafeteria. But I’ve been researching them for my book project on how tropes in film promote romance and denigrate singlehood.
So off I went in the pouring rain to Baltimore. I’d given my Singles Studies talk at Guilford Hall Brewery the year prior, but I was looking forward to enjoying some good bar food and taking notes as a spectator for a talk called the Dark Side of Fairy Tale Romance, facilitated by a professor named Linda Lee, from the University of Pennsylvania.

Some of the foundations of the talk came second nature to me, like the character’s journey and how they progress from single to married. And I knew that Disney films often end with the protagonist coupling up (Brave and the first Frozen are exceptions).

There were references to The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast (which one of my Creative Writing sections examined in order to learn about Freytag’s Pyramid, one of the ways to structure plot). But Lee’s examination included The Frog Prince, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White. Apparently, in the Brothers Grimm’s version of The Frog Prince, the frog sexually assaults the princess, who responds by marrying him. “Stockholm syndrome,” said the lady who sat next to me. This happened in General Hospital; Luke raped Laura, and yet, audiences were so enamored with the idea of them as a couple that the writers partnered them up. Sadly, this situation isn’t that far removed from real life. A friend told me about a law school colleague who was regularly abused by a partner; she ended up marrying him.

We love the Disnified version of Snow White. Apparently, in the original, Snow White was SEVEN YEARS OLD. Who would’ve thought Disney would have endorsed pedophilia? And Sleeping Beauty involves intimacy without consent, and a resulting pregnancy. And a “childless couple” endorses it!

I did have to leave early to catch a train back to DC, and I was hoping we’d get a break. Great information, but my cognitive energy started to fade after the Snow White discussion. That said, it was a great talk, though Lee did give the trigger warning that our perception of our favorite Disney films would be ruined.

Mine wasn’t. It was just reinforced.

]]><![CDATA[Profs and Pints Reflections]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2026 18:14:36 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/profs-and-pints-reflectionsYou know how when you walk away from an argument, you think “Damn, I should have said that!?” Well, I felt that way after a much more positive interaction: the talk I gave on Singles Studies at a recent Profs and Pints event.

I’ve given versions of this talk to an audience of educated laypeople. A mark of a good teacher is to always be revising your lessons. I switched up a few slides and eliminated the pre-writing exercise I’ve done (“When you hear the word ‘single,’ what comes to mind?”). And I think the lecture portion went well. However, the Q&A part is always a challenge. I never know what kinds of questions I’m going to get, and there are times I’m not quite sure how to respond, other than the “I don’t know, but I’ll get back to you.” And I think I handled the questions well, as per the head nods and enthusiastic applause after the talk concluded. But on the Metro ride home, I pondered some of the questions I received and thought about ways I could have responded. Since I don’t have a time machine, I can’t go back, and I don’t have any of the participants’ information, but my hope is that my talk interested them enough to check out this blog post, which contains some revised answers to the questions/comments I received, which I’ve paraphrased as best I can:

“Have you thought the distinction between selfless and selfish and how it can apply to singles and coupled people?”
I cited my favorite Bible quote: Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do (1 Corinthians 7). He was talking about the single serving God; I see it as serving the public. I talked about how I’m doing service through my advocacy for singles through organizations like Singles Equality, the Meetup group I started (Childfree Singles of the DMV), and how I can be of service to my family back in NY and various friends.

I was working on my book project this morning, and I wrote about figures in film who forwent the traditional family life to be of service to the public (George McKenna, Erin Gruwell, Bryan Stevenson). I then thought of two other real-life figures, Louis Kokonis and Dale Schroeder. Kokonis has been a high school math teacher in Alexandria, Virginia for the last sixty-three years. He’s never married or had children, which has enabled him to be of service to other people’s children.

Dale Schroeder was a carpenter, much like Jesus, who also didn’t “attain” the traditional family life. He started a scholarship that enabled kids from low-income backgrounds to go to college. I suspect that if he’d had his own kids, he wouldn’t have had the funds to donate.

I want to hear more stories about people like this; it can dispel the “singles are selfish” stereotype.

“Is there any research on aromantics and asexuals?”
None came to me at that time, but I did talk about how a lot of aces who want to partner feel that internalized singlism even more because when they try to date, they face challenges because sex is an expected part of that world. When I logged on LinkedIn later that night, I saw a post about the newly released Towards Intersectional Feminist Singlehood Studies, a special edition of the Amsterdam-based Tijdschrift Voor Genderstudies, and I suddenly remembered there was an article about aces. The title is “Asexual Grief and Compulsory Sexuality,” and it was written by an Australian scholar named Kathi Ammann. To the person who asked that question, I hope you see it.

“Can you talk about people dating AI bots?”
I have very mixed feelings on this one; while I do use ChatGPT for advice on matters, I don’t believe it to be any kind of replacement for human interaction, whether it be romantic, platonic, or otherwise. That’s all I said. But there is also a ton of research about the benefits of having friends. And it dovetails with the finding that married people become more insular while singles tend to develop their networks of friends.

Another participant shared that a close friend stopped calling him once he got married and had a kid, and he expressed concern for his friend that he could be losing access to a world outside of his circle. His point is valid. After a divorce or passing of a spouse, women have a much easier time adjusting to singlehood than men do. They’re encouraged to form friendships and be vulnerable. Men aren’t it’s not “masculine.” So, they suffer in silence, without friends. So they’re more likely to turn to AI for companionship. While it can be a sounding board, an AI bot can’t drive you to an appointment (as friends of mine have done), and it definitely can’t sit on you after you’ve had a stressful day (this one applies to my cat/son Chester). It definitely can’t drive an hour just to see your performance and give you encouraging smiles during the presentation, like my friend Alicia did.

Closing Thoughts
If I give this talk again, I’ll likely ask for a Wi-fi password so that I can show additional sources to people. The Singles Studies talk scratches the surface, but I can throw all kinds of sources to folks. And I’ll also opt to write down information on a Word document, projected to the audience, so people can take notes.

At any rate, my hope is that the single members of the audience walked away with one thing they can use to own their singlehood and advocate for themselves. And if there were any coupled members, they can think about how they’re treating their single friends and family members. And if they become single, by choice or by circumstance, they’ll be able to advocate for, or at least, accept their status.
]]><![CDATA[Response to "All the Single Leaders"]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 22:46:19 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/response-to-all-the-single-leadersI appreciate Dr. Tanglen’s willingness to be vulnerable in her experience in regarding singlehood in her piece “All the Single Leaders” (published January 13, 2026); no doubt she speaks to single academics at all levels who have felt dismissed by a culture that privileges the nuclear family. Dr. Tanglen inadvertently touches on a few issues that need to be discussed more in higher education circles, especially among faculty leadership.

Singlism is a term coined by psychologist Dr. Bella DePaulo; this is defined as the discrimination and stereotyping of those who are non-married (I prefer this to the term “unmarried”). I’m not a psychologist, but a lot of the assumptions Dr. Tanglen’s colleagues made about her “freedom” are an example of singlism. Much of the loneliness the writer felt may have been a result of internalized singlism, which emanates from societal messages from our public discourse (media, business practices, even laws) that marginalize the single and the childless/childfree, especially women.[1]

Example: when I began my assistant professorship in a small town, a colleague exclaimed “You’re not married!?” when I responded “no” to the “are you married” question that many people love to ask when they meet you for the first time. Fortunately, I’m a tenured Associate Professor in an urban university where singlehood is much more common, and thus, less stigmatized, at least on a surface level. I’ve also built a brand out of writing about and advocating for equity for singles.

As a Board Member of Singles Equality, an organization that seeks to level the playing field for singles, I seek to advocate for a level playing field for those who haven’t followed the traditional path of getting married and having children, whether it’s by choice or by circumstance. We seek to address policies that inadvertently discriminate against singles, such as the fact that I could leave my Social Security benefits to a woman I just met if we signed our nuptials today, but not to my brother, whom I’ve known for the past forty-three years.

While Dr. Tanglen’s advice for academic leaders is solid, it shouldn’t need to be stated. Higher education can do a lot of things to be more welcoming to singles. Since the space of this letter is limited, one practice would be to encourage its faculty to share personal accomplishments that fall outside of the marriage/pregnancy/childbirth triad. Have faculty bought a home? Adopted a pet? Hiked all forty-six peaks of the Adirondack Mountains? As the co-chair of International Singles Studies Association’s Newsletter Committee, I’m encouraging all members to share such accomplishments. For example, I became a solo homeowner a year and a half ago, shortly after earning tenure. Not all singles are happy to be, but after a day of teaching, department and committee meetings, hallway conversations, and the increased emotional labor that comes with helping students these days, I’m happy to come home and greeted by the meows of my cat, Chester. This concept is known as being “single at heart,” another term coined by Dr. DePaulo.
While many singles don’t fall into this category, those that are should be encouraged to display their orientation. Fostering cultures that enable this practice might just help unhappy singles feel less stigmatized, and, thus, less lonely.

[1] “Childless” refers to those who want children and don’t have them; “childfree” describes people who do not want children.
]]><![CDATA[Declining Rates of Marriage Not a Crisis, But a Change]]>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 21:53:31 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/declining-rates-of-marriage-not-a-crisis-but-a-changeWith the holidays coming up, a lot of my fellow singletons will be subjected to questions like, “When are you settling down?” “Are you seeing anyone?” These questions seem innocuous, but they carry the meaning that they’re not meeting someone else’s timeline. If the person who has no interest in partnering (many of them are referred to as “single at hearts” by psychologist Bella DePaulo), they may be able to brush off such comments. For the person who’s feeling bad about being single, such questions can elicit feelings of inadequacy.

These questions also reflect the societal fear that fewer people are following the traditional, tried, and true path of getting married and having children. A recent article from The Economist, “The Great Relationship Recession,” is an example of the hand-wringing on people making choices that differ from what’s seen as “normal.” But we need to recognize that this fear is overblown. We’re not in a crisis; we’re just making a change.

There are myriad options outside the “relationship escalator,” coined by Amy Gahran. This refers to the model that a romance must follow the pattern of meet, date, become exclusive, move in together, marry, have kids, white picket fence, grandkids, etc. Some folks enjoy various forms of consensual non-monogamy. Situationships aren’t the evil the general public makes them out to be, so long as both parties are honest about their intentions. And of course, there’s pure, unbridled singlehood.

The escalator model is valid, and it works for many people, some of my friends and family included. But a lot of people enjoy the other arrangements. Living apart together works for a lot of couples. Many of my coupled friends are childfree by choice. And I have a cousin who’s had a husband and a boyfriend at the same time. They seem happy.

I’m a happy singleton, as are most of my friends these days, but I (begrudgingly) understand we’re in the minority. One of the reasons I am happy with my relationship status is that I have a wide network of friends; data shows that singles tend to have more social connections than their coupled counterparts. As a male, I’m an anomaly in this area, as, for most men, their social network consists of their partner.

Women are encouraged to form relationships outside romantic partnerships, which is why they’re typically better off after a divorce or breakup than men are. In fact, data shows that single women tend to be happier and healthier than married women. To be fair, Paul Dolan, the researcher who popularized this finding, admitted a flaw in that he had mentioned they were happier than their spouses weren’t present. This turned out to be a misinterpretation, but it doesn’t negate the data. An observation of the single and married women I’ve talked to confirms this finding.

Over the past decade, I’ve built a brand as The Happy Bachelor. All of my extended family members and friends know this, so they know better than to ask me those annoying questions. But they’re likely to show up for others, especially as we’re saturated with those films where the independent, career-oriented woman abandons her high-flying, glamorous urban life to move to a small town to settle down into “family life” with that flannel-wearing hunk she’s known for a grand total of five days, that classic Hallmark plot structure that sells movie tickets and streaming subscriptions by the thousands.

So here’s my advice: when you see your single family members and friends, instead of asking “are you seeing anyone?” ask about their professional accomplishments, their hobbies, their friends, their travel plans, or, if applicable, their pets. Not only does it make them feel seen, but it’ll likely remind you that a fulfilling life comes in many shapes and sizes. And that’s worth celebrating. We need to challenge the narrative that it’s not.
]]><![CDATA[Let's Stop Using the Word "Family" When We Mean "People"]]>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 15:59:47 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/lets-stop-using-the-word-family-when-we-mean-peopleAt present, millions of Americans are being impacted by the cuts to SNAP benefits, which will make celebrating Thanksgiving much more difficult for recipients. And I feel nothing but sympathy for them; I’ve donated plenty of food items to pantries over the years. So, at the risk of sounding like Ebenezer Scrooge, I ask, why do news outlets keep mentioning “families” as being in need of help? What about individuals that aren’t part of families?

One doesn’t have to look very deeply to see that despite the declining marriage rates, we still live in a world built for families. This is evident in how our politicians refer to helping American families and advertisements that encourage us to donate money to food to low-income families. While this is certainly well-meaning on the surface, such language makes millions of other people invisible, people who may not be part of a traditional nuclear family unit.

To be sure, family is a broad term. My cat/son Chester and I are a family. Communities of singles often come together to share housing. But our society doesn’t see it that way. The pricing of homes usually assumes multi-income households, and even studios are overpriced. Health insurance and leave policies often prioritize the married, i.e., the Family Leave and Medical Act, which only allows one to take leave to care for a spouse, child, or parent. Siblings, cousins, and other extended family members don’t qualify.

The media is complicit too. Advertisements overwhelmingly show couples and families enjoy their holiday meals. And let’s not forget that annual stream of holiday movies that portray the urban career woman visiting her rural hometown, falling in love with the flannel-wearing, blue-collar guy, and uprooting her life to upbeat music just before the end credits roll.

In 2023, 32% of SNAP recipients reported living alone and 63% reported having no children. To be sure, benefits are skewed toward households of one; the limit to net monthly income is $1,305 for a one-person household while for a two-person household, it’s $1,763. This would mean the limit is $881.50 per person. Hypothetically, a married person would need to earn less money than a singleton to be eligible. However, a single parent would (in theory) get enough extra funds to support a child. So it’s equitable in that sense.

However, not every program considers the needs of those who fall outside the traditional family unit. For example, this inequity carries over to how doctors treat patients. Joan DelFattore, a colleague and close friend of mine, was diagnosed with cancer. An oncologist suggested a much less effective form of treatment due to the fact that she wasn’t part of a traditional family structure (i.e., didn’t have a spouse or children). Fortunately, her chosen family, a group of friends, provided support. They helped her find a doctor who “got it,” and, as of this writing, she’s in remission.

Journalists and politicians are aware of how language shapes perception. They likely use the term “families” because it’s safe and meant to inspire empathy. After all, who doesn’t want to support a family? Unfortunately, it helps reinforce harmful stereotypes around singles, namely that they’re struggling due to personal shortcomings rather than structural inequities. Such stereotypes fellow under the category of singlism.

This holiday, my wish is for policymakers, politicians, journalists, scholars, religious institutions, and the general public to use more inclusive words like “residents,” “neighbors,” “friends,” “households,” “community members,” or “people,” rather than “families.” This kind of language isn’t just cosmetic, but it can subtly influence who gets prioritized in any initiative. While the holiday season celebrates abundance, it loses its meaning if the language inadvertently states that only one type of person is deserving of it.
]]><![CDATA[Saying "Yes" to the Address]]>Sun, 26 Oct 2025 23:54:55 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/saying-yes-to-the-address

We lionize weddings and baby showers. I’m not against celebrating them, but why can’t a promotion receive such props? Getting tenure? Buying a new home? I made a point of making a registry for my tenure/housewarming party. And I encourage everyone to celebrate their accomplishments. So I was ecstatic when my friend Alicia invited me to her housewarming to celebrate her saying “yes” to the address (if bridal gowns can generate such fawning, so should buying one’s first home).

I got a lot of steps in by walking from the MARC station to Alicia’s lovely townhouse. I stopped at Red Emmas, an indie bookstore/coffeehouse (DC needs more of those), for a coffee and a writing session, before entering Alicia’s.

As an introvert who likes small groups, I typically like to go to parties early and leave before the crowds get there. And, true to form, I was the first one to arrive, so I got a personalized tour of her home, which has some cool artwork and funny sayings.

I like going to other people’s homes; I always get a nice sense of who they are. And meeting the people in their lives always gives me a glimpse of their multidimensionality. I met Dwayne, one of Alicia’s former coworkers (thank you, nurses, and other medical workers); Eve, a dance teacher of Alicia’s (how do people maneuver around those poles?); Dan and Hilary, Eve’s parents; and Mary, a friend of Alicia’s from the neighborhood. I had a nice 1-1 conversation with Dan, a retired social studies teacher and assistant principal, about theater and AI’s impact on writing and education as a whole.

I’m good at parties for about two hours before I need to retreat. I had been at it all day and wanted to head home before dark, so I politely excused myself. But I enjoyed the place and the company during my time there. A highlight: this “mandip” Alicia made, which consists of a nice mixture of ground sausage and cream cheese.

I’ll be making this at my next event: my Singles Empowerment Day gathering (2/15/26).

]]><![CDATA[The Overuse of Data]]>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 17:32:57 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/the-overuse-of-dataData is all around us. Baseball teams use batting averages and on-base percentages to determine the value of their players (my New York Mets seem to fall short in this department). Scientists test medications and compile lab results to determine the effectiveness and safety of said medications. Such data is important to essential things like how an organization operates and whether lives are saved.

However, there are times when data can’t fully measure the human experience. My university (along with most other universities) is constantly collecting data to measure student satisfaction. These are done through surveys, with questions like “The instructor was typically punctual in meeting this course.” And the usual numerical response. 5: Strongly agree. 4: Agree. 1: Strongly disagree. And there’s a blank text box in which students can give information not typically answered in the questions. In my experience, most students don’t fill this information out, which is why give them my own survey with open-ended questions like, “What do you like about this course?” and “What could be improved about the course?”

Numbers can’t always capture the full experience, which is why I’m often skeptical of empirical studies. Surveys can’t capture whether one of my students couldn’t complete an assignment because they were up all night caring for a sick mother or baby. Questionnaires don’t reveal that a player may be slumping because they’re going through a nasty divorce. And, to be fair, sports fans don’t care about the latter. They just want their players to perform and their teams to win.

As a Singles Studies scholar/activist, I sometimes cite data. My favorite piece is those studies that show that single women are happier than married women, while the opposite applies to men. This was once cited by a scholar named Paul Dolan in his 2019 book, Happy Ever After. It’s been referred to by those of us in the singlehood community. I’m not trained in data collection and analysis, so I tend to take the experts’ word. I did this in the piece I recently published in Ms. Magazine.

I posted this to the Singlehood Studies listserv. Exactly thirty-five minutes after I posted, a colleague emailed with a congratulations and just to point out that the Dolan study had been debunked. They were even kind enough to include a link to the Reddit page.

So here’s my issue. It’s not that this person pointed out the debunking, even though that’s not totally correct. Another colleague informed me that it was just the saying that women indicated they were happier when their spouse wasn’t in the room, which I thought was more of a cheeky remark from Dolan rather than a finding. And to me, it sounded more like poor word choice than inaccurate data representation. And it doesn’t negate the finding.

The issue is: was this celebration really the correct space to point out a tiny inaccuracy in data? As academics, we have a tendency to prize knowledge above all else. And if you’re a scientist, that knowledge had better be data-driven. But there are times when this type of analysis isn’t called for. I’m not a data scientist, but even I know that one can cherry pick data to unconsciously (or, sadly, consciously) confirm their biases. This last sentence was paraphrased straight from a friend of mine who works with data. A similar study, cited in a 1991 book called Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, found that sixty percent of women surveyed indicated they were happier than their married friends. That year again, 1991.

I don’t know if that data is accurate. I wasn’t there when the researchers collected their data or analyzed it, and I’m not fluent in those numerical modes of expression. In fact, when I teach my second-year writing students to read those academic articles, I tell them to skip those methodology sections and go straight to the Discussion and Conclusion sections. This is common advice among composition pedagogues. But I digress.

Numerical data doesn’t always capture the full experience. And even if Dolan’s finding was inaccurate, pieces like mine help give singles a voice. They encourage us singletons to advocate for ourselves and others. In the five days since this piece was published, I’ve been thanked by quite a few people for it. A notable exception:

From Mconservative Mayer, a self-proclaimed anti-feminist on Facebook: Perhaps Craig Wynne should read "Men and Marriage" by George Gilder. It's about just what the title suggests - "men and marriage" - and what happens to men AND to society, when they don't.

Yeah. A far-right source from 1986. Really on the money there. I’ll continue to use the data in a way that serves the public, not the ego of someone who misread a social cue just to pontificate a data point, and certainly not some ghost from the last time my Mets won the World Series.
]]><![CDATA[Why is a "Husband and Father" Worth More?]]>Sat, 20 Sep 2025 21:01:15 GMThttps://www.thehappybachelor.org/blog/why-is-a-husband-and-father-worth-moreCharlie Kirk’s assassination is all over the news. Many of his mourners have grieved the untimely death of a “father and husband.” Opinions of his rhetoric aside, the unintended implication is that he would be less worthy of being mourned if he were single and childless.

As a 47-year-old male who’s never been married and has little to no interest in dating, you’d better believe I’ve been asked questions like “When are you gonna settle down?” and “why are you still single?” But this isn’t about me venting. It’s about what’s behind these questions; the core assumption that not having a partner is lacking.

Despite this assumption, the Pew Research Center has predicted that by 2030, one in four Americans will have never married by the age of 50. At present, 50% of the US population over the age of eighteen is single. These statistics are frightening to the Heritage Foundation, who recently published a position paper entitled “We Must Save the American Family,” the goal of which is to encourage more people to follow the traditional path of getting married and having children. Such thinking, while well-meaning on the surface, is quite damaging for humanity.

If one’s going to talk fairly and accurately about singlehood, they must understand two major terms, both coined by Dr. Bella DePaulo: singlism, the stereotyping and discrimination against people who are single; and matrimania, the over-the-top societal obsession with marriage as the ultimate mark of happiness. These two ideas are pervasive around the world.

There is conflicting data on whether married people are happier and healthier than single people. Some studies show that very finding. However, there is also research that proves marginalized groups suffer greater happiness and health deficits, which contributes to this finding. It stems from a variety of sources, such as: 1) popular media. For example, the protagonist, at the beginning of the film, is “broken” in some way, and by the end, they’re coupled, and the romance has magically fixed them; 2) our laws. Example, when I die, I could leave my Social Security benefits to a spouse or child, but not to the brother I’ve known for the past forty-three years; 3) the types of microaggressions mentioned in the opening paragraph, which have the potential to affect how a single person views themselves, thus causing them to enter a relationship and stay in it past its expiration date.

It carries over to how doctors treat their patients. My friend and colleague, Joan DelFattore, was diagnosed with cancer. An oncologist suggested a less aggressive course of treatment due to the fact that she doesn’t have a spouse or children. Fortunately, she had a group of friends to provide support; they helped her find a doctor who was more understanding, and she’s currently in remission.

This example coincides with findings that singles have larger networks of friends than married people do; they’re also more connected with their communities and families of origin. Women do especially well in this area because they’re encouraged to form networks; for this reason, single women have been shown to be happier than married women. The opposite holds true for men because my gender falls victim to the toxically masculine myth that to be vulnerable is to be weak. I’m an anomaly in this area; I refer to myself as a “childless cat lady” with male parts (my cat’s name is Chester).

Involuntary, unhappy singles are prey for scammers on dating apps. There have been many cases where a person’s given copious amounts of money to people they believed was a romantic partner, even though they hadn’t met said partner. As a result, they lose a lot of money and endure years of mental health struggles. Many suffer from internalized singlism, which often results from societal thinking that “single is bad.”

I can’t measure whether they want to partner innately or if they’re being socialized into it. But the conditioning we receive doesn’t help. That said, I’m not anti-marriage. I do believe some people are meant to follow that path, but it’s overprescribed and overprivileged. And it’s certainly not for everyone. The Book of Paul even states this: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry.”

If we can modify our thinking, singles as a population will be happier, and those who marry will be happier because they’re entering a union they’re meant to be in, not one society forces upon them.
]]>