I spent nearly a week in Tennessee in August 2014, when I drove from El Paso, Texas to Newport News, Virginia for my first academic job.  It was a fun time.  First stop, Memphis, where I bopped around Beale Street and indulged in some ribs and blues.  In Nashville, I caught country music fever whilst at the Country Music Hall of Fame, not to mention the country-themed record stores and the street musicians playing fiddles and washboards.  On my way eastbound and out, I got to hike some trails at Great Smoky Mountains National Park while staying in Gatlinburg, an ode to Jesus, babies,  overconsumption, and 18 miles of highway surrounded by a never-ending stream of mini-malls.
​
Despite that last part, I enjoyed my trip to Tennessee.  I even considered moving there for my second academic job, but ended up choosing Washington, DC, which is where I’m located now; the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) offered me a better deal.  And now that I learned about HB 0178, aka “The Sequence Success Act,” I’m glad I did.  The act now requires schools to teach kids that graduating high school, pursuing a degree or entering the workface, getting married, and having children leads to a successful life.  With the new administration, I’ve been trying to scale back my political writing, but as an activist for the single and childfree, I can’t stay silent on this one.  So this is my plea to students and teachers in The Volunteer State to passively and actively resist this in ways you can.

Educators
While I know you’re in a red state, most of the teachers I know lean blue.  After all, we tend to have a proclivity for critical thinking, and we want our students to look beyond what’s in front of them.  If you’ve been assigned to teach this, know that there is no law that prevents you from at least presenting other points of view on the issue.   So, after you’ve taught that, kindly introduce texts (or even excerpts) such as these:

Singled Out: How Singles are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After – Bella DePaulo
Solo: Building a Remarkable Life of Your Own – Peter McGraw
Stepping Off the Relationship Escalator: Uncommon Love and Life – Amy Gahran
How to be a Happy Bachelor – Craig Wynne (sorry, I couldn’t resist plugging my brand!)
Childfree by Choice – Amy Blackstone
Happy Singlehood: The Rising Acceptance and Celebration of Solo Living – Elyakim Kislev

These books will also lead you to other resources, which you can also find on Bella’s list here. 

And if you don’t teach Family Life courses, consider bringing in excerpts from those texts into the courses you teach.  We call it the “hidden curriculum” in education.  I did something similar involving a few of those books in my first-year writing.  You don’t necessarily have to agree with any of our contentions, but do present it to your students so they can form their own opinions and make life choices that are more conducive to who they are.  Marriage and children are a valid path for some, but they’re not for everyone.  Politicians who don’t understand that shouldn’t have the right to make decisions for others.  And teachers who don’t understand that shouldn’t have the right to shape young minds.

And any DEI practitioner who doesn’t understand such stigma is oppressive has no right to speak about DEI under any circumstances.

To Students
During my senior year of high school, I took a painting class.  I was disillusioned by some of the oppressive policies my school had put in place (not being allowed to use the soda or vending machines until after class, juniors not being allowed to park in the student parking lot), so I painted pictures likening our school principal to Adolf Hitler.  As I look back on it, this may have been a silly, futile gesture, but it was my way of using creativity to rebel at that time. Even if you do want to get married and have children someday, understand there are other ways of living and relating that work of others.

If your teachers aren’t providing texts like that for you, read some of them on your own.  Thanks to the smartphone, you can access them in seconds.

And if you’re not inclined to reading or advocacy, and your teachers haven’t gotten my memo, I give you full permission to ditch class on the day your instructors “teach” this lesson.  Bop around Beale Street on that day.  Check out the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum.  Hike the Smokies. 

The best way to rebel is through passive resistance and through use of discourse.  So go for it!  Dolly Parton would approve.

The myth that singles are selfish is prevalent.  On the surface, it makes sense.  Devoting your life to a person that is not you is the most selfless act there is, and what better way to do it than to couple up, and eventually sign that piece of better that welds, err, I mean, weds you to each other?
​
I get a great deal of satisfaction out of helping others, and I’ve been stepping that game up since the new administration took over the White House and started laying off federal government employees.  Two of my friends fell into that category, and since I teach resume writing, I offered feedback on their resumes. 

During that time, I started thinking about the prophet Paul.  I’m not religious, but I find this quote meaningful: “But I say to the unmarried and the widows, it is good for them to remain as they are, as I am.”  It comes from the book of Corinthians, and the argument is that a single person may just have more opportunities to be of service than a married person does.

I co-chair a Singles Studies area at the Northeast Modern Language Association (NeMLA) conference with my friend Elizabeth, and we had an interesting conversation about the work we do, and how that’s a form of public service.

Reading Bella’s work went beyond that of an intellectual experience: it was visceral.  It spoke to me.  For years, I wrote about it.  I thought I was writing for me, but I wanted people who had made those singlist comments in my direction to read it and be humbled.  I don’t know if they actually did so, but other people on CoSP read it, and they felt spoken to.  Gradually, those little blogs turned into academic articles, then popular articles, then a book, which evolved into a brand.  As of now, I’m also a board member on the International Singles Studies Association and Unmarried Equality, two organizations with very different missions on singlehood.  I never thought I’d make a career out of being single, but life will surprise you.

Lately, I’ve taken to giving talks around the Washington, DC area, and oftentimes, when I present the concepts of “singlism,” “matrimania,” and “amatonormativity,” I see a collective light bulb emanate above the heads of my audience members, and they share their experiences of being marginalized.  Part of me wishes they’ll all come join the movement and start writing about these ideas, but not everybody can be as obsessive as I am, I suppose.  That said, I like to think I’ve given them something they can use with the people in their lives.

Of late, I’ve been aiming to use writing, my other passion, to help others.  I don’t like to get political on here (other than my “Childless Cat Ladies” posturing), but it riles me up that so many Federal workers have lost their jobs, particularly when some of them are people I know and care about.   A close friend of mine who worked in the Department of Education’s DEI office was laid off, and I offered to look at her resume for a similar type of job in Virginia.  I gave her comments on verb tenses and using bullet points to set off large bits of information, which I hope was helpful.  While my “day job” revolves around helping people improve their writing skills, it felt good to be able to do something similar for a friend who has real “stakes.”   I did the same thing for another woman I met in a Meetup group, which gave a similar feeling.

I find that when I’m feeling bad, helping others is the best way to get out of that funk.  Teaching does that for me, but I do get paid for it.  So I’ve put the word out on my social media networks that if you or someone you know has been laid off from the fed, I’m here to help.

And, for me, being single does that.  Much of the data continues to show that married people become more insular because they have a family to serve.  And more power to them.  As for me and Bryan Stevenson, I follow Paul’s philosophy.  The data shows we singletons tend to be more involved in our communities as well.

That said, I do have to serve Chester above everyone else.  IYKYK…

I didn’t expect everyone to agree with my argument that the Childfree/Childless be included in DEI’s initiatives; I concede it’s an unorthodox idea.  And, to be sure, while it garnered a lot of support in the Higher Ed Learning Collective Facebook group, it got some pushback; said disagreement was generally civil, except for the person, a self-proclaimed "Social Justice Advocate," who spouted “Straight up bullshit…so fucking gross!” 

I was, admittedly, a bit stunned when I read Megan Strong’s letter to the editor, entitled “DEI Should Not Focus On Childfree Cat Guys.” After pondering, I decided to take it as a compliment: something I wrote really got to someone, enough they would take the time to conduct research, write about it, and publish it. I do empathize with Dr. Strong’s position, but I still disagree with the tenets of her argument.

First, the title.  I never suggested that DEI should focus on childfree cat guys, merely that it includes this population (not to mention cat ladies, dog ladies, and anybody else who’s childless or childfree).  Inclusion: the third word in DEI.

Second, nobody is arguing that DEI initiatives are under attack.  One of the criticisms of DEI is that it limits free expression and dialogue in college classrooms.  In my classes, we regularly discuss different perspectives on romantic relationships and their value in my society; I hear all different viewpoints on the issue, so I have not found this to be the case at all.  However, when a practitioner and scholar of DEI argues that DEI initiatives “shouldn’t include” a certain population, it supports said argument from DEI’s detractors.  Moreover, this explicitly runs counter to the idea of “inclusion,” one of the tenets of DEI.  I’m sure the people who conceptualized the idea would frown upon such gatekeeping, something DEI was designed to prevent.

Third, I acknowledged the difficulties of parenting in my original piece.  And yes, I believe the Surgeon General’s Warning that parents are going through a tough time.  One doesn’t need such a warning to understand how difficult parenting is; that is one of the reasons I’ve opted out of it.  However, there are two problems with this argument: 1) the difficulty one group faces does not cancel out the oppression another group faces.  Dr. Strong, a sociologist, should understand the idea of Oppression Olympics; and 2) parenting is a choice.  A valid one for many, but a choice nonetheless.  And Dr. Strong has forgotten about the thousands of women who are childless, as opposed to childfree.  I fall into the latter category (not wanting kids), but the former consists of those who wanted children but couldn’t have them.  Seeing parents receive the privilege they do can cause them to feel even more marginalized than they already do.  Can’t DEI initiatives acknowledge that more than one group can be subject to some degree of oppression, even if for different reasons?

Dr. Strong had quite the visceral reaction on the Facebook page when she read it: “Unbelievable.”  She further went onto say that she thought the “Bingo card” would be an actual bingo card and was “disappointed.”  I can only speculate, but is it possible that those saying resonate with some of her own dialogue?  And is it possible that she doesn’t like the fact that she’s been called to the carpet on this issue, perhaps for the first time?

New ideas can be threatening to anyone, even academics who are supposed to embrace them.  Galileo was punished harshly for having the gall to suggest Earth revolved around the sun.  John Scopes was arrested for teaching evolution.  So the idea that marginalization of Childfree/Childless people should be included in DEI discussions will understandably ruffle some feathers.   But it is extremely irresponsible, not to mention hypocritical, for one person (particularly one who advocates for social justice-related issues) to decide what is not a microaggression and what does not belong in a certain category.  When that person does that, they’re just as prejudiced as those who commit those acts of oppression, thus necessitating DEI committees to exist in the first place.

Finally, the soon-to-be, second-most powerful person in the United States essentially stated that the votes of people without children shouldn't be counted as much as those with.  The soon-to-be most powerful person in the US looks to Vladamir Putin as a mentor in governance.  Russia is in the process of banning "propaganda" in favor of childfree styles.  If, after reading about it, Dr. Strong is not convinced that the childfree/childless are deserving of a spot in DEI spaces, then she has no business whatsoever discussing oppression.

Here's a link to my original article, "Letter from a Childfree Cat Guy."

In my book, How to be a Happy Bachelor, and the recent talks I’ve given at Profs and Pints events throughout the DMV, the following projection is mentioned: by 2030, one-fourth of Americans between the ages of 45 and 54 will have never been married.  And, of course, I am one of those twenty-five percent.  Some people cite that statistic as the downfall of society (including a supposed liberal named David Brooks) while others embrace it and laud it as an example of progress.  I’m in the latter camp.
​
And as of this writing, fifty percent of Americans over the age of 18 are legally single, and half of those have no interest in dating.  Yet, in this last Presidential election, both candidates (and their respective number twos) touted their spouses in front of their audiences because despite the growth of singlehood (particularly the voluntary kind), they want to appeal to a public whose mentality is entrenched in “traditional family values.”  If I had a nickel for every time a politician pledged to help “working families” instead of “working people,” I wouldn’t need to be a working person.

As a board member of Unmarried Equality, an organization that aims to facilitate advocacy for singles under a huge array of laws that privilege the married, I’ve had discussions with a number of people who’ve talked about mobilizing singles to change laws.  Sadly, many aren’t interested in it because: 1) they don’t see it as a form of oppression; after all, we’re not subject to violence because of our status; 2) they see it as liminal.  In fact, most hope to become “un-single.”

But I do have hope.  The new 4B movement, which started in South Korea, has come to the United States in the wake of all the rhetoric around “Your Body, My Choice,” which stemmed from President-Elect Donald Trump’s recent victory and the possibility of a national abortion ban, as outlined in that massive Project 2025 document.

For the past nine years, I’ve been immersed in the Singles Studies discipline.  Additionally, through my writing, I’ve been advocating for awareness around equity issues as they relate to singles, as well as those who are childless/childfree (the difference being that childless folks want kids but don’t have them for a variety of reasons; for childfree people, it’s a choice).  There are a small number of us with this passion, but at times, it feels futile trying to get people to advocate in large numbers.  However, this election gave me hope, despite the outcome.

When JD Vance’s ridiculous comment about “childless cat ladies” hit cyberspace, to say there was a firestorm put it mildly.  A Facebook group called “Cat Ladies for Kamala Harris” popped up, and suddenly, being childfree/childless doesn’t appear to have the same stigma it used to.  I walked around Dupont Circle a few days after my “America Needs More Childfree Cat Ladies” T-shirt came in.  It got a lot of compliments, although I’m pretty sure one older gentleman bumped into me intentionally.  I bumped back because, well, I stick up for my own.

I wrote a piece about inclusion of Childfree/Childless people in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion spaces for Inside Higher Ed; it got its share of likes, but I was disheartened that supposedly enlightened academics didn’t think childfree people are oppressed, including one comment from a supposed “advocate for social justice” who commented with “This is straight up bullshit.  So fucking gross!”  Do you kiss your kids with that mouth, friend?

But enough people were able to validate this, including a couple of journalists who posed the idea of a childfree voting bloc.  Even after Vance’s comment, which we later doubled down on, Harris and Walz gave support to this population, but only in their rhetoric.  I do believe there needs to be more equity for the childfree.  But since my work focuses primarily on the single, I’m going to propose a Singles voting bloc.

First, politicians, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or Independent, have never paid attention to singles.  It’s all about the family. “Working families!”  “Let’s help families!”  My cat/son Chester and I may be a family, but these politicians are referring to the nuclear family.  And as Presidential candidates are trying to appeal to folks in Middle America, who are more likely to be married than those on the coasts, they need to speak to that seeming majority. 

But, as of 2023, there are 117.6 million single people in the United States.  And many of them yearn to be partnered and might not care about how policies discriminate against them.  But some don’t want to be partnered.  And many people might care about such inequities if they were enlightened.  On the three occasions I delivered my talk at Profs and Pints, it appeared as if a collective light bulb went over the heads of my audience members; they were eager to share their experiences at having been marginalized by such laws.  And, up to this point, singles’ rights have been a nonpartisan issue, just like with the Alliance of Childfree Voters.  But if we were to mobilize, politicians might start paying attention to our needs, no matter what shade of the political spectrum we’re on.  The first step is getting the word out. 

This article is a start.

“Welcome to your life…there’s no turning back.” 

I had the opening lyrics to that Tears for Fears song, “Everybody Wants to the World,” running through my head as I stood on the platform at the Grosvenor/Strathmore Metro, waiting for my train to take me through my (relatively) breezy commute to work. 
 
And it is a nice commute.  I get my steps in during my 10-minute walk to and from the Metro. 
 
Since the last time I wrote about my journey in solo homeowning, I’ve adjusted some blinds, had the toilet seat replaced, received a hefty property tax bill, placed some Monet prints on my bedroom wall, framed a pair of magazine covers from the week of Jerry Garcia’s death and placed them in my office, and cooked some real meals in my kitchen (including some tuna nachos).

​But the highlights:

I longed for a two-bedroom so I could have a space to house my home office as well as guests.  And, as of this writing, I’ve had two.  Doug, my fellow Single at Heart, loves to chase roller coasters the way I used to chase concerts.  On his way from Toms River, New Jersey to Busch Gardens, he stopped at my place for the night, where we talked Russian history, and of course, being Single at Heart. 
 
This past weekend, Mark, my fellow Deadhead, traveled from Newport News, Virginia to see a Grateful Dead tribute band called Joe Russo’s Almost Dead.  We had a nice trip to the show via Metro (living in DC really did spoil me on the public transportation front). 
 
I’ve also had Jim and Luis, two local friends, over for dinner on separate occasions.  As I have a table in my mini-dining room, I had us sit down at the table; I even set up placemats, coasters, plates, and silverware.  This solo does it right!
 
And, of course, the housewarming.  I wrote about it in my last post, so I won’t get too much into it, but it was amazing being able to celebrate with old and new friends.  And I’m enjoying the gifts from my registry (see pics here).  Thus far, I’ve done the following:

• Plugged in that coffee pot from Faith and used it every morning to brew my caffeine fix
• Set up that speaker from Antionette in my kitchen, which I play while I cook
• Set up my headband/earbuds combination from Stephanie, which I have going when I jog
• Started feeding Chester the Fancy Feast Stephanie got me 
• Affixed the mezuzah Doug got me to the wall with command strips
• Enjoyed some of that snack food, particularly the chips from Tanya.  I’m waiting to get through the leftover pizza before I start cooking with the pasta I got from other guests, who will get a shout-out on the next post
• Placed the “Steal Your Face” decal on my car’s rear window (I’m not big into decorating my auto, but it was the only place it would go, and I already have a parking pass on it).  This one came from Steve.
• Taken Steve’s gift of a snazzy messenger bag on a couple of Metro rides
• Drank out of the Grateful Dead coffee mug Pete sent me (are we seeing a theme?)
• Started reading Surrounded by Idiots, sent to me by Rachel
• Watched and reviewed She-Devil, handed to me by Chris

As I have quite a few Costco-sized bags of snacks left over from the party, I’ll be planning on hosting a Singles Game Night at my place in the future.  That was another reason for me getting a place this size; I just love hosting.  Stay tuned!

Finally, that list of gifts and people I love bring to mind Bella's quote: "Married people have the one, single people have the oneS."  Of course, there are exceptions, but in my case, it applies.
 

I haven’t attended or been invited to a wedding in over fourteen years.  I sometimes joke these lack of invites indicate a better choice (for me, anyway) in friends, as I’m gravitating toward other single to at heart folks.  But I went to quite a few of them in my 20s, three of which I served as a groomsman.  And it cost me money and time.  Gifts, tux, travel in some cases.  In fact, a finding stated that in 2022, the average guest spent $430 to attend a wedding.  Sounds about right.
​
And I’m not saying weddings AREN’T worth celebrating.  But why are they more important than, say, promotions?   Or getting a new job?  Or, in my case, getting tenure and buying a home?  When I got tenure, I planned on having a celebration once I bought a home.

And part of that celebration included a registry.  The way I see it, if a couple can ask for gifts for combining names and incomes (which yields them more money anyway), then I can ask for gifts for having worked my tail off to get tenure and buy this home.  I mean, Carrie Bradshaw even popularized that idea.

It meant a lot to me to be able to celebrate these two significant milestones with people I love and care about, but I had an ulterior motive: to try to give them the same amount of weight (to the best of my ability anyway; I wasn’t about to pay for invitation cards).  And here are some pictures:

It was quite a day.  Chester woke me up with his customary yell at 5:30 in the morning.   After I finished grading weekly journals from students (due the night before) and got my jog in, I did my best channeling of Guy Fieri as I: 1) combined vegetables, sausage, ground beef, tomatoes, beans, and a cacophony of spices into a chili; 2) cut up eggs and mashed up the yolks for deviled eggs; 3) combined sugar, flour, cocoa powder, butter, eggs, vanilla extract, and just a hint of salt to make brownies; 4) combined the Trader Joe’s brand of pumpkin bread mix with an egg, water, and canola oil to make…pumpkin bread.
At 12:15, Christina of Onely fame came by, as did Charlie.  Then Johnny Mac followed.  The next twelve hours are a bit of a blur, as people from my Childfree Singles of the DMV, DMV Childfrees, and Asexuals and Aromantics of the Mid-Atlantic groups came, as did friends from CoSP and my neighborhood.  Conversations (that I can remember) included:

• Microlabels around asexuality and aromanticism discourse
• Our experiences with cats (I seem to attract a lot of cat parents these days)
• Travel experiences, particularly to Japan
• The importance of advocating for the Childfree (Thanks, Mr. Vance)
• Me holding court on the bare basics of Singles Studies

​And Rolf brought a game called Truth be Told, where we asked questions to gauge how well we know each other.  I enjoyed the quirky responses, and I even won (I never win at board games).  And toward the end of the night, Kevin and I had a deep conversation about the nature of friendship as I washed dishes and straightened up.

I had planned on screening a pro-single movie.  I asked CoSP to pick from my list of films reviewed; the winners were Whip It, 28 Days, and Private Benjamin.  I didn’t want to disrupt the natural flow of conversation, and board games are more interactive.  But I did have Whip It spinning on the DVD player while I opened my gifts, and Private Benjamin filled the room during my first wave of writing thank-you notes (that’s one way in which I consider myself old school).

On the second wave of thank-you notes, I had the podcast, Spinsterhood Reimagined playing, guest-starring my good friend and colleague, Ketaki Chowkhani.  It was all I could do to keep away from compulsively checking the election hype. 

Sadly, I woke up at 6:30 the following morning to learn Trump had taken it.  While I was deeply saddened, I wasn’t surprised; this is the face of the United States and it always has been.  This may sound quixotic, but maybe if the Democrats paid more attention to single voters (a generally non-partisan population), particularly in the wake of J.D. Vance’s “childless cat ladies” comment, things might have been different.  I doubt it, but it’s nice to believe.  And that’s why the advocacy we do is important.

I’m writing this paragraph on November 6, the day after the United States Presidential election.  The mood was dour on the Metro this morning, and I saw a few students in tears.  I gave my class the option to attend in-person; of the eight that showed, five stayed until the end.  And they were willing and ready to learn.  We had a nice impromptu review of how to use Purdue OWL and ChatGPT to assist with citing sources in APA (writer/scholar geek stuff).  And I felt a little less depressed after that; I was impressed at the resilience of those students.

I’ll continue to speak and write about singlehood for as long as I’m legally allowed to.  Because no matter who you support, you may be single by choice or by circumstance.  So someone needs to give a voice to them, no matter who is bothered by it.

Celebrating milestones other than marriage or childbirth, like a housewarming, is a good start.
 

The concept of Single at Heart was coined by Bella DePaulo in her new book, Single at Heart, released just over a year.  It's a book that’s received the most publicity of all of DePaulo’s books.  I, for one, loved watching the videos of DePaulo taking on matrimaniacs like Jonathan Cromwell (Open to Debate) and Bonnie Erbe (To the Contrary).  You’d have to look at their facial expressions closely, both looked visibly uncomfortable at having to defend the notion that “marriage is good,” something society just assumes is the case. 

I always knew I preferred singlehood, but even after eight years of studying, researching, and writing about it (not to mention having published several articles and two books on the subject), I still hadn’t developed a language around wanting to be single, excepting “I like to be single.”  I’ve been in escalator-style relationships, but every time I was, the dopamine of “I have a girlfriend” hit me, but it wore off pretty quickly.  I was wearing a pair of shoes that are accepted by the mainstream world, but didn’t feel right around the ankles. 

I like to date sporadically, but my favorite metaphor around my dating preferences is this: I generally keep a healthy diet, but occasionally, I want to indulge in that bacon cheeseburger with French fries and a chocolate milkshake.  I enjoyed dating casually, which involved physical and emotional intimacy.  But most of my partners “wanted more,” meaning “marriage, children, white picket fence, etc.” 

And the escalator is a valid way of doing relationships; I certainly don’t want to disparage it.  However, relationships are looked at as a binary; either ride the escalator or stay single.  Our media buys into it.  Our government buys into it; just look at the many laws that privilege people who sign that piece of paper that says “married” (whether they do so for love or not).  And, despite the fact that more and more people don’t even want to date (50% of all U.S. singles, according to a 2020 Pew Research Center survey), most people who are dating have an end goal in mind: marriage, domestic partnership, or at the very least, monogamy.  But Amy Gahran, author of Stepping Off the Relationship Escalator, has a different view: relationship options don’t have to be all-or-nothing.  There can be options like you see on the McDonald’s $1 menu (as my friend Jen aptly put it to me).  I like those options. 

And this is where the Unaware come to play.  The people I’m referring to may be Single at Heart but just may not have been exposed to the concept, or they may not be ready or willing to understand, much less embrace, the idea for themselves.  After all, we’ve been conditioned from childhood to believe in “happily ever after.”  So, it’s natural we’d want to pursue it since it’s what we’re “supposed” to do. When I scroll on Facebook, I see countless memes about the desire for “the one.”  I’m going to break down a few that I saw:
​
“God will send you someone in your life when you deserve it” 
I don’t want to trash anyone’s belief in God, but how do they know?  Maybe God’s plan is for you to remain single, or casually date.  Paul did the former.  Not marrying or being in a relationship enabled him to do God’s work, according to the Bible.  In my experience, not being in a favor has enabled me to serve my students and the world around me, inspiring others to reframe their views around singlehood, even if they don’t remain that way forever.

“Some men are so toxic: they don’t want to love you properly but they don’t want to let go of you either.” 
Well, what does it mean to love someone properly?  To listen to them vent?  To be with them constantly?  To not be friends with the gender you're attracted to?  That you’re their only means of social support?  Or, more accurately, that you come first?  If it’s the latter, that’s a perfect example of amatonormativity.  Coined by philosopher Elizabeth Brake, amatonormativity is the idea that a romantic relationship should be prioritized over all kinds of unions, including with one’s family of origin.

“Dating when you’re older is like trying to find a cart with good wheels at Walmart.”
First, I used to shop at Wal-Mart, and I never had a problem with the wheels on the carts.  But this complaint is indicative of expectations.  A friend of mine once told me, “Expectations are just premeditated resentments.”  Thanks to amatonormativity, when people date, they expect they’re going to find “the one.” Dating off the escalator doesn’t even register with people who have that mindset.  It likely never will.

“Stay single until you find someone that accepts the whole you”
It’s ideal, but even that’s not guaranteed to happen.  Is staying single period an option?  Asking for thousands of friends.

“Real men stay dedicated to one woman only.”
It’s not for me, but many men are involved in consensual non-monogamy.  They’re honest with all of their partners.  I’d say they’re real men.  And what about men who are dedicated to same-sex partners?

“A good woman makes her man feel like he’s the only one.”
Same principle.  I know plenty of good women who are involved in non-monogamy.

My own experience involves me being in escalator-style relationships but not really being invested in them.  After a breakup that led me to Googling “being single as an adult,” I got on that road to happy singlehood, and I realized I always was a Single at Heart.  I just never had the language for it; it didn’t even exist!

But now it does.  I hope it continues so that if Single at Hearts choose to date, they can do so honestly, without fear of judgment.  

​That third week of September is always a fun time for me.  Unmarried and Single Americans Week is the time when Craig lets his Singlehood flag fly to full capacity. 

And fly, it did.  This post will be divided into three parts: the Professional, the Personal, and the Professional/Personal.

Professional
In the past, I’ve themed my first-year writing courses around the theme of Marriage and Singlehood.  Students enjoy it, but the feedback I’ve gotten is they’d like to talk about other topics.  So I listened.  Every week, students read about a different type of discrimination.  So it would be fitting this week they’d learn about singlism.  Since I have a Monday/Wednesday and a Tuesday/Thursday section, I had to give two separate activities.  The Monday/Wednesday section listened to the episode of BBC’s Sideways on which Bella appeared.  Comments that stood out included one that indicated that more people might “go single” after hearing such information.  Another person expressed annoyance at the question, “Why aren’t you married?”  Yep, you and millions of other people.
The Tuesday/Thursday section listened to Joan DelFattore talk about her research in medical bias as it pertains to how it discriminates against single people.  Students had many good questions, including the following:

1. How would you advise an unmarried person like myself to advocate for better treatment?
2. Did your experience with the first oncologist sour you from getting medical treatment?
3. Do medical practitioners have their own biases?

Students wrote journals in which they responded to the podcast (MW) and DelFattore’s talk (TR); they also had read DelFattore’s “Death by Stereotype” and written a Weekly Writing Exercise responding to it.  I spent a good chunk of Tuesday and Wednesday copying and pasting responses, which I might use for a future project in which I write about how I integrate Singles Studies into my teaching.

The big event was the Nonmarriage Roundtable Conference at UVA’s School of Law.  You can see more here.

Personal
I’m a casual football fan.  When I was a child, my uncle Joe had season tickets to see the New York Giants, and he took me and my brother on a couple of occasions.  During family gatherings, if you even uttered a word while he watched a game, there was hell to pay.  Somehow, through this, I became a Giants fan, and for the first time, I headed to Northwest Stadium (formerly known as FedEx Field) to catch the game with a Meetup group called NY Giants Fans in DC.  I traveled down solo, which allowed me to converse with random folks on my own terms.  Some light trash-talking, commenting on Brian Daboll’s horrible judgment as a coach, and responding to condolences on our loss.  This was followed by bringing in a pizza and vegging on the couch.

I'm way less casual about solo Amtrak trips; I just love 'em!  It allows me to read, write, and stare at the window.  In this case, the views consisted of the farmlands and Main Streetesque vibes of the western central part of Virginia.  I wouldn’t want to live there again, but it’s fun to look at.  When I got back to DC, the evening revolved around finishing up that pizza, reuniting with Chester, and more vegging on the couch while I watched two pro-single movies: The Wife and My Bodyguard.

The Professional/Personal
Although this week technically ended on Saturday, Elyakim would be staying in DC for an extra day, so we co-facilitated a workshop on Happy Singlehood at the Cleveland Park Library.  Following that, some of the participants joined us for dinner at Dolan, an Uyghur restaurant just up Connecticut Avenue, where we talked singlehood.

​Conclusion
Most people who know me know I can talk about singlehood, Singles Studies, and singles advocacy for hours.  And I believe it needs advocacy.  For me, I wouldn’t be able to do this work if I had to devote the energy to an escalator-style relationship.  And I’m in a perfect location to do it.  To quote Antionette, #ilovemydcsinglelife.

Bottom (L-R): Kate, Avery, Antionette, Andrew
Top (L&R): Elyakim & myself
The Nonmarriage Roundtable was quite the experience!  And after vegging out on the couch with pizza and diet root beer upon my return home, I fell asleep.  The next morning, it was back to my soldiering.  Elyakim would be in DC for an extra day, so we thought it would be a good idea to co-present on Singlehood at the Cleveland Park Library, where I’ve given workshops before.

To my very pleasant surprise, seven people attended.  And the topics flowed.  One thing is for sure: singles are not a monolith.  Elyakim had talked about “singlehood as identity” at his Nonmarriage Roundtable talk, and I’ve been thinking about that for myself; it intersects with the idea of Single at Heart.  A couple of participants identified with that, and others did not.  We talked about a variety of Singles Studies-related topics, including:

1. Being asked to switch seats on an airplane in order to accommodate couples or families;
2. Having to have someone accompany you from a hospital, which can put some singles at a disadvantage;
3. The inequities of married people being promoted more at work;
4. Being ostracized from certain circles that consist primarily of coupled people;
5. Internalized feelings of being “othered” by coupled folks, even when it’s unintentional;
6. Being told “you’ll change your mind” when you vocalize Singlehood as your preferred status, particularly when you’re in your 20s or 30s;
7. The disadvantage a lot of coupled folks give themselves when they only rely on a spouse or partner to meet all their needs;
8. The difference between “single by choice” vs. “single by circumstance”
9. Ways of getting social/companionship needs met, particularly by way of platonic intimacy.
10. The introduction of the terms “singlism,” “matrimania,” and “amatonormativity.”
11. Elyakim’s finding that single people are more connected with friends, families of origin, and their communities than are married/coupled folks.  And in many cases.  When you put all your energy into that one relationships, things get sacrificed.

Afterwards, a few of us went to nearby Dolan for Uyghur cuisine, where the conversation continued.  We talked about our own relationship preferences, which don’t need to be a binary.  And I’ll share mine.  I like romance, but I like it in short bursts.  If I ever meet someone who’s okay with getting together once a month, maybe twice, and talking on the phone once a week or so, I’d be down.  Of course, most people don’t want that, which is totally fine with me.  Gives me more time to pursue this passion.  Other topics included our work, queerplatonic relationships, and travel.  And as Avery said, it’s nice not to have to listen to conversations about diapers.

Chester usually serves as my alarm clock, yelping at any point between 4 and 6 a.m.  Not because he wants treats, but he just loves following me around.  This morning, my physical clock beat him to it, at 4:30 sharp.  This was a good thing, because I had an early train to catch.  After feeding him, filling his water bowl, scooping out his litter box, and putting that pill in, I was off to the station, and the ride consisted of me grading student work as part of that never-ending cycle, as well as starting The Glass Castle (go banned books!) and thumbing through an issue of The New Yorker I found on that table at school that had the word “FREE” on a piece of paper next to a pile of similar issues.  Hey, free reading material, I’m in!

I got into Charlottesville, where I had been with my good friend Mark a few years back to see a group called the North Mississippi All-Stars.  With the time I had to kill before checking into the hotel, I stopped by Bodo’s Bagels where I ate my tuna on whole wheat as I wrote in my notepad.  Doing this while surrounded by all those energetic college students brought me to my grad school kids, when I’d just camp out at a coffee shop table, drink my espressos, and write on my notepad (this was before the days of the laptop).

After checking into the hotel, napping, jogging, showering, and changing to cleaner attire (polo shirt and jeans), I headed to the Forum, where I was met by Elyakim, where we embraced and talked about our Happy Singlehood workshop to come once in DC. 

Of late, I’ve been used to being the expert in the room (my Profs and Pints talk, my classroom), but in a room of lawyers, I was definitely the novice.  But the people I talked to were very cool.  Erin from Seattle University, who I was able to talk with about writing strategies.  Jade from University of Mississippi, who I would love to have give a workshop on estate law for Unmarried Equality when we get our group up and moving.  Chao-ju, who was proposing an argument equating aunthood with another form of motherhood (an argument I can definitely get on board with).

Friday, Conference Day, was a bit of a blur.  I was one of three non-lawyers in the room, and before I read my fellow panelists’ papers, I was a bit apprehensive about seeming uninformed.  But, as I read, I found places I could apply my “Singles Studies” hat, as well as my Technical Writing duds (charts, charts, charts!).  And the feedback appeared to be well-received.

My paper, a critical discourse analysis on the pro-marriage Runaway Jury, was set to be presented last on the last session of the day.  It’s not so much a paper as it is an excerpt for a larger book project, but I figured any objective feedback would be helpful.  And it was.  Anibal, the facilitator, taught me about epistemic injustice, which CoSP (that’s Community of Single People, my favorite Facebook group, for the unfamiliar) could talk about for days.  Sania, who encouraged me to talk about children’s literature and film.  After all, that is the first exposure to storybook romance that kids get.  In fact, it’s such good advice I plan to devote an entire chapter to it with the working title “The Freudian Perspective.”  In fact, those ideas were both so good I wrote them down in my chapter outline the moment I got back to my room.  Swethaa also sent a bunch of pieces about popular culture’s portrayal in legal realms.  Let’s just say I have reading material for years.
 
Other cool folks included Scott from Macon, GA; Michal from British Columbia, whom I talked about my unorthodox romantic style (I don’t want to see a partner more than once a month or even talk to them more than once a week); and of course, Bobbie, whom I’ve known for years on CoSP, but finally got to meet in person at dinner.  And Naomi, the organizer extraordinaire, whom I’ve met online many times, but never in-person.  And I have her and Ketaki to thank for my presence at the conference.

A bunch of us went to dinner at Orzo Kitchen & Wine Bar.  My social battery was at around 18% at that point, but I figured some caffeine might help me get through.  I did get to talk with Erin about practices in the teaching of writing, and I spoke to two other panelists about the idea of “family” and how that word is interpreted in the law.  My thoughts: family is what you make of it. As I said a few times, I have a larger family of origin, groups of friends I consider family, but my domestic family consist  And I finally got to meet Bobbie in person and talk with Chao-Ju on the bus ride home.  Once in the room, I began writing this blog to the sounds of my beloved Widespread Panic, Grateful Dead, and Allman Brothers.

A couple of random items:

1. A few people with whom I spoke told me they’d seen me post quite a bit on the Singlehood Studies Google Group.  “Yep, I’m that guy,” I responded dryly.  It’s always nice to put faces to names.  I guess I’m becoming known in that world.  It wasn’t my intention, but I guess when you have a lot to say and you’re passionate about what that lot is, it just happens organically.
2. When I wrote my draft this summer, I learned what “loss of consortium” was.  One paper wrote about it at length. 
3. This was a “pay to play” conference.  I had to submit a paper and comment on the work of others to participate.  I found myself saying in most of the sessions I gave feedback in variations of the following phrases: “Discuss singlism.”  “Have you examined implicit bias?”  “Refer to the work of Bella DePaulo.”  “Charts!”

That Diet Coke I had at dinner caused me to wake up at around 4 a.m. on Saturday.  Since I couldn’t get back to sleep, after about an hour of writhing around I figured I’d do something constructive and get caught up on that mound of grading I missed during yesterday’s dialectic.  This would allow me to truly veg upon my return home.  As much as I love talking about Singles Studies, I think it’s fair to say that, at this point, I’m “singled out” (ba-dum-bum!).

In all seriousness, though, this was a true symbiotic experience.  I have a loose interest in singlehood and the law; I have students in my How to be Single and Happy (Without Looking for a Partner) course write a letter to an organization advocating for a change to a law or policy that discriminates against singles.  And I’ve read about the laws from Bella, Christina, and other advocates.  But these lawyers really go into depth at studying them; I was amazed.  And I like to think I spread the Singles Studies gospel; I do believe that if people are going to study nonmarriage, they should at least have a passing familiarity with this growing field.  And now, I’ll go back to the world with a slightly more developed take on my work – and more fire to write.