A lot of academic fields devote to marginalized groups possess tensions between those scholars who want to do straight up scholarship and those whose scholarship is informed by advocacy.  Women’s Studies, Fat Studies, and this developing field, Singles Studies. 
​
Anyone who reads my blog knows where my position stands.  And I don’t always love reading work that posits that married/coupled people are better off while they dismiss that singlism, the stereotyping and discrimination that persists against singles, is a real thing. 

Paul Bloom's article, “Why Aren't Professors Braver?” got me thinking about my own role as a “troublemaker” in higher education.  At my university, I follow the rules.  Submit your midterm and final grades on time.  Send your syllabus to the chair.   I serve on university, school, division, and program committees, and I recently became a committee chair for my university’s faculty union.  I publish.  I practice good pedagogy.  I aim to balance compassion with rigor.  These two sentences have contributed to stellar evaluations from students every semester, and I routinely score high on my school’s performance eval metric. 

But there’s a rebel in there.  Most faculty were excellent students in high school and college who followed the rules. 

I did not fall into that category.  In high school, I was smart but disengaged with most of the course material; I saw it as a series of check boxes to fill out before I went into the real world.  And I occasionally cut class, smoked cigarettes on the track during gym class, and I wouldn’t budge as a bus driver told me to leave the bus because I wasn’t on his route; I was only trying to go to a friend’s house.

In college, I discovered my academic strength and love of learning.  But I also cut class occasionally, sipped beer from cafeteria cups during economics class (and earned a B+), and participated in the party scene.

Today, I show up for work, I don’t drink, and I own a home.  By most accounts, I’m a productive member of society.  But I’m not married, and I don’t have a kids.  So, through some lenses, I’m a degenerate – or at least, missing out.

I’m what Bella DePaulo would refer to as a “single at heart,” one who lives their best lives while single.  I’ve dated, been coupled, been domestically partnered, and yet, it could never work out because I was never willing to go the full mile.  I didn’t want to commit.  It was more important for me to travel solo to places like Ireland, Malaysia, and New Orleans.  I also never wanted to place a romantic relationship on a higher tier than that of my friendships.  And after a day of teaching classes, conferencing with students, and meeting with colleagues, the only sounds I want to hear are that of my cat/son Chester purring.

And what’s so wrong with that?  “Everything!” society says.  From the movies that paint singlehood as something to be fixed to the laws that won’t let me leave my Social Security benefits to my brother, but say “Okay” to a woman I meet and marry tomorrow to the advertisements that seem to only show couples enjoying events, as if we singles just like to hide in our rooms with our cats (for the record, I do this occasionally, but concertgoing is a huge part of my self-care regimen).
When I got dumped and was sad about being single, Bella DePaulo’s work saved me.  I devoured her books and articles.  I wrote blogs, which turned into articles, which turned into a book, which turned into tenure at my job. I connected with people on the Facebook group, Community of Single People (CoSP), some of whom are my closest friends today.   

And this all came from a place of anger.  Most advocacy comes from that same place.  And there are times where I’ve written pieces and bumped heads with scholars and other pundits.  Here’s a sample:

1. My piece about marginalization of the childless/childfree being referred to as “straight up bulls__t” on Facebook by a Director of Diversity.
2. This comment on my Writer’s Digest piece.
3. This email from a pundit on a little letter to the editor I wrote to the New York Times.  See below:

 
Dear Dr. Wynne:
 
The state of being "happy" can mean merely being comfortable.  Neurotics maintain a state of comfort by avoiding what they truly need and gravitating toward poor substitutes.
 
I recommend depth psychotherapy for you.  Work on your childhood, especially your relationship with your parents in early life.
 
Good luck.
 
The most recent one was when I went toe-to-toe with a fellow Board member at the International Singles Studies Association (ISSA) regarding extending the deadline for submissions at this summer’s conference.  The conference had thirty-one submissions a week before the deadline, enough for a small conference.  The organizers asked the Board members whether they should extend.  I voted “no” because: 1) we had enough submissions, and my experience as a conference organizer tells me there would have been an onslaught of entries right before the deadline; and 2) extending the submission deadline would likely delay the time for people to make travel arrangements.  Anybody who’s ever traveled internationally knows that flying to another country is expensive, and for a scholar who subsists on one income and is not being funded by a university or lab (i.e., me), that scholar might have to pay more the closer it gets to travel time.  The vote was 4-2 against it, so in my mind, the singles advocates won, even if that wasn’t the intent.

I was nominated to head a diversity committee in order to try to discuss equitable practices as they pertain to items like race, gender, ethnicity, and, yes, marital/relationship status.  A Board member whose research seems to rest on an underlying assumption that married people are better than singles protested, saying that “inclusion is often a way to silence differing opinions.”  I tried to de-escalate, but he just came back.  This is a Board member who voted “yes,” despite my protest that extending would disadvantage singles.  This has troubled me for a while, so I mentioned this to him.  He responded by alluding I was “corrupt.”

After a couple of days of reflection, I de-escalated, but “corrupt?”  For expressing concern around singles being disadvantaged?  I de-escalated, but I did not apologize.  If I see an issue that affects singles disproportionately (or more disproportionately than they already are), I will speak up, even if it upsets someone.

We’re so conditioned to the lionization of marriage/coupling/parenthood/family values that a lot of scholars and non-scholars will become defensive when presented with an idea that pushes back against this current.  In order to advocate for any idea, one must be prepared to accept that not everybody will like it.  And since singlism is one of the last acceptable prejudices (ageism is another), we have an uphill battle.

But that uphill walk is good for the quads, so I’ll keep at it.   

Every few months, a new explanation emerges for why Americans are having fewer children. Smartphones. Inflation. Climate change.  Student debt. Social media. Political instability.  This past month, a report was released by the CDC on how birth rates have declined.  On LinkedIn, I’ve seen several posts with that graph from the Financial Times correlating the rise in smartphone usage with declining birth rates, and it’s all the rage.  We must remember a basic principle of data analysis: correlation does not imply causation. 
​
That said, I can concede that as we grow addicted to our phones, social interaction declines.  I see it firsthand with my students, as they barely look up from their phones to say “Hi” back when I greet them upon walking through the classroom doors.  But attributing declining birth rates solely to technology oversimplifies the issue, just as it does to blame any single economic or cultural factor.  Most people who write about these issues neglect to mention one simple reason: people just don't want to have kids.  And it's a valid life choice.

Despite the progress we've made, it's still socially acceptable to shame people who haven't had children, whether it's by choice or by circumstance.  Such shaming includes the assumption that childfree adults are “selfish” and workplace expectations that people without kids should stay late or work undesirable shifts to accommodate parents.  I referred to this concept as procreamania in my book, How to be a Happy Bachelor.  It’s the assumption that parenthood is the default, morally superior, or socially mandatory path through adulthood.

Many people prefer life without children and can give more of themselves to their friends, partners, chosen families, and communities – and of course, pets.  I’m a Dad to an adorable little cat named Chester.   So if I must leave a work meeting early in order to give him a pill or take him to the veterinarian, I’ll speak up unapologetically.

Parenting is one valuable form of contribution to society, but it is not the only one. A healthy society needs caregivers of many kinds. While some data has shown that parents are more likely to volunteer than non-parents, the researchers did not control for the kind of volunteering in which the different groups are engaging.  For example, a person may be more likely to volunteer as a Little League coach if their child is on the team; the same principle applies to serving on a school board or Parent Teacher Association (PTA).  However, you may be more likely to find a childfree person volunteering at an animal shelter or food kitchen.  Many people in my childfree tribe spend a great deal of time with these organizations.

Of course, if we want to sustain our society, reproduction needs to occur.  And the work of parenting is difficult yet meaningful; I’m grateful to both of my parents for the sacrifices they made raising me and my brother.  But respecting parenthood should not require diminishing people who make different choices, and when we immediately link increased smartphone usage to declining birth rates, we (unintentionally) do just that.

The problem is not declining birth rates. The problem is a culture that still treats one life path as morally superior to all others. A society confident in its values should be able to respect parents without demanding parenthood from everyone.

People build meaningful lives in different ways: through raising children, mentoring students, caring for relatives, building communities, creating art, volunteering, teaching, or simply being present for others. The measure of adulthood should not be whether someone reproduced. It should be whether they contributed to the world around them.

For what it’s worth, this is much easier to do when one isn’t constantly glued to one’s smartphone.

This is a satirical ad campaign below. I claim all copyrights to it in perpetuity throughout the universe.

Are you sick of having to tell your spouse where you’re going and when you’re coming back? Do you dread having to spend time with those meddling in-laws? Do you long to travel without having to compromise doing the things you REALLY want to do? Don’t you just want to not have to “perform” for your family every holiday? Are you sick of your single friends asking you, “When are you getting divorced?” Do you just LONG for freedom but don’t have the confidence or the funds to end it?

Well, we can help! At Match-Breakers, we quietly instigate incidents that will GUARANTEE your spouse will leave you – instantly. Because why should you be tied down just because society says you’re supposed to?
​
Call us at 1-800-GO-SOLOS for a free, confidential consultation, and you’ll be well on your journey back to happy singlehood!

I’m a happy 47-year-old single man, and I believe there is a loneliness epidemic. But its roots have less to do with fewer people getting married and having children.  The real culprit is a widespread cultural assumption: friendship is secondary to romance.
​
This problem goes by the name of amatonormativity.  Coined by Dr. Elizabeth Brake of Rice University, it refers to the belief that romance belongs on a higher tier than platonic friendship.  One example of how it looks in practice is ditching your best friend because you’ve met your soul mate, whom you plan to be with for the rest of your life, for better or for worse.

Studies show people may be harming themselves by doing this.  Bella DePaulo found that lifelong singles often report stronger well-being than people who are divorced or widowed, in part because married couples can become socially insular over time.  They focus on their partner, and, if applicable, children.  Similarly, Elyakim Kislev of Hebrew University found singles: 1) have larger networks of friendships; and 2) are more involved with their communities.  Many people in long-term partnerships disconnect from their social network; if they become divorced or widowed, they often struggle to find the social support they need. 

Researchers and writers are prescribing friendship-building as an antidote to loneliness.  Journalist and author Rhaina Cohen also argues for the importance of friendships.  While she’s currently married, she’s indicated that having a romantic partner is not necessarily a deterrent to loneliness.  She has platonic friendships she treats as equal to her marriage.  Dr. Marisa Franco of the University of Maryland, a close friend of Cohen’s, would agree; her work has connected attachment theory to how to establish, maintain, and develop friendships.

I have a variety of platonic relationships with men and women that add a great deal to my life.  As DePaulo says, “Married people have the one; single people have the ones.”  My friend Pete and I meet up at concerts on a semi-regular basis.  I exchange movie quotes with another friend, Drew, who now lives 200 miles away from me.  Josh and I, friends from college and lifelong New York Mets fans, make a point to see them play at Nationals Park at least once a year.  I often call Christina for life advice, and she does the same with me.  And there are many others too numerous to list here.

In a talk Dr. Franco gave on friendship, a participant expressed concern about what happens when their friends partner up and slowly (or quickly) drift away, the essence of amatonormativity.  It hurts when that happens, but sadly, that’s part of our structure.  So my suggestion: don’t put all your eggs in one basket.  Keep a couple of close friends, for sure, but I’ve benefited from having a network of people.  If one friend doesn’t want to go to the concert, I’ll call another.  And if I can’t find anyone to go with, I’ll go solo.  I met Pete doing that.

Of course, romance can be one of life’s great joys for some people. But it shouldn’t occupy a higher tier than friendship. If marriage is often called the cornerstone of society, friendship is the scaffolding that keeps the rest of life standing. Romantic relationships  eventually end through divorce, distance, illness, or death. The people who sustain us afterward are often the friends we neglected while building our romances. 

Let’s put friendship at the center of our lives.  

Trevor Noah appears to be a champion of singlehood.  In 2024, he went public about how he feels society unfairly judges singles.  This is known as singlism, a concept coined by social scientist Bella DePaulo.  He’s talked about how he sees friendship as being even more important than romance. 
​
However, he concluded his latest Netflix special, Joy from the Trenches, by opening up about his love life, as a lot of comedians do to conclude their sets.  He indicated a therapist told him he was “undateable,” partly because he works and travels too much.  By that standard, I’m as undatebale as they come; I just don’t care.  Without going into too much explanation, he delineated how men and women communicate differently during sex and have trouble figuring out the other’s language.  “And that’s why I’m still single,” he closed with.

My first reaction was, “Trevor!  I thought you were one of us happy singletons!”  To be clear, I’m referring to the term Single at Heart, a term DePaulo also created. This concept describes people who live their best lives as singletons.

To be fair, perhaps Noah doesn’t realize he’s a Single at Heart.  And why would he?  Our whole society lionizes coupledom.  The reality shows like The Bachelor and its many spinoffs.  The fact that someone can leave Social Security benefits to someone they’ve been married to for two whole months and possibly known for a month after that, but I can’t leave them to the brother I’ve known for forty-four years.  And let’s not forget all the couples discounts and singles supplements.

I first explored this idea of the unaware single at heart when I wrote my review of Project Hail Mary.  Ryan Gosling’s disgraced scientist turned teacher reveals to his new bromantic partner, Rocky, that he lost a girlfriend because “his head was in the clouds.”  At the film’s denouement, he’s happily teaching on a different planet without a romantic partner (as far as the viewer can see).  Perhaps his first love is his teaching; he’s just been conditioned to believe his first love is supposed to be a romantic partner.

From my own experience, I did the dating game in my 20s and 30s, trying to find “the one.”  I did seriously date a few people, but I never put them ahead of my friends or my pursuits.  Eventually, these women got tired or upset, and the relationship would end.  I’d be sad for a day or two, but then I’d feel relieved after that hump.  At one point, a friend advised me to just “not date” for three months. 

It was liberating. And during that time, I found the Community of Single People (CoSP), a worldwide Facebook group of singles who talk about issues that affect single people.  One hard, fast rule: no dating discussions.  When Bella released her book, Single at Heart, I read it and saw myself in the description.  In her “Are you Single at Heart” quiz, I scored a 14/14 (even though I was on the fence with Question 12: Do you have a sense of personal mastery—a can-do attitude and a sense that you can do just about anything you set your mind to?

I usually do, but sometimes I need a push.  So maybe I’m really 13.5? 

As I type this, I’m located in a library in Washington, DC; it’s 5:28 on a Thursday evening.  My grades are in for the semester, and I don’t have to be anywhere.  So I decided to hop on the Metro and take a leisurely fifteen-minute walk from the station to the library, where I’ll write.  If I had a partner, I might be obligated to have dinner at home with her.  Even if I don’t live with her, we might be doing something else.  At this time of year, I don’t want to have to “perform.”  Because, to me, “performative” is what one must do to maintain a relationship.  My morning was spent writing and reading, followed by a jog.  After lunch, I fell in and out of consciousness with Chester parked on my stomach.  To me, that’s paradise.  If I had been “successful” with dating, I might not be able to experience it.

Perhaps Trevor Noah will come to that awakening someday.
 

I have students in my writing classes undertake a creative project at the end of the semester.  They can do anything.  A video, a song, a picture, whatever.  But they also have to include an artist's statement in which they describe their creative process.  So I'll do the same here.

Last Sunday, I was sitting in front of the National Portrait Gallery waiting for some friends to arrive for an afternoon of ooohing and ahhhing at all the portraits, reading a book.  I was wearing my beloved shirt that reads "Purroud Childless Cat Guy," inspired by that delicious (not really) quote from JD Vance about his childless cat ladies.  A man with a baby-filled stroller walked by and smiled at me as he looked at my shirt.  Inspiration struck.

I can't draw for squat, so they had to be stick figures.  Instead, I imagined the guy as one of those regretful parents (see the Facebook page "I Regret Having Children"; it's a real group) staring at it.

“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.
 
 
 

When 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.

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.

You 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.