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.