By now, most of the childfree world has heard about the cancelled flight from Victoria to Toronto, caused by a toddler who wouldn’t put on his seatbelt.  And there’s been a firestorm of comments on social media, ranging from “parenting fail” to “my child wouldn’t have sat down for a week” to a more empathetic “maybe the kid had a disability.”  One of the stranded passengers displayed more compassion than I’d have been able to if I’d been delayed, especially if it meant missing something important, like a conference.
​
As a childfree person, I do have certain things easier.  Flying isn’t that much of a hassle for me.  Parents of youngins have to make sure their kids are safe, so everything is a job.  And some folks deduced that this kid may have been on the autism spectrum or had another disability.  I work with college students on the spectrum, so I can understand the difficulty of parenting a toddler with that affliction.

One of the arguments I saw was, “If you know your kid has a disability, don’t bring them on the flight.”  But maybe there was a family function they needed to attend?  We don’t know the purpose of their travel.

I’m of the opinion the airline handled the situation poorly.  They should have rebooked the parent and child a lot sooner; it wasn’t fair to the other passengers who were delayed. My hope is that they got meal and hotel vouchers, along with some miles for their inconvenience.  I would’ve written immediately (and I have for far less egregious mishaps).

However, this is why we need childfree flights, or at least childfree sections on flights.  An increasing number of restaurants do this, and even a lot of parents support this policy.  A couple may want a kid-free night to enjoy each other’s company, and as for us childfree singles, well, that goes without saying.  The same deal goes with individuals and couples wanting getaways without hearing a kid’s tantrums.  So why not accommodate those needs?

Until they do, however, I’ll work to avoid flying late at night.  

​Recently, an appeals court in California rejected a lawsuit that sought to eliminate the right of auto insurers to charge single people more because of their higher chances of getting into crashes.  Insurers have been engaging in this type of price structure for a long time.  This is known as singlism, discrimination against people who are single or otherwise non-partnered.
 
I’m happy to learn the plaintiffs, eleven non-married drivers (I prefer this term to “unmarried,” as the prefix “un” implies lack), plan to appeal.  I’ll assume both judges who ruled in favor of Ricardo Lara are married, which could inform their bias.  And I have my doubts about whether the next judge will rule in favor of the plaintiffs.  However, I believe this lawsuit is a prophecy of things to come.
 
When I conducted research for my book, How to be a Happy Bachelor, I called up GEICO and I grilled the poor customer service representative about why singles are charged more for insurance. He was sympathetic, but his response was the analytics showed that married people got in less accidents than singles.  I won’t argue with numbers, but I’ll posit that singles may get in higher wrecks due to their age; statistically, they tend to be younger, before the prefrontal cortex is developed.  I can only speak for myself, but I’ve gotten more meticulous behind the wheel as I’ve gotten older (save for the occasional speeding ticket and an accident several years ago that has me wanting to take public transit more often).
 
As a Board Member of Singles Equality (SE), I assisted in the creation of the Singles Bill of Rights (SBR), a manifesto designed to awareness of discrimination against singles.  Our mission is to continue to do just that.  I suspect the plaintiffs in this lawsuit may have that goal. Marital rates are declining, and are projected to continue to do so.  Whether one thinks that a good thing, bad thing, or somewhere in between, it is the reality.  While most people still want a romantic partner, less people have that desire than in years past.

The result will be a sizable group of people advocating for their single lives and to be treated with equity and dignity.  This will lead to more lawsuits and advocacy measures, not necessarily related to car insurance rates.  But there are the couples discounts, various tax breaks for married folks, and let’s not forget the daily microaggressions like “When are you getting married?”  The latter can take a toll on one’s well-being, which could lead to factors like road rage.  If our society acted equitably and fairly toward singles, this may not be an issue.
 
Let’s keep the fight going!