Charlie Kirk’s assassination is all over the news.  Many of his mourners have grieved the untimely death of a “father and husband.”  Opinions of his rhetoric aside, the unintended implication is that he would be less worthy of being mourned if he were single and childless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can’t measure whether they want to partner innately or if they’re being socialized into it.  But the conditioning we receive doesn’t help.  That said, I’m not anti-marriage.  I do believe some people are meant to follow that path, but it’s overprescribed and overprivileged.  And it’s certainly not for everyone.  The Book of Paul even states this: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry.”   
​
If we can modify our thinking, singles as a population will be happier, and those who marry will be happier because they’re entering a union they’re meant to be in, not one society forces upon them.  

It’s no secret that less people are getting married.   The Pew Research Center has predicted that by 2030, one in four Americans will have never married by the age of 50.  At present, 50% of the US population over the age of eighteen is single.  Half of those folks aren’t even interested in dating.  And young people want more friendship and less romance in their media.  This is alarming to the Heritage Foundation, who recently published a position paper entitled “We Must Save the American Family,” the goal of which is to encourage more people to follow the traditional path of getting married and having children.

If one’s going to talk fairly and accurately about singlehood, they must understand two major terms, both coined by Dr. Bella DePaulo: singlism, the stereotyping and discrimination against people who are single; and matrimania, the over-the-top societal obsession with marriage as the ultimate mark of happiness.  These ideas are extremely damaging; I propose a world in which singlehood is considered equal to marriage and other forms of couplehood.

Any person who’s been single for any length of time can relate to being asked, “Are you seeing anyone?” or “When are you going to settle down, get married, having a kid, etc.?”  While such statements may be well-meaning, they can come off as patronizing, and they can cause people to enter relationships and marriages that are unfulfilling, toxic, or even dangerous.  I stayed in quite a few unhappy relationships because of this fear of being alone. 

The socialization that “single is bad” is one of the many reasons victims of domestic violence are afraid to leave their relationships.  In less extreme cases, they stay in toxic or unhappy marriages out of fear of being alone or the astronomical costs of divorce, among other reasons.  While I have never been married, I have stayed in unfulfilling relationships because I didn’t want to be single. Similarly, I had a friend who constantly complained about how unhappy she was in her relationship, yet they’ve been together for over six years for the benefits.  One shouldn’t have to live that way.

The “single is bad” message is also rampant in our media.  Movies and TV series often end with protagonists coupling up, and advertisements overwhelmingly show couples and families enjoying their products.  I conducted a study a few years ago that found that pharmaceutical advertisements were guilty of this same inequity.  Fortunately, J Walter Thompson put together a report that showed the buying power of single people, which showed us to be a huge part of the market.  But this was in 2019, the year before I conducted this study.  Through loose observations over the past few years, I can safely conclude advertising still favors images of couples and families.

Our legal and financial structures also favor the married.  For example, when I die, I can leave my Social Security benefits to a partner or child, but not to my brother, who I’ve known for the past forty-three years.  I could place a spouse on my health insurance player, but not a domestic partner.  Now, the Heritage Foundation wants to create special savings account for married people only, as if the privileges I mentioned aren’t enough.

I envision a world in which singles receive the same treatment as married people.  I’m not anti-marriage; in a time where the current administration is considering abolishing gay marriage, I strongly believe anybody who wants to marry should be able to, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.  But why should they have to get married to receive benefits?  Two of the many changes I’d like to see are:

• an abolition of the Marital Communications Privilege, which removes spouses from having to testify against each other; ending this privilege would hold more criminals accountable for their actions and would prevent them from being acquitted due to the lack of testimony from a spouse
• an end to couples’ discounts; why should a singleton pay more for their telephone plan, especially when married men are shown to make more money?

Singlism and matrimania do not rise to the level of racism and homophobia, but  singlehood is an undervalued state, and we need to look at singlehood as equal to marriage, as well as other forms of couplehood.  Society does benefit from single people; for example, data shows that singles volunteer more than married people.  They also support their friends and biological family more than those who’ve tied the knot.  And as more people realize the benefits of being single, our institutions need to catch up.