Single People: Your Loved Ones Matter Less October 30, 2011
Posted by Onely in As If!.Tags: benefits discimination, discrimination against singles, long term care, marital privilege, nuclear family, Prudential, singlism
7 comments
The disaster scenarios described below are provided merely to make a point about the over-privileging of marriage. They do not in any way represent a thumbing-of-the-nose at fate and were written while knocking fervently on wood–well, on laminate at least.
Copious Readers, who should have long term care (LTC) insurance? Who qualifies?
Last Saturday night I considered these question. As I curled on the couch with a cup of tea and some LTC brochures, I imagined any number of extreme mishaps that might render me unable to “perform, without Substantial Assistance, at least two Activites of Daily Living. . . Bathing, Continence, Dressing, Eating, Toileting, and Transferring”. (You’ll be shocked to hear that in high school I was not voted Most Likely to Party Like a Rock Star.)
My company is offering a special deal on LTC coverage through Prudential–no medical history required. I’m only twenty-six (seeing as the thirties are the new twenties), but I’m old enough to know that sh&t happens. For example, last winter I braked for a sudden backup on I-66(6), and although I had allowed enough stopping distance for just such instances, the cretin in the S.U.V. behind me had not. As I watched his headlights bear down on my rearview I thought, “It seems some sh&t is about to happen right now.” Fortunately he swerved onto the shoulder and stopped right beside me, instead of on top of me. Crisis averted, but I still need long-term care coverage because all his small-appendaged, speed-compensating friends remain out there, waiting for me.
Or maybe, I thought as I sipped my De-Stress tea, they are up in Michigan, waiting for my parents. Fortunately, the LTC literature said I could get my mom and dad the same LTC policy too. Reading further, I thought I’d better sign my sister up for the same policy as well, in case she goes jogging and encounters a particularly peckish cougar. Now on a roll, I decided I should also get the policy for my intrepid international-travelling co-blogger Lisa. At any moment she might fall off one of those Roman pillars on which she is so fond of perching.
Except, oh, just one moment here, let me squint closer at the fine print–turns out I can’t get Lisa a plan, because she’s not my parent, or grandparent, or sibling, or child.
As I said in a previous post about bereavement leave, these (arbitrary) requirements privilege the nuclear family and devalue other types of families and relationships. Prudential and other providers (for Prudential is not the only offender) should allow an employee to select a certain number of people to be covered. That way, I could choose to allow Lisa to piggyback off my plan instead of my grandparents, who are already in the longest-term care facility of them all.
It gets worse. Although my married colleagues are also pigeonholed in the nuclear-family paradigm, they have twice as many options as I and my single colleagues do, because marrieds can choose to enroll the following people: (more…)
Popping The Question: So, Why Are You Still Single? September 5, 2011
Posted by Onely in As If!, Everyday Happenings, Your Responses Requested!.Tags: awkward questions, responses to why are you single, rude questions, rude singles questions, why aren't you
18 comments
This post originally appeared in the book Singlism, by Bella DePaulo. It reprises earlier posts–here and here and here–where Onely and our Copious Readers discussed awkward questions about relationship status and how to respond to them. Readers’ responses originally appeared in the comments sections of the above links. We look forward to hearing more ideas about how you all would “pop” unsavory or singlist questions.
Long before Lisa and I created Onely.org, I was on the phone with a friendly, interesting guy I’d met at a party (let’s call him Ralph). Some minutes into the conversation, Ralph hit me with the question, “So, why are you still single?” I paused, unsure how to reply. I felt as if he had judged my life and found an inadequacy I’d never noticed–the way I might feel when someone says, “You’re wearing that?” So I hemmed and hawed and cancelled our coffee date and never called him again. Extreme? Maybe. Defensive? Perhaps a little. Probably other things about him bothered me, too. But all I remember is that one question, and the feeling of a switch clicking over in my heart. I couldn’t figure out why Ralph’s words bothered me, not until much later.
Our friends, family, colleagues (and even strangers!) usually intend to be helpful and friendly when they ask:
You’re so [complimentary adjective here]; so, why are you still single?
However, when they pose this question, they imply that being single is a sickness no one would possibly tolerate if they could help it – as if singlehood were a gross, drippy nose that could and should be cured by a swallow of Sudafed.
In a series of posts on Onely, Lisa and I identified two major problems with the question:
First, posing this question suggests that because an individual has [insert complimented-upon superb qualities here], that individual must be 1) seeking a relationship, and 2) happy when in a relationship because of impressive personal attributes. It’s a case of faulty logic, really, to assume that a person’s personal qualities have anything to do with whether they should be in a relationship, will be successful or happy in one, and/or even want to be in a relationship.
Second, the question evaluates the single person on account of his or her single status – it seems to ask, “You are in this less-than-ideal state, but you have the ability to extract yourself from this state, so why haven’t you done so?” In other words, this question ignores the fact that a single person may not agree with the questioner’s assumption that an individual’s single status is less than ideal.
So, we asked ourselves and readers of Onely, what’s a happily single person to do when confronted by this question – or one of its many variants? The retorts ranged from snarky to goofy to politely educational. We’ve collected some of our favorites below: (more…)
Marrieds: Too Good to Poop with the Rest of Us? July 10, 2011
Posted by Onely in As If!, Food for Thought.Tags: family restrooms, married restrooms, married toilets, Schiphol airport
9 comments
Thanks to our Copious Reader Eric for flagging this gem. According to CNN, Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport offers special toilets for married couples.
Why might this be? I can think of two reasons:
Reason 1: Married people cannot successfully perform their elimination functions unless their significant other is by their side holding their hand saying, “Don’t worry, dear, I’m here, you can do it, just relax and push!”
Reason 2: Married people, being married, are supremely mature and considerate public-toilet users, so they should not be forced to share porcelain with us seat-spraying, poop-spattering, flush-forgetting single types.
I think we can all agree that Reason 1 is pretty ridiculous, which means that Reason 2 must be right. Therefore the next time I transit Amsterdam, I plan to pull a wedding band and blowup man-doll out of my backpack and go undercover into the Married Couple’s Restroom (MCR). What do you think I will find, Copious Readers? A gentle smell of lavender? Ming porcelain toilets with silken rotating seat covers? Japanese rock fountains? Will I finally fulfill my longtime fantasy of finding a public toilet sparkling enough to wash my face in?
Of course there’s always Reason 3 for the MCRs, the craziest reason of all: (more…)
Newsweek Author Double-Dips in Singlism and Sexism June 10, 2011
Posted by Onely in As If!, Food for Thought.Tags: Christopher Dickey, female police officer, marital status on the job, newsweek, NYPD Special Victims Division, sexism in media
5 comments
Check out this Newsweek article by Christopher Dickey and see if you can spot the problematic paragraph, then tell me what that paragraph’s content has to do with the theme of the piece. Really, I’m not being sarcastic–I want to know if I have some serious reading comp problems. I read the article twice, some sections several times.
Despite an apparent blunder into sexism and singlism (described below), the article tells an intriguing story, briefly profiling the NYPD’s ever-shrinking Special Victims Division and some of its officers. (The SVD does the important work of catching sickos who commit sex and hate crimes.)
Does an SVD investigator’s gender or marital status impact his or her ability to do this job or affect the way the officer approaches the job? Sure, possibly (though not necessarily). Dickey doesn’t overtly discuss this topic, but he does touch on the extent of female presence in the unit. And that’s fine. What made me uncomfortable was this:
‘Leave my perp alone,’ said Liz Gutierrez, the only woman detective left on the squad. Gutierrez keeps her tightly curled hair cropped close around her head, wears little makeup, and carries a gun, of course, under the jacket of her pantsuit. She’s single, she says, but doesn’t volunteer more.
Great News for Single Americans! (but you wouldn’t know it if you listened to the news) February 6, 2011
Posted by Onely in As If!, Food for Thought, Heteronormativity, Pop Culture: Scourge of the Onelys, Singled Out, Singles Resource, We like. . ..Tags: advanced directives, gay rights = singles' rights, hospital visitation rights, know your rights, LGBTQS, Obama pro-single, singles, singles get to redefine family too!, singlism in the media
13 comments
To the delight of LGBTQS (that stands for lesbian-gay-bi-trans-queer-single) advocates everywhere, federal regulations now require that hospitals must grant all patients, no matter their marital, sexual or religious status, the right to define who they count as “family.”
Thanks to President Obama, the Code of Federal Regulations 42 CFR 482.13(h) and 42 CFR 485(f) requires that all hospitals in the U.S.:
(1) inform each patient of his or her right to receive visitors whom he or she designates, including a domestic partner, (2) do not restrict or limit visitation rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity, among other factors and (3) ensure that all visitors have full and equal visitation rights, consistent with a patient’s wishes. (– Human Rights Campaign)
Whoo hoo! Great news for singles, right? We certainly think so — but you wouldn’t know it if you relied on the media to explain. According to most reports I read, the major stakeholders are lesbian and gay couples. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but … ummm … what about lesbian and gay singles? Or … ahem … what about all singles (asexual, heterosexual, polyamorous, widowed, divorced, whatever).
Singlist media strikes again! Because it completely ignores the remarkably equalizing ramifications – for all Americans – of this new law, it upholds the couple-centric, heteronormative bias that all LGBTQS folk are trying to overcome. So you can see what I mean, let’s examine the following report posted on ABC’s news site shortly after the regulations came into effect: (more…)
Who Is Worth Mourning? December 30, 2010
Posted by Onely in As If!.19 comments
Question: Can you guess what this list is?
4.2.1 Spouse (including Same-sex domestic partner);
4.2.2 Child (including foster or step or any child you have raised as your own);
4.2.3 Parent (including foster, step or any persons who raised the employee);
4.2.4 Brother or sister (including foster, step, or half);
4.2.5 Grandchild;
4.2.6 Grandparent;
4.2.7 Parent or step-parent of spouse or same-sex domestic partner;
4.2.8 Brother or sister of spouse or same-sex domestic partner (including step or half);
4.2.9 Grandparent of spouse or same-sex domestic partner;
4.2.10 Son or daughter in-law;
4.2.11 Spouse of employee’s brother or sister.
Answer: It’s a list of people whose deaths matter more than others’.
According to my company (and, presumably, most other large employers), if one of the people on the above list dies, I get several days’ paid bereavement leave. If a loved one not on this list dies, I have to take leave without pay.
Shut up, you ignoramuses and cyber-trolls, the money itself isn’t the issue (although I always like money):
The payout reflects a restrictive hierarchy based on matrimonial/coupling status, imposed on diverse employees by the organization (and sanctioned without question by culture and government). It says that the only important relationships are child-parent-sibling–and the spousal connections thereto.
My married colleagues get at least twice as many bereavement leave options as I do. The funds come out of the company coffers, to which I contribute just as much profit, contractually, as my married coworkers. In effect, I am subsidizing my married coworker’s bereavement leave for his spouses’ brother or his spouse’s grandparent, but I do not receive the same privilege for the deaths of people close to me, if they are outside of the matrimonial/coupling complex.
The list presumes that a SPOUSE’S GRANDPARENT is always more bereavement-worthy than a BEST FRIEND or BOYFRIEND a CLOSE COUSIN or AUNT. Are you kidding me? When I read the policy, I was so offended I could have just spit (but I didn’t, because the office floors are carpeted). In the throes of irritation, I wrote an email to my immediate supervisor decrying the discrimination, but she ignored it.
Employers should allow employees to create, ahead of time, a list of people/relationships that they can receive bereavement for. My goal is to find out how my company acquired this policy, and then go to the appropriate benefits folks and make a huge stink, or more realistically, at least plant the idea in people’s heads that shaping policies around marital/coupling status is BASED ON HABIT, NOT LOGIC OR FAIRNESS.
Copious Readers, have you experienced discrimination based on marital status in the wake of a personal loss? What did you do?
–Christina
P.S. Please consider your comments carefully, as I am in an ALL CAPS mood lately.
First, Do No Harm: Marital Status At the Doctor’s December 14, 2010
Posted by Onely in As If!, Everyday Happenings, Food for Thought.48 comments
I walk up to the grandmotherly office manager and explain that I have a 9:30 new patient appointment. Betty finds my file on the computer and makes last-minute adjustments before checking me in. She looks up and asks,
“Are you married or single?”
Nine-thirty in the morning is not my best time of the day. I stare at Betty through raggedy, unwashed bangs. I’m here to see a specialist for a (knock wood) non-fatal chronic illness that is nonetheless kicking my ass, and so I’m nervous and cranky, and I really want to just answer her question and go see the doctor. But because I write a blog deconstructing single stereotypes and marriage mythology, I feel obligated to engage Betty further on this topic.
Such is my dedication to you, dear Copious Readers. (more…)
Psych Today Post Deletes Comments from Progressive Singles November 7, 2010
Posted by Onely in As If!, Take action, Your Responses Requested!.14 comments
The 30-percent-offensive post “10 Things You Can Do To Enhance Your Life” I wrote about recently is one of the five most popular posts on Psychology Today. It was fifth this morning and now it’s number three. Why is this a huge problem? Reasons A-C below, where C is the most disturbing:
(A) As I said in my previous post, three of the ten suggestions assume that the reader has a “mate”. (Watch a sunset with your mate; go to bed ten minutes early with the one you love, write a thank-you note to your mate.) Presumably thousands of people are reading these suggestions and internalizing the insidious notion that everyone must either have or strive for a mate, in order to lead an enhanced life.
(B) Several people left comments on the 10-Things post, saying how “awesome” and “lovely” all the suggestions are, and presumably thousands more have read the comments and further ingested the notion that it’s “awesome” and “lovely” to watch a sunset with a mate (and, by extension, perhaps less lovely without one).
(C) On the day I composed my original post griping about this, at least three astute Psych Today commenters had left comments challenging the inclusion of the three “mate” items in the list. As of yesterday, and as of today, those particular comments are gone–presumably removed. I don’t have any record of their existence (why would I think I’d need to make one?), but I know I saw them. I also know that Onely made a comment which has since disappeared.
It seems bizarre to me that an author or admin would remove three comments as benign as the ones I read, but I can’t think of what else might have happened. I welcome, and hope for, alternative suggestions.
Otherwise, Copious Readers, please go comment on the 10-Things post and let the author and the many readers of the post know that only seven of the ten items are actually “awesome” and “lovely”. Your comments may be removed later, but even having them up for a little while might offset this post’s perpetuation of the Mate Myth.
–Christina
Enhance Your Life–10 Ways if You’re Coupled, 7 if You’re Single November 2, 2010
Posted by Onely in As If!.Tags: Barry Goldsmith, couples more important, emotional fitness, Psychology Today, singlism
13 comments
Here are 10 things you can do to enhance your life–if you’re coupled. If you’re single, you can only enhance your life 70 percent as much as a coupled person. This is according to a life-enhancement-activity list on Barton Goldsmith’s “Emotional Fitness” blog on Psychology Today, where three of the ten items require a conventional romantic partner.
In order to take the life-enhancing step of watching a sunset, you have to do it with a “mate” (and not the Australian kind). God forbid you should watch it by yourself or with a friend, ewwwww:
2. Spend a little while watching the sunset with your mate. Nothing extra is necessary. Just sit and take in the natural beauty of the sky and appreciate being able to share it with the one you love.
And if you want to write a thank-you note, it has to be to a mate. So your coworker Heimliched you at lunch when you were choking on that brussels sprout? First, thank your mate for picking his underwear out of the ficus this morning:
4. Write a thank you note to your mate. When was the last time you thanked your partner for just being who he or she is and being with you? Doing this in writing will give your partner something to cherish for the rest of his or her life.
And if you want to go to bed ten minutes early, you have to do it with a mate:
8. Go to bed with the one you love ten minutes earlier than usual. Then spend that time just holding each other. Let the feeling of warmth from your mate move through you.
(And enough with the word “mate”. What are we, lab rats? Walruses?) (more…)
Fairfax County Requires Marriage October 9, 2010
Posted by Onely in As If!.Tags: fairfax county singles, singles in government, singles jury duty
12 comments
The selected field is required and must contain data.
I received this error message while filling out a jury duty questionnaire. The field I left blank?
Spouse’s occupation.
Yes. Apparently according to Fairfax County, Virginia, all prospective jurors over 18 have spouses. A potential juror can’t enter “not married” other than by writing it into the box labelled “spouse’s occupation”, or by putting some bland placeholder like “see below” and then using the Comments section to explain that–shock of all shocks!–you don’t actually have a spouse.
Copious Readers, don’t you think this kind of awkward labelling rhetoric relegates singles to a position of inferiority to marrieds? (And let’s not even get *started* on the form’s implications for homosexuals.)
The Comments section, unfortunately, has a character limit so I was unable to fully communicate my disappointment to Fairfax County with many big words like “heteronormative“, “fallacy of assumption“, and “&*&@^^$@)!” Also unfortunately, our government has pesky perjury laws, so I was unable to fill out my Spouse’s Occupation blank with any of these fun options: (more…)
Onely.Org 