jump to navigation

Who Knew?: Single Women Have Hots for Uncle Sam! October 2, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!.
Tags: ,
6 comments

Welcome to the latest installment in Onely’s “Who Knew?” series. 

I already reamed out Phyllis Schlafly for saying that single women look to Big Goverment to fill the role of the supportive male figure that is (supposedly) lacking in their lives. I thought this was just Schlafly spewing her usual extremist bullhooey, but then I stumbled on SFexaminer pundit  Betsy Hart, a self-described “single mom and reliable conservative vote(r)” who thinks the same way, according to her op-ed article

Single ladies look to Uncle Sam to fill a man’s role in their lives

A single mom. A single mom is peddling unhealthy, unhelpful stereotypes of single women as being somehow “lacking” if they don’t have a man with whom they are having sex and financial dealings on a day-to-day basis.  A single mom is using the term “single ladies” in an op-ed piece. Who does that? (more…)

Men Can Stop Rape, But Not Singlism September 17, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!.
Tags: , , ,
7 comments

Three awesome teenage men are receiving awards for their work towards stopping violence against women. And you can go see them receive their Men of Strength awards at the National Press Club in DC on September 22nd: for 125 dollars if you’re single and 75 dollars if you’re coupled.

When I got the email announcing the event, I was impressed with and happy for Anwar Muhammad Nur,  Jonathan Wade, and Terrill Wise, who speak out against abuse of women and negative images of masculinity, despite social and media pressure that says alpha males are violent males with minimal emotion. Men Can Stop Rape is right to honor precocious, socially aware teens like these. I was so impressed I thought I might want to actually attend the ceremony, but then I read the not-so-small print:

Tickets

$100 per person

$150 per pair

$125/$175 at the door

Oh, Men Can Stop Rape or The National Press Club or Unaffiliated Event Organizer! How you hurt my heart. I will not be attending your event, not because I’m mad about the discrimination against singles (though I am disappointed), but because my personal economic situation forces me to stick to double-digit nights out. Which I guess I could, if I were part of a pair.

“But wait!” I thought, (more…)

Onely Throws A Hissy Fit September 2, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!, Everyday Happenings, Food for Thought.
Tags: , ,
12 comments

The No. 1 villain in all of England right now is 45-year-old unmarried bank employee Mary Bale, who was caught on video approaching a cat on the street, petting it, and then, like someone who has completely lost her mind, throwing it into a lidded garbage can.

Yes, and right now the No. 1 villain in the singles’ advocacy blogosphere (or at least, in Onely) is New York Magazine, which decided that Bale’s unmarried status was relevant enough to put it in the clause describing the sort of person Bale is.

Am I overreacting? (Who me, overreact?) My mom called while I was writing this and I threw a tantrum over the phone, ranting about how no one would ever write,

The No. 1 villain in all of England right now is 45-year-old married bank employee Mary Bale, who was caught on video approaching a cat on the street. . .

My mom suggested that maybe, had Bale been married, the article would have said, “Mary Bale, married mother of three, threw a cat in the garbage. . .” Perhaps.  But if so, why is marital status pertinent to a description of a person’s actions? The same question could be asked about the relevance age and employment, but this isn’t an anti-agism or anti-jobism blog, it’s an anti-singlism blog. And I say that it’s singlist to put Bale’s unmarried status right there in the first sentence.

The placement is all wonky. “Unmarried” on the heels of “45-year-old” gears the reader up to form a judgment about Bale’s unmarried status, based on her age–usually a negative judgment, given the prevalence of the stereotype of the over-forty (or god help us, over-thirty-five) woman who has forfeited her chance to marry and therefore become desexualized or asexualized (and, by extension, forfeited some of her power in a patriarchal society).

Then almost immediately after her age and marital status, we’re told that this woman is also someone who did something insane and evil. This is just another chance for readers to subconsciously link “unmarried” with “crazy and/or deficient”.

Author Dan Amira must have just gotten confused–he forgot that unmarried women don’t throw away cats, they collect them.

–Christina

Photo credit:  Mattieb

Jon Stewart Misses Chance to End All Singlism As We Know It August 6, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!, Food for Thought.
Tags: , , , ,
8 comments

In the 05 August 2010 episode of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart broke my heart.  I’ll explain why at the end of this post. I’m not upset because he kind of called singles “loners with terrible hygiene”.  I’m not sure that statement is a bloggable offense. (Copious readers, check out the full episode here — the problematic part begins at the 5:30 mark — and let us know what you think.)  Daily Show correspondents  regularly use over-the-top, obviously untrue statements to make their opposite points, and in this case the point was to make fun of stupid Fox News commentators and greedy, homophobic employers–always a noble endeavor.

I do feel concern that because the larger joke was not about singles per se, the trashing of singles is more peripheral to the joke, and therefore less likely to appear blatantly ironic and more likely to reinforce negative stereotypes of singles. But I’ll let it slide because one, I love Jon Stewart, and two, there’s more context to the joke that makes the line less harsh. Here’s how the bit plays out:

Stewart reports that a San Francisco court overturned the ban on same sex marriage. We then see Neil Cavuto of Fox News whining that married gays will interpret this ruling “as if that they’ve got the green light for full benefits coverage” (um, well, yes) and that therefore employers–in the face of this onslaught of newly married gay employees with spouses in tow demanding to be treated like actual married people just because they’re actually married–will “need to examine their costs” and face financial and hiring difficulties as a result.

Here Stewart makes the face that you’re probably making now. He summarizes Cavuto’s position as follows: “A gay person with a spouse just costs more. That’s why we can’t do gay marriage!” Then he continues in his usual satirical strain:

Wouldn’t anyone with a spouse cost more? . . . Neil Cavuto is suggesting that we should only hire single people!

And that’s when I got all excited–“Yes, yes,” I thought,  “Here it comes! (more…)

You Don’t Know Onely August 2, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!, Food for Thought.
Tags: , , , ,
10 comments

There’s a lot that you don’t know about Onely. And by “you”, we don’t mean YOU, our loyal Copious Readers, but rather the occasional reader who happens upon or hears about this site and thinks she grasps the concept of singles’ rights advocacy–but doesn’t. Despite our best efforts to write clearly and simply so that even heteronormaholes can understand Oneliness, there is always That Person who asks, “So, why are you so bitter at men?” or “Why don’t you like married people?” or “So you plan on being single forever then?” or, most bizarre, “Why do you hate children?”

So here we have listed and addressed these misconceptions (again). Eventually some of the items may hyperlink to future posts containing more detail (and/or ranting). Feel free to add to the list!

Common Misconceptions (CMs) about The Onely Creed

1. CM: We hate marriage or married people.

REALITY: Actually we just hate that marriage is overprivileged in our laws and culture.

2. CM: We hate children.

REALITY: Children are fine (baby showers, not so much). And not wanting our own kids might even help us enjoy other kids even more.

3a. CM: We hate men.

REALITY: Well, ok, sometimes we do hate men. But only the ones who deserve it.

3b. CM: We hate women.

REALITY: See 3a 🙂

4. CM:  We intend to be single the rest of our lives and have written off all possibility of a Seepie relationship evermore.

REALITY: We may or may not be single for the rest of our lives. We don’t really care either way.  PLONK PLONK PLONK PLONK! (What’s that, you ask? Oh, it’s the sound of heteronormaholes all over the world falling out of their chairs.)

5. CM: Singlism means advocating for singles in a good way, because it ends with Ism.

REALITY: Singlism means discrimination against singles in a bad way, because it ends with Ism. We know that not only heteronormaholes make this mistake, so we offer this handy mnemonic to help our readers remember: “Singlism is ABIAIRAOSNAIF”. Singlism is a bad Ism, as in Racism, Ageism, or Sexism, not as in Feminism.

6. CM: Singles’ advocates think Singlism is as destructive as racism. It’s not, so we should just shut up.

REALITY: We know that singlism is not as destructive as racism. Schoolyard bullying is not as bad as murder, but does that mean we should ignore schoolyard bullying?

7. CM: You can call yourself Onely just because you’re single.

REALITY: If you’re single and you are constantly searching for validation from people who are in your “dating pool” (men if you’re a hetero woman, women if you’re a lesbian, men if you’re a gay man … etc. etc. — you get the picture), then you are not Onely, and please don’t call yourself Onely, because it gives us the willies.

–Christina and Lisa

Photo Credit: Move the Clouds

Scourge of the Onelers: The Michigan Appeals Court July 16, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!, Heteronormativity.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

As a proud and loyal Michigander, I’m peevish that the Michigan Appelate Court ruled that an unmarried woman has no right to custody of her non-biological children, even though she helped raise them for almost a decade. More details about this issue–which touches both singles’ rights and gay rights–are available here, on Change.org.  Pshaw.

–Christina

P.S. I’m also peevish about the term “Michigander”, which sounds like a kind of Japanese waterfowl.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Chelsea’s Wedding “Most Important Thing” in Hillary’s Life Right Now July 5, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!.
Tags: , , ,
13 comments

Oh no she didn’t! Oh yes she did. According to BBC, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Polish television reporters that her daughter Chelsea’s wedding

Truly is the most important thing in my life right now.

Oh good, because that pesky Armenian-Azeri conflict was getting old.

Don’t worry, America–despite being on a whirlwind diplomatic mission to Eastern Europe, Clinton says she has “been able to fit in tastings and dress selections and all the other things the mother of the bride has to do”.

I would expect someone who put eighteen million cracks in the glass ceiling to be imaginative and open-minded about the meaning of a wedding, not to parrot traditional roles rooted in sexism and materialism.

And regardless of whether Chelsea’s ceremony is tacky or tasteful, it should still not be a priority for Clinton. She has a responsibility to the people of the U.S. and the world to prioritize her political obligations and power, for which she fought so hard and for which so many people supported her.

I realize we all have things in our lives to which we attribute unreasonable importance.  For me, my persistent oily scalp  often seems far more important and devastating than, say, Hezbollah‘s latest hijinks.  But here’s the thing–I would never say so out loud.  (more…)

Alternet Explains Why Marriage Doesn’t Matter April 18, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!, blog reviews, Reviews.
Tags: , , ,
22 comments

I heart this hilarious and insightful Alternet article about Why Marriage Doesn’t Matter. It points out that:

Women are carpet-bombed with the idea that marriage is their happy ending from their first viewing of Cinderella to the last potboiler Rom Com they saw starring Sarah Jessica Jennifer Kate Meg Julia Whatsherhair.

True and straightforward, right? But I’m astounded at how many Alternet readers–normally a pretty progressive bunch, doncha think?–went all right-wing-family-values on author Liz Langley. Several long-married people shrieked that she’d offended them by disparaging their life choice–a life choice that endowed them with special wisdom and compassion for others that the author supposedly doesn’t share, as well as legal privileges that the author would be wise to avail herself of. For example:

. . . I am newly married. I was engaged for love. I married quickly because I needed health insurance. I think that if people choose not to get married, or don’t find that love that’s fine. I understand that Alternet is not often here to play nice to both sides, and usually I appreciate that. I do, however, feel offended by this article. There are a lot of benefits to marriage both emotional and practical. All I read here is “Oh, you got married? hag.”

If this were the Daily Mail or some other trash news outlet, I wouldn’t be surprised at the caliber of commenters. But it’s Alternet! Hence my manic quest to comment on the other commenter’s comments.  (Which you can see if you go to the article.)

The discussion is yet another example of how marriage is so disproportionately revered.  Even an intelligent, open-minded readership such as Alternet’s freaks out when someone challenges the Marriage Myth, the way people freak out when they see someone kick a puppy.

–Christina

photo credit: Toomas & Marit Hinnosaar

Right-Wingers: Idiots, or Assholes? April 17, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!.
Tags:
5 comments

I was walking past the giant TV in my office cafeteria and heard some newswoman say, “Conservatives are angry over President Obama’s decision to allow gay couples visitation rights in hospitals. They say it provides rights to gay couples that are not provided to everyone else.”

Sooooo. . . . how about we provide “everyone else” with the right to choose who sees them with tubes in their noses? “Everyone else” including singles?  The newsanchor and the conservative didn’t even bother to follow up with this thought. They just stopped right at “that’s giving gays extra rights”. This just shows how *ensconced* the notion is that  you deserve rights if you’re married (according to liberals and conservatives) OR if you’re in any sort of couple (according to liberals), but not if you’re single.

Just a quick pissy post because I’m in a hurry but felt like venting.

Christina

Singles’ Advocacy Goes Mainstream–And Almost Gets It Right March 27, 2010

Posted by Onely in As If!, Great Onely Activities, Reviews.
Tags: , ,
5 comments

You don’t get much more mainstream than The Today Show, which featured an interview with filmmaker Jane Scandurra of the documentary “Single” and Lesley Jane Seymour of More magazine talking about the awesomeness of the 27 million (presumably U.S. American) single women, in particular those over 40. Yay!

Our Copious Reader Rachel flagged this great segment for us, and we’re thrilled to see our Onely principles espoused by influential and visible women in the mainstream media. In the interview, they talk about how “Anybody is not better than nobody” and “Just because you’re single doesn’t mean you’re alone or unhappy”. They say this with such enthusiasm, and as if these are the newest and most surprisingly wonderful ideas, which I guess to many people they are. So kudos to Today for tackling this topic. They acknowledge the problem of how react to the pitying “Awww” and “I know someone for you!” The video doesn’t present much information that will be new to most Onely readers, nor does it address the fact married people get all sorts of random legal rights that singles don’t, but it’s definitely entertaining and worth a watch.

But then. . .

Oy vey. . .

Immediately following the yay-singlehood segment, we see a Joy Fit Club story about an articulate, spirited, intelligent, attractive woman who was over one hundred pounds overweight. The story follows her heroic weightloss battle, which she won, losing 114 pounds! And how does the segment end? With our now-svelte heroine saying:

I’ve met a wonderful man, and hope to hear wedding bells in my near future.

And our two interviewers (the same ones who lauded Seymour and Scandurra’s single lives) squealing like stepped-on puppies:

OOOO We’re so excited!

Ok fine. But MSN has double-faulted: One, they’ve linked weight to attractiveness and attractiveness to singleness; and two, they’ve acted as if the natural, desired, and expected outcome of a successful life (represented in this case by a massive and impressive weight loss) is marriage. I applaud our heroine’s triumph in the dressing room and wish her luck in pursuing her personal dream of having a nuclear family, but I hope that Today’s next interviewee is someone who lost a hundred pounds then decided to build an orphanage-slash-observatory on the beach in New Zealand. Or something.

–Christina

Photo credit: Mer Incognito