Onely on Change.org: Single? Rent a Date! February 26, 2010
Posted by Onely in As If!, blog reviews, Everyday Happenings, Reviews, We like. . ..Tags: change.org, rent a date
3 comments
This is a lazy woman’s post! Here is a link to my Change.org post about Chinese singles paying people to pose as their significant others. At first glance, it’s a bad idea. It concedes and caters to the maladjusted majority opinion that people need to pair up. (Apparently I have alliteration disease tonight.) At second glance—haven’t you ever wanted to have a boyfriend or girlfriend for one particular event, like that time you were going to the Oscars and didn’t feel like walking down the red carpet alone under the scrutiny of all those pairing-obsessed paparazzi?
Or if date-renting singles aren’t your bag, you can go to the Take Action page on Change.org and find all sorts of petitions and letters you can add your name to. If anyone has an idea for a singles’-rights-themed petition, please let me know. Or go and create your own!
Lisa and I are sort of bumming because we’ve put a couple interesting links up on our Facebook pages, including the NYT article about how there are fewer men available to college women and a Change.org petition against American Apparel’s “best bottoms” contest, and no one really comments on them (except for my friend Nicole, yay Nicole!). But if someone changes their “status” to “in a relationship” then OMG EVERYONE COMMENTS RIGHT AWAY HOW EXCITING CONGRATULATIONS!
–Christina
Photo: AMagill
Singles Must Show Up In Person! January 10, 2010
Posted by Onely in As If!, Everyday Happenings.Tags: absentee voting criteria, married peoples' rights, singles discrimination, spouse privileges, U.S. government discrimination
13 comments
Here at Onely (and in the singles’ advocacy blogosphere in general) we’re always griping about how the U.S. government provides married people with over 1300 legal privileges that singles don’t get (kudos to Bella DePaulo who first mined the federal statues). Honestly, though, I can only specifically name a few of those 1300 benefits: the ability to draw a deceased partner’s social security; right to pay less capital gains tax (and other taxes); right to piggyback on a partner’s insurance; right to visit and make medical decisions for a partner in the hospital. What are all the other 1,296 rights denied to singles? Copious readers, please let us know!
I’ll start the list with a Married Privilege I recently discovered by accident:
Politicians have been bombarding my mailbox with lit’riture in preparation for Virginia’s upcoming Jan 12 special election to fill a state Senate seat. I received an absentee ballot application from Democrat Dave Marsden. Now, any candidate who sends lit’riture encouraging me to sit at home on my couch and vote instead of going out in the pre-8-a.m. cold to my old elementary school has my full support! However, upon closer examination of the ballot, I realized that I would have to meet at least one of eighteen specific criteria in order to be able to vote from my couch. Here they are (cliffhanger–I have put the most exciting criteria at the end of the list). In order to vote absentee, I would have to be: (more…)
Shared Email Addresses: Convenient or Claustrophobic? November 9, 2009
Posted by Onely in As If!, Food for Thought.Tags: couple communication, marriage myth, shared email address, single and independent
11 comments
I have some friends who share an email address with their spouse. I also have some friends who keep their own email address after they get married. I don’t see any big ideological, political, cultural, or background differences between these two groups. So why do some people merge their accounts when they tie the knot?
Full disclosure: my parents share an email address. This is convenient when I want to announce my Christmas Wish List to both of them. It’s claustrophobic when I want to scheme with my dad about what to get for my mom, or vice versa.
I think in general I’m going to have to come out against shared email accounts. If one of my girlfriends has been complaining to me on the phone about her husband, I have to make sure I don’t reference our conversation in an email to her because he might open it instead. Claustrophobic. The merging of accounts is also an uncomfortable metaphor for the merging of lives. Sharing an email account is Total Openness. Her contacts become his contacts; his messages become hers. Nowhere does real life present such total fungibility in a relationship, except in our culture ‘s mythology of marriage as being totally open, a complete sharing. This myth sets all couples up for disappointment and frustration, and sharing an email account just reinforces that myth that two people can become one.
Copious Readership, what are the plusses and minuses of sharing email addresses? Have you ever shared an email address with a sig-other? Do you know people who do?
–Christina
Fort Hood Shooter: Crazy, Cranky, Creepy–and Unmarried November 6, 2009
Posted by Onely in As If!.Tags: fort hood shooting, hasan nadal single, npr fort hood, single men stereotypes, washington post fort hood
4 comments
US Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan was obviously insane. He may have been isolated. He was rumored to be a possible religious fanatic who may have posted inflammatory remarks on the internet. At best, he’s been remembered as an unlikeable man. Nidal Hasan seems to have had many, many black marks on him. But when the news media list his flaws–his two dozen victims, his lack of friends, his FBI investigation, his supposedly dour personality, his general unhappiness–they always mention “unmarried” in there too. Or maybe “unmarried, with no children.”
When The Washington Post quotes his aunt, they have to stick in a mention of unmarriedness because the aunt didn’t do it for them:
Hasan “did not make many friends” and “did not make friends fast,” his aunt said. He had no girlfriend and was not married. “He would tell us the military was his life,” she said.
An NPR broadcast this evening said that Hasan “. . . was not happy. He was unmarried. . .” and then went on to describe his quest to find an appropriate wife. (His dating life was somewhat thwarted as he searched for a wife who prayed five times a day.)
His single status is being given as much weight as his discontent with the U.S.’ military policy in Afghanistan and Iraq; as much weight as his exposure to traumatized patients’ terrible stories; and as much weight as his general non-sympaticoness. That is cheap, wrong, and disrespectful to the Fort Hood victims and their loved ones.
–Christina
P.S. Lisa points out that in the Extrapolation Mania, the fact that he’s Muslim (not just the rumors of his extremism) is being touted as an indicative factor too, which makes about as much sense as touting his unmarriedness: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8347586.stm
P.P.S. Here’s another example of people adding his unmarried status to a list of (ostensible) negative traits. It’s in response to a Psychology Today post by Dr. Mark Goulston, where he says (and I agree) that Hasan was not inherently evil–he was sick and therefore did an evil thing:
Submitted by Anonymous on November 10, 2009 – 10:04pm.
While you are formulating your thoughts on the Fort Hood Killer this Dr. Goulston, spend some thoughts on this–Nidal Hasan probably had Asperger’s syndrome!
He was a loner. He couldn’t even get married though his culture has been known to arrange marriages. Very low on Social skills.
He claims he was bullied.
His need for routine led him to a military career.
He was judgmental and quick to criticize others who break “the rules”.
HIS obsession with his religion was probably like some Asperger’s syndrome patients’ fascination with bus schedules, small machines, etc..
When his military rules ( obey your superiors) came crashing into his religious rules ( you do not go to a Muslim country and kill other muslims on behalf of the “infidels”), he could not handle it and exploded with violence.
How to Pop the Progressive Bubble? October 29, 2009
Posted by Onely in As If!, Food for Thought.Tags: 107.3 wash FM, complacency, singles stereotypes
12 comments
.jpg)
Sometimes Lisa and I become complacent. We begin to think that maybe singlism isn’t so pervasive and prevalent. We stop doing as many blog entries. We forget why we started Onely in the first place. This fault is yours, Copious Readers! Because the vast majority of our commenters are so forward-thinking about singles’ issues, Lisa and I begin–mostly unconsciously–to think that by extension all of the blogosphere, and all of the world, must also contain a high percentage of people who think being single is fine, maybe even desirable. We begin to believe that most people recognize the privilege gap created by the institution of marriage and would change it if given the opportunity.
Last Thursday morning 107.3 Wash FM’s Jack Diamond Morning show smacked me back to reality. I can’t remember the details or find a direct link to the show (yes, this is how most of my anecdotes start!), but I remember driving into work with my mouth hanging open as the broadcaster talked about a single friend of his who needs a girlfriend. The speaker laid out several stereotypes one after the other, including mentions of his friend sitting home alone because the bar scene is yucky and sad. These images were dropped casually into the conversation as if instead of discussion points, they were inalienable facts: obviously it’s better to be at home with someone that at home alone, and obviously if you’re single the only place to go is to the bar to drink your sorrows away with other single people drinking their sorrows away. Upon hearing this, I realized afresh how insidious singlism is, how awash with almost-invisible and seldom-articulated presumptions.
I called up Lisa that morning to remind her that Onely is a bubble of positive singles’ energy and advocacy–perhaps too bubbly. Even though we do our share of griping, the fact that so many commenters share our gripes and provide support and suggestions for dealing with singlism lulls us into a false sense of security.
How can we pop this bubble? How can we integrate more into the wider (and less singles-friendly) world? I have a couple ideas: I’d like to interview some people who might have radically different social views from Onely, like a conservative Christian preacher, or (as the makers of Seeking Happily Ever After did) the hostess of a sexist reality show. I also want to start blogging more in our “Take Action” series, which flags opportunities for us and our readers to educate community leaders about singles’ issues. I might provide addresses and form letters for re-educating (this word makes me feel very Cultural Revolutionish but oh well) politicians, companies, advertisers, and moviemakers (Ahem, Slum Dog) who present offensive material.
Copious Readership, do you feel bubbled and if so, what are your ideas for bursting out?
–Christina
And we thought the U.S. government was obsessed with marriage! October 17, 2009
Posted by Onely in As If!, Look What Google Barfed Up.Tags: malaysia free honeymoons, saudi terrorist rehabilitation
7 comments
Felicia Strehmel, "Open Mind"
The U.S. government gives married couples over one thousand rights that singles don’t receive. I used to think this was matrimaniacal (perpetuating the misguided notion that marriage is unequivocably beneficial for individuals and society). But now I see that matrimania is all relative.
The Malaysian government is giving away free honeymoons to encourage troubled couples to stay together and avoid divorce, which according to Malaysian government official Ashaari Idris has “serious implications on society.” Idris works for the northeastern state of Terengganu, a tourist beach mecca with many island resorts. Couples can apply for a two-night stay at one of these resorts; the process includes an interview in which, I imagine, the pair details their relationship difficulties and how a weekend on the beach would help them:
“If I could just walk with him hand and hand along the sunny strand, I wouldn’t care that he doesn’t listen to me.”
“I’m sure that after we come back from the seaside, she’ll want to have my mother over for dinner more often.”
If I were a single Malaysian, I’d be standing at the desk of some Terengganu official, trying hard as hell to capitalize on this offer too:
“My relationship with myself hasn’t been great lately. I think I need to wade in the surf and reconnect with my core being.”
or
“As a single person, I naturally have very low self-esteem, which has serious implications on society. If I could only go sit in the sun and soak up a sense of self-worth, I won’t end up shooting from a belltower and in fact I might even start having goods-consuming babies.”
And just when I was thinking Malaysia was pretty matrimaniacal, look what Google barfed up: the Saudi government is giving away free wives to rehabilitated terrorists. Historian and writer Robert Lacey visited a terrorist rehabilitation center in Riyadh where he learned that the Ministry of the Interior will buy wives for (supposedly) reformed terrorists, at the cost of sixty thousand Riyals (around US$18,000) each. That’s how much faith the Saudi government has in the power of marriage to make people better!
Discussion questions: Copious Readership, can a weekend on the beach repair a fraying relationship? Can having a wife keep a terrorist from going out at night with the boys to blow things up? Is there merit to these efforts at all?
Additional discussion question (non-rhetorical, per Rachel’s comment below): Does anyone have other examples of matrimania in different countries? Does the matrimania of countries other than the U.S. make the US’ matrimania look less bad, or does it make the U.S. look even worse? Regarding the latter, I think that for the U.S. to offer over 1,000 legal rights to married people at the expense of singles is almost *more* insidiously matrimaniacal than the Saudi government’s wife-selling ideas, because at least the Saudis don’t pretend to have a culture of sexual equality and freedom for all.
Christina
Another Reason Institutionalized Couplehood SUCKS October 7, 2009
Posted by Onely in Academic Alert!, As If!, Just Saying., Look What Google Barfed Up.Tags: american sociological association, marriage and feminism, married name change, take husband's name, university of indiana study
20 comments
Because it breeds sexism!
According to an 11 August 2009 article in USA Today, fifty percent of Americans think that a woman should be required by the federal government to take her husband’s last name!
How. F&king. Scary. The institution of marriage–and I’m talking about the federally sponsored institution–allows people to put men and women in boxes according to roles defined hundreds of years ago, when things were very different in society (no good birth control, no good jobs for women, no IPod Nano).
The study was done by researchers from Indiana University and the University of Utah, who asked “about 815 people a combination of multiple choice and open-ended questions to come up with the find”. The USA Today article doesn’t say exactly who the respondents were. My sister–possibly in an attempt to get me to stop hyperventilating–pointed out that given the involvement of U of Utah, there might have been a large number of Mormons participating, which would possibly skew the results toward a more conservative view of gender roles (not that we know much about Mormonism).
I’m afraid it’s more likely that the researchers–presumably not fools themselves–selected from a relatively wide demographic more representative of the nation than, say, Mormon college students. I wanted to do the Bella DePaulo thing and go to the original study, but I couldn’t find it after a search of ASAnet and EBSCO and U of Indiana, and I was too weak from the hyperventilating to continue looking further. If anyone knows where I can go to read the original study write-up, please let me know. Otherwise, I will be forced to continue to view 50 percent of my country’s population as ignorant dinks. Help help!
And lest you think I’m being a little harsh, check out some of these quotes from survey respondents, as related to the New York Daily Mail by lead researcher Linda Hamilton:
When the respondents were asked why they felt women should change their name after the wedding, Hamilton says, “They told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family. This was a reason given by many.”
“They said the mailman would get confused and that society wouldn’t function as well if women did not change their name,” Hamilton says.
“Asked if they thought of a lesbian couple as a family, those who believe that women should take their husband’s name are less likely to say yes,” she says. “If you’re more liberal about the name change issue, you tend to include a larger population in the definition of family.”
According to the USA TODAY article, Hamilton, a sociology researcher at Indiana University, found the finding “really interesting”. She makes an excellent point: “Because [the name change issue] is not politicized, people just answer the question without really thinking about it. It sort of taps into people’s views about all kinds of things.” Did the survey yank back the veil of political correctness and reveal the pock-marked face of America? Ok, that’s a slightly sexist metaphor, but at least I’m not saying the pockmarked bride should be required to take her husband’s name!
My ex-boyfriend R said that if we got married, he’d want me to take his last name as a sign of caring and commitment (or some such). I disagreed and fortunately the conversation–which remained relatively light–wandered to other topics. R was raised in a conservative household (they watched Rush Limbaugh), and although he eventually moved much further leftward, obviously he was not as far left as I was on women’s issues.
Copious Readers, here are your discussion questions: Do you know how to find out who the 800+ study respondents were? Should more women be encouraged to keep their last names? Why don’t more men change their last names to express care and commitment toward their wives? When a gay couple gets married, does one person change their name and if so, how do they decide who? If not, then can we use these gay couples as examples of how to avoid logistical difficulties in a two-name family? If one train leaves from New York travelling west at 50 m.p.h. and another train leaves Houston travelling northeast at. . .
Christina
Nice Try, Nigeria August 28, 2009
Posted by Onely in As If!, Look What Google Barfed Up.Tags: nigeria arranged HIV AIDS marriages, nigerian couples, nigerian singles
1 comment so far
And now, the latest installment in our Look What Google Barfed Up series: Allison McCarthy’s interesting Global Comment article about the efforts by the Nigerian government (specifically, the Bauchi Agency for the Control of HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, Leprosy and Malaria, pithily acronymed BACATMA) to prevent the spread of AIDS:
By marrying off HIV-infected singles to each other! Yes! Because as we all know, the primary vectors for the virus are single people, not dirty needles or the rape-happy Nigerian police (as described in the Amnesty International report cited by McCarthy). According to the Global Comment article:
Single men and women, coming to the agency’s doors as patients in treatment for HIV/AIDS, are viewed as the primary spreaders of the virus. (more…)
Funny Friday: Please Don’t Promise Me Forever August 21, 2009
Posted by Onely in "Against Love"...?, As If!, Dating, Food for Thought.Tags: cheesy hallmark card, Laura Kipnis, please don't promise me forever, rotating corpse, single hallmark
6 comments
Welcome to the first intallment of our new Funny Friday series. Today we are looking at a 1976 Hallmark booklet, “Please Don’t Promise Me Forever“. The Rotating Corpse discovered and posted this gem, which explains how to have a happy relationship by following a series of directives beginning with “Please don’t. . .” Rotating Corpse commenters seem divided on whether the text of the booklet is dickish or loving. I think either way it’s hilarious. What do our Copious Readers think?
The booklet shows a series of pictures of a couple wearing vests, elaborately knotted scarves, or poofy sleeves. The blond woman and mustachioed man are shot in various states of fun couple activities, such as wading in a stream, playing Monopoly, and staring soulfully over the side of a bridge, as if looking for their Pooh Sticks. Some of the advice is actually quite sensible. But mostly the reader–after she stops laughing–comes away feeling as if the pair has a somewhat sickly, passive-aggressive love. Some key lines in the text are:
Please don’t promise me forever./ I want us to love each other one day at a time / Instead of trying too hard and promising too much. (more…)
Great Onelers: Sylvia Williams of Temple Hills August 12, 2009
Posted by Onely in As If!, Food for Thought, Great Onelies in Real Time.Tags: ibby caputo, singles aging, sylvia williams, walker mill middle school, washington post health section
2 comments
Yesterday the Washington Post had an article on Aging Well at All Ages. One of the four large faceshots on the front page of the Health section belonged to Sylvia Williams, 62, of Temple Hills. She is a counselor at Walker Mill Middle School. She says,
Being grateful and not trying to be a teenager again. Not trying to be younger than you are. It’s ok. And today’s my birthday. . . I’m single, no children and I guess that’s why I’m doing well.
Cheers to Sylvia.
Separately, I noticed how each of the photo captions mentioned three things about the person featured: (more…)
Onely.Org 