Isn’t it sad that some people are surprised that you can be happily single? April 6, 2010
Posted by Onely in "Against Love"...?, Food for Thought, Heteronormativity, Secret Lives of the Happily Single, single and happy.Tags: happily single people need to represent!, spreading the Onely news, surprised and happy, undercover Onely
16 comments
Kudos to Contented Single, who (inadvertently) titled this post thanks to her comment at the end of this discussion about whether or not being Onely has made me clueless. In answer to her question, YES I DO think it’s sad that some people are surprised that you (we) can be happily single! In fact, running this blog has spoiled me; I’ve clearly forgotten how unusual the Onely mindset seems in the public’s eyes.
Having my friend Jenny in town last month reminded me of that. We don’t know each other all that well, and I offered to let her stay with me since our national annual conference was here in Louisville. I wasn’t sure how things would go, since we only ever see each other in academic contexts — and since I try to keep my academic life separate from this blog, she doesn’t know anything about Onely. She stayed with me for five days, and during that time, not only did she insist that my friend George was “in love” with me — she also kept mentioning how “happy” I seemed being single.
Her surprise was as great as mine! The second night she was in town, she told me how different I was from most of her single friends back home, who she described as strangely “resentful” when she got married last summer. And a couple nights later, after she met George and couldn’t help trying to pair us up — and I kept resisting her compulsion, she finally “admitted” that if I was really happy being single, then (she supposed) there wasn’t anything wrong with that.
I almost told her about Onely, but then I decided against it because I was just so fascinated by her surprise that I wanted to see if it would last through the whole visit. And it did. So when I saw her off, I felt pretty satisfied, knowing I’d made a good impression on her as a happily single person. I think she’ll carry it with her — I guess we need more Onelers to represent!
Copious Readers, have you had experiences like I had with Jenny, when someone expressed surprise by your happy-and-single status?
— Lisa
PS: Jenny also told me that she felt that after she got married and started wearing a wedding ring all the time, she’d noticed a big change in the way men treated her (less as an object). Made me think that I should start wearing a fake wedding ring on errands or when traveling — as a social experiment! If you have thoughts about this, please share. 🙂
Has Being Onely Made Me Clueless? March 22, 2010
Posted by Onely in "Against Love"...?, Heteronormativity, single and happy, Some Like It Single, Your Responses Requested!.Tags: good friends and chemistry, heteronormative logic, oblivious to good chemistry, single and happy
18 comments
Dear readers,
I am afraid that my life as a happy Oneler may have made me oblivious to the signs of chemistry that a “normal” person would generally notice. I’m not talking about overt sexual advances (eww), and I’m not wondering about a first date (easy enough to figure out in the long run). I’m referring, instead, to a close friend (I will call him George here for the sake of privacy) whom I have never thought of as anything “more than” a friend — probably because we were both coupled when we first met several years ago (hey, even though I’m happily single, I’m not immune to checking out attractive single men).
Over the past few years, mutual friends of ours have asked me if I’m interested in George, or they’ll wonder why we haven’t dated. Occasionally — and usually while under the influence — someone will insist that we belong together. But I always brush these comments off as silly heteronormative proclamations; after all, we are the same age and have similar professional interests and are often the only single people running around our common social circles. According to common heteronormative logic, single man + single woman = HELLO, couple!
As you might expect, I resist that logic. But this past weekend, several friends who had never met George, and who had never even met each other, happened to be in town for an academic conference (I will call them Tracy, Jenny, and Dave). On Saturday night, I invited everyone out to a local restaurant. The only local friend who showed up was George, and soon, I noticed, Tracy and Jenny were exchanging meaningful glances. We moved on to a bar downtown for a nightcap and took separate cars (George drove Jenny, and I drove T & D). In the car, Tracy and Dave told me it was obvious: George is “in love” with me. There is “so much chemistry,” they said. I shrugged it off — more heternormative nonsense. But at the bar, George sat close to me in the booth; our bodies kept making contact, and I kept thinking, this has never happened before, and neither of us are drunk. Maybe my friends are right — but how is it I’ve never noticed?
The conference is over. Not only have my friends left town (cheerful because they think they were right about George), but they have left me with a great deal of confusion: On the one hand, I think that my friends may have just been doing what so many coupled people (each of these friends happen to be married) want to do when confronted with two nice and attractive single people: hook them up! But on the other hand, my friends had never met each other before – they all noticed chemistry right away, without any prompting from me. So this gives me pause. And then I think about George himself, and I think about our friendship: Not only is he smart and funny, but he has always been quietly supportive (he was around but non-intrusive during a particularly dramatic breakup after I first moved to Louisville) and interested in my life. We never run out of things to talk about. And last summer, when I traveled alone to England and Ireland, he happened to be in Ireland at the same time as me, and I traveled with him and his family (mom, brother, and sister) for a few days. He is a genuinely kind person and a good friend, and I wonder all of a sudden why I’ve never “noticed” him, and I wonder if it’s because of Onely, because being coupled is not high on my priority list.
So I’m curious, Copious Readers, not about whether I should “do” anything about this (I’m pretty sure I won’t, for several complicated reasons), but rather, whether or not you think that having a Onely mindset makes you oblivious to possibilities that you may have otherwise entertained as a couple-oriented single adult. Or, alternatively, if you think that my friends are the clueless ones!
— Lisa
photo credit: zazzle
Singlism? Feminism? What Gives? (Part Two) December 15, 2009
Posted by Onely in Academic Alert!, Food for Thought, Heteronormativity, Your Responses Requested!.Tags: gender and sexuality, history of sexuality, michel foucault, sexuality and feminism, singles' sexuality, we're queer
19 comments
In my last post, I wanted to highlight how the pro-singles movement, in targeting and attracting women as its main audience and voice(s), risks inadvertently framing itself as gender-exclusive. This potential problem, in turn, runs against our feminist goals of countering dominant and oppressive ways of thinking and being. It should be clear, from this and other posts, that we hope to solicit more male voices into our conversations and advocacy work. While both Christina’s perspective and my own will necessarily be limited by our positions as women, we are also committed to our feminist perspectives, which motivate us to read against the (heteronormative) grain and to hopefully recognize and articulate the limitations of our positions.
But I’ve been noticing another limitation that see
ms to have fueled some of the debate — and misunderstandings — about why men seem less prevalent in the pro-singles blogosphere: In many of our conversations about gender (at least here at Onely and in our cross-posts at Quirkyalone), it seems to me that when we talk about the relationships between men and women (or lack thereof), we are assuming that these “men” and “women” we speak of are heterosexual. And if we assume that, then we aren’t doing much to forward our feminist goals, either.
Making this assumption is easy to do, especially when one (such as myself) identifies as heterosexual. (more…)
Singlism? Feminism? What gives? (Part One) December 12, 2009
Posted by Onely in Academic Alert!, Food for Thought, Heteronormativity, quirkyalone, Your Responses Requested!.Tags: feminism, gender, rosie the riveter rocks!, single men, singlism
15 comments
A few days ago, Christina examined the surprisingly singlist and sexist publicity blurbs for two seemingly pro-single books. She notes that the blurbs “[remind] us of how tightly anti-feminism is woven into anti-singlehood rhetoric.” And it’s true: Onely is grounded, at its heart, in feminist values and beliefs specifically because of this connection.
As we explain on our “About Onely” page, we see the fight against singlism as a feminist project in the sense that we question the oppressive perspective that normalizes a particular (sexual-social) practice — coupling — at the expense of those who remain single. We believe that the same sexist (and heteronormative) perspective that fails to value multiple gender and sexual identities also fails to recognize those of us who prefer living alone to coupling.
But another thing strikes me as equally interesting about this linkage: I wonder if it’s a mere coincidence that Rosie the Riveter’s message above could apply as much to women as it could to singles. (more…)
Nature or Nurture? August 4, 2009
Posted by Onely in Food for Thought, Heteronormativity.Tags: biology versus culture, coupling, cultural evolution, cultural norms, gender differences, mating, nature or nurture, selfish gene
14 comments
I’m always intrigued by the relationship between “nature” and “culture” — how much of what we do and think in a particular place and time has to do with “straight” biology (pardon the pun), and how much has to do with the power of cultural values? This, of course, is the driving question that motivates a lot of what we do here at Onely, and so when I came across this article, which seeks to explain male/female mating habits according to evolutionary and biological “facts,” I found myself wondering, how much of this “makes sense” because of cultural norms/values, and how much is actually viable, scientific reasoning?
Take, for example, the following — which seems totally logical:
In young men, the selfish gene seeks to spread itself far and wide, mostly because it often can (and with minimal investment of resources) — hence, the rakish male tendency to love ’em and leave ’em. Women, on other hand, tend to be more discriminating. They’re the ones who have to carry the baby around for nine months, then nurse it to independence. In women, the selfish gene prefers a mate with both the wherewithal and the resources to stick around and raise the kid.
Okay, I thought. There’s not much to dispute here. But then, I read the “translation”:
“Men will be looking for short-term uncommitted relationships, women will be looking for relationship commitment,” said Kruger. “These are the things that have driven evolution. … Because of different interests, women offer a sexual relationship in exchange for commitment, and men offer commitment in exchange for sex.”
See, the thing is, while this explanation makes “logical” sense, it also seems to perpetuate a stereotype about the seemingly “inherent” differences between women and men. But perhaps more importantly, this explanation doesn’t take into account the “fact” of what I would call cultural evolution — (more…)
Reality TV Idea #1: “I Complete Me” July 30, 2009
Posted by Onely in Food for Thought, Heteronormativity, Pop Culture: Scourge of the Onelys.Tags: co-dependent couples, couple-mania, favorite hobbies, letting go, losing self, single living, sleeping alone, solo dining, traveling solo
9 comments
Hi everyone. Today, Jezebel alerted me to this EXCELLENT and highly entertaining video:
(Both Christina and I laughed hysterically and said “Oh my god, it’s SO TRUE!”)
The thing is, the Blogulator‘s got it right — for sitcoms and gender stereotypes, at least. But this got me thinking that we need a show that, instead of reversing the way married men and women are portrayed on TV, would subvert the way that singles are (most often) portrayed on TV — as desperate, lonely losers always struggling to find a mate. And where has television cornered the market on this portrayal of single people? That’s right — Reality TV! Take your pick — from The Bachelor and The Bachelorette (those old standards), to Rock of Love, More to Love, or a Shot at Love, to Blind Date (which, I’ll admit, is a personal fave), to Joe Millionaire, to Who Wants to Marry My Dad, and even Married by America — the basic premise of all these shows is that if you’re single, it’s time for an intervention!
So, Christina and I have decided to pitch our own Reality TV show, called I Complete Me. We don’t have any illusions that anyone will actually take us up on the offer (hell, there’s no way Fat Wife would make it), but just for kicks, here’s what we propose: (more…)
Dr. Lillis Makes Onely Cry! Tell Him to Apologize! July 19, 2009
Posted by Onely in As If!, blog reviews, Heteronormativity.Tags: bella depaulo, Chancellor Internal Medicine, Dr. Christopher Lillis, marriage good for health, marriage healthy, marriage studies, singletude
20 comments
If any of our Copious Readers have friends who buy into the (flawed) “marriage-makes-healthy” studies, send them to Singletude‘s 15 July post. Singletude professionally and eruditely tears into Dr. Christopher Lillis, an internist with Chancellor Internal Medicine in Fredricksburg, Virginia. High on his recent nuptials, Dr. Lillis basically says that:
1) Everyone needs to get married so that their spouse will remind them to take care of their health! Singles wither away because they don’t remember go to the doctor!
2) People who remain single are likely to be genetically inferior to marrieds! (This isn’t at *all* like eugenics, is it? Lisa says, “What, is he going to measure the size of our heads?”)
3) Scientists who discount the “marriage-makes-healthy” studies are bitter because they never have time to get out of the lab to find true love! (Here he admits to hyperbole, but claims he’s allowed to say such things, because it’s his essay and he “just got hitched”. Careful of that bit and bridle, Doc. I can see it’s already squeezing on your brain.)
4) “Getting married reduces depressive symptoms, and getting divorced increases them.”
Onely Fights Office Singlism! Kind of! July 15, 2009
Posted by Onely in As If!, Everyday Happenings, Heteronormativity, Just Saying., Secret Lives of the Happily Single, single and happy.Tags: office chatter, responsible single people, single parents, singlism in the workplace, workplace singles discrimination
23 comments
I forget the context of our conversation, but at one point my coworker mentioned that single people don’t have any responsibilities. Now, before you send out the tar-and-feathering mob, loyal Copious Readers, let me say that this is one of my favorite coworkers and he has a knack for making out-of-place, over-the-top generalizations. But still, I felt the need to correct his statement.
“Single have responsibilities!” I said. “I have a mortage. And. . . and. . . a cat.” I winced. The C word seldom helps in a singles advocacy argument. But in the moment, I couldn’t think of any other responsibilities! Because to be honest, I am so enamoured of my independence that the feeling of freedom sometimes overshadows my to-do list. But Lisa rattled off my responsibilities to me later, in an email. She said we have “pretty much the same responsibilities as everyone else!” But for once I disagree with my intrepid co-blogger. (more…)
Always a Bridesmaid, Never the Bride June 15, 2009
Posted by Onely in "Against Love"...?, Food for Thought, Heteronormativity, single and happy.Tags: always a bridesmaid, dishonesty, friendship, matrimania, never the bride, weddings
34 comments
This past weekend, I was a bridesmaid for a friend’s wedding in St. Louis. This is the fourth time I’ve been a bridesmaid over the last eight years or so, and doing it made me think about the popular (American?) expression, “Always a bridesmaid, never the bride.” For those of our readers unfamiliar with it, the expression carries a highly negative connotation, suggesting that the woman (or person) in question hasn’t (or cannot/will not) fulfill her ultimate ambition in life — being a bride (for info on the origin of the expression, check out this link).
I’m sure I don’t need to explain to you, copious readers, how heteronormative and sexist the expression is, suggesting that a woman’s most impressive achievement will be her wedding day (!!). But I have started to think a lot about what it means to be a bridesmaid, especially as one of the co-writers of this blog. (more…)
Onely.Org 