jump to navigation

Kiss This! (And Happy New Year) December 31, 2009

Posted by Onely in Bad Onely Activities, Food for Thought.
Tags: , , ,
8 comments
Jacopo Werther

(Jacopo Werther)

What are you doing for New Year’s? What are your resolutions (if any)? What are your traditions? What are your traditional resolutions? (Mine is, “I will write an hour every day.” I make this resolution every year, and every year I break it by January 7.)

One NYE tradition that needs to go far, far away is the idea of kissing someone at the stroke of midnight. I’m not saying we shouldn’t kiss people at 12 a.m. on the first day of the New Year. We just needn’t get all mystical about it, as if kissing someone during the first second of 2010 is somehow more romantic or meaningful than kissing someone during the 3,845th second of the year.  More importantly, if we don’t have anyone to kiss, we shouldn’t get all worried. Nonetheless, every year millions of people fret about having someone to snog on this one night. Some settle for less-than-savory dates just so that they can ring in the new year with a kiss. Why?

Because the NYE kiss tradition plays directly into the prevailing myth that a romantic coupling marks the beginning of a new (improved, grown-up) life. The NYE kiss requirement says a new life (the new year) should start with a romantic coupling. Because “relationships” are intended to last for forever, the NYE kiss is seen as “lasting” too–that is, setting the tone for the entire year. (This same optic, where one particular moment is seen as representative of an entire timepan, occurs in panicked discussions about single people “dying alone”.)

I postulate that this paradigm has come to overshadow the good things about the NYE kiss–joy, celebration, spontaneity. Instead, we now have the Desperation Kiss. You’ve seen it. Go to almost any large New Year’s Eve gathering and at about 11:55 (or earlier!) you’ll notice the crowd clumping up into groups of two. Yes, many of these are pairs of people who are either “together” or who genuinely like each other. But too many of them are succumbing to the dynamic I experienced several New Year’s Eves ago on board my fancy-dress Jimmy Buffett Cruise (insert your oxymoron joke here). All names have been changed to protect the idiotic: (more…)

Blog Review: Kris Kringle for Singles December 27, 2009

Posted by Onely in blog reviews, Reviews.
Tags: , ,
10 comments

While working on Matt’s excellent comment (31 Jan edit: It was wagdog’s comment, not Matt’s! sorry!) “Are there any Christmas movies that aren’t singlist?” I stumbled upon an interesting site that has nothing to do with movies, but a lot to do with being single during the (specifically) Christmas season. Kris Kringle for Singles starts off by saying, “It sucks being single during the holidays,” which of course is only true for some singles. The site acknowledges this:

I know some single people are content and don’t much care about being single during one of the most family-oriented and couple-oriented holidays of all. . . There are singles that just got out of a relationship and are feeling a sense of relief. There are new divorcees that are looking forward to a new chapter in their lives. You get the point. This blog will be a well-rounded blog. It’s for singles that love Christmas but feel the pressure of being single in society, especially during the holidays.

It’s after midnight and I haven’t had a change to explore this site in depth, but our Onely readers might want to check it out in time for Jesus’ birthday next year. (Our Russian Orthodox readers are in luck–you still have a week before Christmas to use this site!)

Christina

What Do You Do for the Holidays? Onely Wants to Know! December 23, 2009

Posted by Onely in Food for Thought, Secret Lives of the Happily Single, single and happy, Your Responses Requested!.
Tags: , , , ,
20 comments

So here I am, typing this post while lying on an uncomfortable air mattress in a claustrophobic book-lined bedroom in my parents’ tiny townhouse near San Jose, California. I’ve listened to my parents bickering and complaints – and contributed my own – since I arrived last Thursday (with a notable exception over the weekend, when I stayed overnight in San Fran with my older brother, and today, which I spent in a coffeeshop drafting a short article that’s due January 1st). I’ve visited the ocean; eaten some delicious clam chowder and fish tacos; visited Pacifica to see if I could witness California’s coast disappearing (watch the video — I saw it from a distance!); toured San Francisco’s Academy of Sciences and Conservatory of Flowers for the first time; enjoyed some amazing South Indian food at Dosa to celebrate my mom’s birthday; and visited Yosemite National Park. I have two brothers, but I’m the only one who arrives from out of town and who actually stays with my parents for a prolonged amount of time — so I find myself simultaneously spoiled shitless and driven crazy.

Happy Holidays, Copious Readers! Welcome to a version of what I consider pretty “normal” every late December. I love it as much as I hate it — I experience as much discomfort as I do pleasure being here during the holidays, some of it certainly emerging from my enjoyment of being single, independent, and living far away from my family. Perhaps most importantly, being here makes me fully appreciate the temporary nature of this season — I always feel refreshed when I return to “normalcy,” my happily single habits and life.

Please, tell us what you love and hate about being Onely during the holidays – is it better or worse to live near family? What are the benefits and disadvantages of being single at this time of year? Do your parents, or other family members, question your singleness – or do they leave you alone, and why? Do you find you have less “alone” time — and/or what happens when you demand it, as I must? Or do you forego family visits altogether and enjoy the holidays alone, or on an adventure, or with friends?

Also up for discussion is whether the infamous Charlie Brown-with-Christmas tree image, pictured above, is sad, singlist, and/or superb! 🙂

I’m looking forward to hearing your opinions and stories… And in the meantime, I hope everyone is enjoying a safe and happy holiday season!!

— Lisa

Singlism? Feminism? What Gives? (Part Two) December 15, 2009

Posted by Onely in Academic Alert!, Food for Thought, Heteronormativity, Your Responses Requested!.
Tags: , , , , ,
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 seems 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: , , , ,
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…)

Lisa Back from the Dead! December 9, 2009

Posted by Onely in Secret Lives of the Happily Single, single and happy.
Tags: , , , ,
9 comments

That’s right, people. I’m BAAAAAAAACK!!! And yes, until today’s haircut and yesterday’s recovery massage, I did look frighteningly like this little girl to my right. That’s what happens when one travels to doctoral-exam Hell and back! As of today, I’m happy to announce my regular presence back at Onely and across the blogosphere. I’m so looking forward to catching up! I also want to say THANK YOU to all our wonderful readers for giving me kind words of encouragement when I made my occasional appearances here to complain about the exams and make excuses for my absence.

Since I finished my last exam a few days ago, I have spent most of my energy taking care of and rejuvenating myself, both materially and mentally. I was genuinely worried that I would emerge from the last exam let down and depressed, having focused all of my time and energy (and having made multiple sacrifices in my personal life) over the last six months into exam preparation, only to give birth to a series of unpublishable and ultimately unremarkable documents. So, in order to avoid a complete post-exam meltdown, I have been treating myself to the following: (more…)

Onely is “Between Boyfriends” December 8, 2009

Posted by Onely in Everyday Happenings, Food for Thought, Reviews.
Tags: , ,
10 comments

Kindle has thousands of books of  essays and other nonfiction available for free sampling. During one twenty-minute highly randomized browsing session, I came upon two interesting examples of singles-bashing, which I have posted below for your reading pleasure. I mention them not in order to b&tch and moan (although that’s always fun too), but rather for two other reasons:

1) The fact that I so easily stumbled upon them shows how common hurtful stereotypes of single people (“singlism”) are in our everyday culture.

2) Reputable publishers printed these blurbs. Erego even widely read, highly educated, lawsuit-leery people either don’t realize they are being discriminatory, or they don’t think it matters. When someone neglects to question discriminatory or disparaging remarks about a subject, it’s often because they take it for granted that the subject is inherently undesirable. Proper usage: “It sucks that you’re sick” or “It sucks that you’re a Nazi”. Improper usage: “It sucks that you’re single”.

Discussion questions:

A) Which of these blurbs below reminds us of how tightly anti-feminism is woven into anti-singlehood rhetoric? Why?

B) Which of these blurbs has multiple personality disorder? Why? (Dec 18 Edit: Fangirl points out–and I agree–that I shouldn’t trivialize MPD by applying it to a book blurb. Readers, feel free to suggest other less lazy adjectives to describe this book blurb!)

So without further ado, here are the blurbs I stumbled across while Kindling. Actually, here’s just a little bit of ado–I want to say that I haven’t actually read either of these books, and I give kudos to both Chupak and Schefft for writing about single women. My beef is with whoever wrote these Kindle blurbs, which may or may not accurately portray the sentiments of the authors:

Chupak, Cindy. The Between Boyfriends Book: A Collection of Cautiously Hopeful Essays. St Martin’s.

There are two things Cindy Chupak really knows about. The first is how to be funny. . . The other thing she really knows about is, well, being ‘between boyfriends.’ You might identify this condition as being ‘single,’ but ‘between boyfriends’ has a much more positive feel, don’t you think? In this witty, truthful, and utterly charming book, Chupak unites her two fields of expertise to provide a handbook for those of us who might find ourselves in this temporary condition. . .

Schefft, Jen. Better Single Than Sorry: A No-Regrets Guide to Loving Yourself and Never Settling. Harper Collins.

Let’s be honest. No woman really wants to be alone for the rest of her life. But does being alone mean you’re doomed to be miserable forever? Definitely not! And does being single have to equal lonely? No way! You can have the best time of your life when you’re single, but you wouldn’t know that from our relationship obsessed society. . . Don’t become a statistic–love yourself and never settle!

Jen Schefft knows that better than almost anyone. [She won The Bachelor, then they broke up, then she turned down a chance to be The Bachelorette.]  She was labelled a “spinster” by a celebrity magazine, and a noted national talk-show host remarked that she would be a “bachelorette for the rest of her life.” This is a terrible message to send to send to the millions of sensational single women out there, and in [her book] Schefft makes it her mission to let women know that it’s better to be single than to be in a relationship that doesn’t make you happy. . . this book tells you how to let go of your fear of being alone. . . Schefft helps you navigate the pressures of a culture that places an unhealthy importance on being in an relationship. . . being single is a time to have fun, to learn new things, grow, and blossom–not a time to feel desperate or depressed, so cherish it!

Discussion Question Answers (according to Onely):

A) Which of these blurbs reminds us of how tightly anti-feminism is woven into anti-singlehood rhetoric? Why?

Answer:   “Between Boyfriends” sounds more positive than “Single”? Really? To me it sounds something between “kinky” and “claustrophobic”.   People should not be judged by their dating status, but if we must label someone–a woman in particular– let’s use “single” because at least it doesn’t frame her life in relationship to a man (even a non-existent one). There’s been too much of that going on for hundreds–or thousands–of years already. Let’s move on into the 21st century.

B) Which of these blurbs has multiple personality disorder? Why?

Answer:

No woman really wants to be alone for the rest of her life! . . . This is a terrible message to send to the millions of sensational single women out there.

‘ Nuff said.

Copious Readers, how would you answer the discussion questions? Have you read either of these books? Are they more progressive than the blurbs portray them to be? Or are they–and I hope this is not the case–still more examples of the classic “bait and switch” technique used by faux singles advocates: Here’s how to live a great single life, so that you can become unsingle!?

–Christina

Dear Quirkyalone: The Laws of Chemistry December 7, 2009

Posted by Onely in Guest Posts, quirkyalone.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

“Dear Quirkyalone: Advice for QuirkyLiving” is a guest column by Lisa and Christina (crossposted at Quirkyalone). When you’re making up your own road map for (quirky)living, you need thoughtful advice. We’re here for you. Quirkyalone and Onely welcome your questions; send them on to onely AT onely.org.

I have gone out on 4 dates with a guy.  We have a great time together, but I’m not feeling any chemistry.  Is chemistry always an instant feeling or can it come along later? –Aimee

Hi Aimee,

Thanks for your classic question. A key tenet of Quirkyalones (or Quirkytogethers!) is that we enjoy spending time on our own, and so we won’t commit to any romantic relationship unless our partner really makes us go, “Wow!”  Not as in, “Wow, I can’t believe how long his nose hair grows,” but rather, “Wow, how did I get so lucky to meet and connect with this person who makes me all tingly and goofy?”  For Quirkyalones, chemistry is a must–but what is it, and how do we recognize it?

Like all classic questions, this one is difficult and has no clear answer, except for maybe “It  all depends,” which I won’t say because that’s the world’s most annoying response (albeit always the truest). So let me break “It all depends” down into some arbitrary specifics for you. I believe that there are approximately three kinds of “chemistry”:

Type 1 Chemistry: Slam-click at first sight.

Type 2 Chemistry: Slam-click after a series of interactions, where you recognize attractive aspects of the person that were not apparent at first sight, and respond to them emotionally or physically.

Type 3 Chemistry: Intermittent giddy feeling that stems from recollections of and references to a long history together and which could not be provided by a recent love interest (think of a couple celebrating their 30th wedding anniversary walking on the beach hand in hand).  We will not discuss Type 3 in this post.

In your situation, it’s not a bad thing that you didn’t immediately feel the SLAM-CLICK of Type 1 Chemistry. However, I think that four dates is probably enough time to start SLAM-CLICKing in the style of Type 2, where you discover that your date has a great laugh and a fascinating knowledge of 18th century Czech watercolors, and you can barely keep your hands off him whenever he tells a Tuvia Beeri anecdote. If this doesn’t happen, then you might have made a new friend, but not a Chemical friend. If you really want to click with your date, but you don’t feel the Chemistry, try giving him chances to generate that connection. For example, if you admire artistic men but the last time he touched an easel was with fingerpaints, don’t just assume he can’t match your interest. Ask him to a paint-your-own-pottery studio and see how he engages with the project. He may surprise you!

I would be more concerned if you said you had instant chemistry from the very second you first bumped into each other at the gallery. This Type 1 Chemistry is fun, but you should take it with a grain of salt. Here’s why: it’s hard to tell the difference between a real connection and a connection manufactured by your brain’s subconscious reaction to the other person’s smell, look, voice, and mannerisms. For example, you exchange hellos with Steve and immediately like him. A lot. What are you basing your opinion on? Your subconscious brain carries a plethora of data it uses to make sense of the world, which it then feeds to your reasoning mind. To give a simplistic example: Steve’s nose might resemble the nose of a beloved aunt who died when you were four years old. Your subconscious remembers your aunt’s face and tells your thinking mind, “A nose like this once belonged to a nice person who gave me cookies,” but the message garbles in translation to your conscious, which hears, “Steve has a nice nose–I can’t wait to eat his cookies.” SLAM-CLICK. It’s a powerful illusion. Enjoy it, but don’t expect it to inevitably carry over into Type 2 Chemistry, which is what you want if you’re aiming for a long term relationship.

If any readers out there *are* feeling Type 1 Chemistry, don’t panic. It might be for real! Test it: Try to articulate why you are drawn to this person. List certain attributes that appeal to you, rather than “She makes me feel all giddy, full stop.” For example,  “She makes me feel giddy because she can untangle a Gordian knot,” bodes well. “She makes me feel giddy because of something about her,” might also bode well, but it could just as easily bode badly. It all depends.

–Christina

Cool. Single. CEO. November 19, 2009

Posted by Onely in book review, Reviews.
Tags: , ,
8 comments

Cool. Single. CEO.

That’s the tag line for a great blog, Single Startups, which profiles companies and products created by single people. I can’t remember how I stumbled upon this blog–maybe one  of our regular readers or some blog I read regularly flagged it. In that case, many thanks, long-forgotten flagger! 

Here’s how the CEO of Single Startups describes her site: 

Single startups is an interview blog designed to explore the lives and businesses of single entrepreneurs.  Through personal interviews with CEOS, founders, and serial entrepreneurs, I hope to unlock what makes this special group…well, special.

I often get asked why I choose only to interview single entrepreneurs.  A certain intangible quality exists in this determined group and I believe that not every successful business person would be so if they didn’t have a supportive partner waiting in the wings.

Having another person lay out your tie or cook you a hot meal cannot be discounted as being a key factor in start-up success.  Those who have the endurance to survive and thrive despite this support are the people I want to meet, and people from whom we can all learn.

I do question whether simply having a partner  when starting your own business is an automatic bonus, or whether society trains us to see a partner as such. That same person cooking your hot meal might also be insisting you sit down at the table and eat it at 6 pm, which is when your West coast customers are most likely to be at their desks.

Nonetheless, having a (super) supportive partner to pick up life’s logistical slack (car emissions inspections leap to mind; sigh) certainly would free up a lot of time for you to plan your marketing strategy and tax dodges. I agree that single small business owners–sort of like single parents–should be generally admired and learned from.

In particular, we need to find out what legislative gaps or other institutionalized discrimination they face as single CEOs. For example: Singles pay more in taxes. How does this affect single-owned startups?    

And socially, how does being a single businessperson affect interactions with one’s clientele? Do customers look on a single CEO as an independent trailblazer or an unsettled lone wolf? Or neither?  

Specifically, are small businessowners similar to politicians, in that they almost have to be married–ideally with children–in order to hold any significant office or achieve significant success?  (Lest you think I’m exaggerating–me? exaggerate?–I assure you I have a Powerful Personal Anecdote that illustrates just this point, and I will post it later.) 

I would love to see Single Startups pose these questions to the single CEOs profiled in the blog! (Although maybe these issues have been raised and I just haven’t read enough posts to notice.)  

Copious Readers, have you owned or do you own your own business, as a single person? Do you know any single CEOs? How much does having a partner contribute to an entrepreneur’s success? 

–Christina!

P.S. In order to boost my self-esteem and sense of inner verve, from now on I will sign my name with an exclamation point. Let’s see how this goes down at the office (where I am definitely not the CEO).

Co-opcrisy? November 16, 2009

Posted by Onely in Bad Onely Activities, Everyday Happenings, Food for Thought, Great Onely Activities.
Tags: , ,
5 comments

I was thinking the other day. (Sometimes I feel as if my brain is a rental car alarm going off and I can’t find the right button to turn it off.)  During my thinking, I realized that I may be a Onely hypocrite, at least partially. Lisa and I do a lot of advocating on this site for “new paradigms” of social structure that go beyond (isolated) couples and nuclear families. Yet when I had a chance to live for myself in a community that practiced a unique and apparently enlightened form of group living, I turned it down. Am I not as progressive as I make myself out to be? Or am I just not a team player?

My friend J worked on a coop organic farm that had a small community of twenty of so single-family houses (my memory is hazy) lining a curved street with no cars because everyone parked in a small lot down at the bottom of a gentle hill. There was a community center in one of the houses, with a common kitchen. J and I ate there once–a delicious eggplant stirfry with ingredients grown in the fields just outside the door. Just beyond those fields was Tyson’s Corner, the most congested, commercial area in all of northern Virginia, which is already pretty astoundingly congested and plastic. But you’d never know that, sitting in the coop kitchen, with crickets chirping under the porch outside.

Residents didn’t have to cook in the common kitchen, but they could if they wanted to. On a big white board a calendar drawn with multicolored markers and without rulers showed the dinner schedule. Most residents cooked a meal for the entire community once every couple weeks.  Again, not required, but I noticed that the calendar had a variety of names on it, many of the days were assigned.

There were houses for sale in the community. I was in the market for a house. But I decided not to buy one on the farm. Why? I was afraid of the common kitchen. No, not of germs. Not of community wooden spoons or coughing children. No, I was afraid of cooperation and calendars. The thought of even preparing a just huge pot of soup and several baguettes of garlic bread for a large group horrified me. The weight of the grocery bags! The math involved to extrapolate a recipe for six! Making sure there were enough plates! Finding all the spoons! AAAAAAAA!   As some of the very kind residents showed me around, I wondered, but did not ask, if I would be branded a rebel if I *never* ate in the community kitchen, in order to avoid ever having to reciprocate by making a meal for everyone else. I looked at the separate calendar for the den cleaning schedule and had the same feeling of suffocation. What if Tuesday came around but I didn’t feel like vaccuming the TV room?  What if on Saturday I was on the hook to cook chicken and dumplings but my own tummy just wanted toast and guacamole?

I just couldn’t do it.

I love my current townhouse. I do wonder sometimes (not often) whether I would have benefitted from having that community around me. Where I live now, the neighbors barely see each other, and I know very few of them. Of note, the farm community consisted of mostly couples with children. Would that have been a great environment for me–a casual environment to get to know neighbors and laugh at the children’s antics before going home to my quiet house? Or would it have been just a smaller, tighter version of our big heteronormative world? I don’t know, because I couldn’t get past my fear of scheduling. For the most part, I think I was right to listen to my shivering gut. But if everyone were as cooperation-averse as I turned out to be, how could we ever manage to produce new, fairer, and inventive ways of interacting with each other besides coupling up?

Copious Readers, have you had experiences with co-ops?

–Christina