filed in Myths and stereotypes
I Wouldn’t Say “Never”
Washington Post Magazine, Live blog 2/13, 1 PM EST.
Photo by Bret Hartman
Discussion
17 comments for “I Wouldn’t Say “Never””
Leave a Reply
About this Site
FIRST PERSON SINGULAR is a guide to surviving, thriving and sometimes just getting through a single day. Created by Wendy Braitman (more…)
Follow First Person Singular
Greatest Hits
© 2010 First Person Singular. 
I’ve been married for two and a half years now after being single for most of my life. One of the many things that I’ve discovered while being married is this: Society has been running game on single people.In other words, playing singles for fools. And single people eat it up with a spoon thinking that the grass is greener on the other side. Those of us who have gotten the opportunity to finally experience the other side (whatever that other side may be) understand that the other side has weeds too.
There are many things I miss about being single. And if there is one thing that all single people need to know is that they shouldn’t be envious of the other side and they certainly shouldn’t allow society to convince them that their lives are somehow lesser than their married counterparts.
I am so sure you’re right about this. I really appreciate the article in the Post, but I still think the writer tinged the piece with a sadness that reflects society’s idea that being coupled makes the most fulfilling life. And it is this strong cultural narrative that is so hard to resist.
I couldn’t agree more Wendy. The Post article made such a point of emphasizing that all the women, in particular, were still hoping to meet the loves of their lives rather than focusing on how extraordinary their lives were with or without a significant other. Personally, I don’t think I would have done half the fun and interesting things I’ve done with my life if I had coupled off in my 20s or 30s.
I’m glad to hear you say this, Michele. One honest friend said the article made him depressed. And I understand why. Even to look at the photo they chose for the cover helps fulfill their narrative of “lonely girl.” There’s a live blog today (2/13) with Post Readers at !PM EST. Hope you’ll weigh in. Thanks!
I was so pleased that you were such a large part of this article! While we may be on different wavelengths when it comes to what we want (or don’t, as the case may be), I was so happy to see you as a representative of how the single life can be fulfilling. Thank you for being so open and honest, and representing us so well!
Thanks, April. It just goes to show that there is no ONE definition of being single.
People aren’t sad about older, childless singles because they feel sorry for them. And nobody cares whether these singles lead “extraordinary” lives or not.
The reason for the sadness is that these older singles aren’t contributing by creating future generations. They’re not starting families and they’re not having kids. So, yeah, society is sad about that, and the Washington Post accurate captured some of that mood in the art they chose for their feature.
Wow, Rita. Way to buy whole-hog into the stereotypes.
It’s good to know that I’m not “contributing” by not pushing out a few babies. Forget the fact that I teach dance classes to and tutor many inner-city youths (for free) who don’t have good role models in their lives. It’s totally unimportant that I provide these wayward youths with hope and ambitions and goals and something better to do with their time than commit crimes and be a nuisance to society. I’m totally useless unless I couple up and start procreating, obviously.
And I’m obviously not contributing by having a good job that helps hard-working Americans keep their jobs in the face of increasing pressures from international trade. Not only do I not help protect these American jobs by trying my darndest to mitigate the negative effects of unfair trade, but I also don’t pay taxes on the income I earn from this job. No, I certainly don’t contribute to the tax base that provides transportation, education, and other services to these kids and their families.
And my personal expenditures, which are often greater on discretionary things that create jobs than families, are totally bad for society. The fact that I have a good bit of disposable income that I can throw around is clearly BAD for society, right?
So, in short, I’m totally useless, and should just off myself now. MMMMMMK.
I thank you for all that you do.
It’s hard to be ahead of the curve.
Wendy, it’s not like I’m a martyr or anything. I am paid well to do what I do professionally. I like what I do, so I wouldn’t care if it paid poorly, but it’s a nice bonus that it pays pretty well. As for my volunteer work, it’s something that I enjoy, and it’s only a few hours a week. I like seeing kids achieve, and, living amongst poverty and desperation, it’s good to see kids have something to look forward to. I have a few “kids” in college now, and I couldn’t be prouder of them, as well as each of my kids who makes the honor roll, or improves their grades, or wins a dance or music award, or who simply doesn’t get pregnant or arrested in high school. A few hours a week to get such great rewards…well, I’d say that’s time well spent.
I was simply responding to the typical BS that you’re not contributing if you’re not procreating. Having kids of your own is considered such a “special” thing, but any animal can do that. I know a lot of great parents who contribute a lot to society, but writing off people who don’t procreate as “useless” is so cliche. Singles and other childless people/couples can and are valuable members of society. Would “Rita” off my unable-to-conceive friends who adopt or, like me, simply volunteer the free time and money they have to worthy causes? Marriage and babies are not the be-all, end-all of existence, and childless people are contributing members of society, both through their economic and volunteer activities, and not contributing to overpopulation and overconsumption problems.
Have you seen Eric Klinenberg’s recent book, Going Solo?
No, but I’ll look it up. If people want to marry and have babies, more power to them, but it’s super-cliche to say that singles and the childless are useless.
It addresses some of what you’re talking about, in terms of how much single people contribute, precisely because they’re not encumbered.
Here’s the link:
http://amzn.to/wGikJ1
Oh man, Rita’s comment is infuriating! First off, she needs to read this article http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-plight-of-american-singles/
Secondly, and in keeping with some of the other responses to her comment, there are so many ways for single people to contribute to the world – future generations and those here with us now. I am in my 30s and single, and in the last few years I’ve started to embrace singleness and look for ways to nurture those around me. I teach piano and voice lessons, as well as teaching college Art History classes, and I feel in doing so, I am opening people’s eyes to creativity in a way that inevitably spreads to others they know, benefiting our collective culture at large. I also began a friendship with an older man in my community who has autism and no family support. By channeling my nurturing instinct into helping someone who has been neglected by his blood kin, I’ve found a way to reach out in a way that transcends the purely familial obligations that Rita puts on such a pedestal. Shame on you, Rita.
JoDa, you’re not totally useless, just much less useful.
I was glad to see the article in the Post magazine. I had not seen anything that gave an honest voice to single women until then. And it helped to hear someone else say that there are good things about being single, and maybe some not so good. And the bonus was I got introduced to this blog. Thanks for all of it.
The good and the not so good — just like life. I’m so glad you found your way here, Stacy.