Image by Lars van Pouke on Unsplash.

Why Robert Putnam’s famous book says less about loneliness and remote work than many people assume.

“Twenty-six years after Robert Putnam warned that Americans were bowling alone, many of us are now typing alone.” 

That’s what a New York Times opinion piece warned us, a piece written by co-authors of an enormous study published in Science. The authors suggest that remote working will lead to increased mental distress, presumably triggered by being alone. Living alone, they say, makes the situation even worse.

Citing a widely read book adds authority to a viewpoint, especially when you join it to a catchy phrase like “typing alone.”

But these authors are making a common mistake: they’re borrowing a famous phrase that can take on a meaning well beyond what their authors originally intended. 

I saw this a while back when business storytellers were told to be vulnerable – just like Brene Brown.  But Brene Brown never said, “Share your story with customers.” She actually talked about setting boundaries and taking risks.  

Similarly, the phrase “bowling alone” has come to symbolize loneliness and personal isolation. But the book is about the decline of social capital: the pool of people you can call on for unpaid help. He argues that social capital used to be created by institutions that brought people together on a regular basis: card playing, churches, family dinners, volunteerism, and, of course bowling leagues.    

What the book actually says

“Bowling alone” doesn’t mean that people will literally bowl alone. He’s talking about the loss of bowling leagues where people repeatedly saw each other.

Putnam himself suggests that we can’t look to the face-to-face workplace to generate much social capital.  “Most studies of personal networks,” he says, “find that co-workers account for less than 10 percent of our friends. Workplace ties tend to be casual and enjoyable, but not intimate and deeply supportive.” 

Gaining social capital isn’t tied to marital status or living alone.   In fact, the book says, “married people tend to be homebodies.” Households are more isolated from one another and people living in households tend to spend their time watching television instead of building relationships. 

Married people with children are more likely to be involved in church. But marriage and children are “negatively correlated with memberships” in business, professional, and service clubs – established ways to create social capital.

Putting the book in context

Bowling Alone seems to be written about a time of transition in society. Many institutions that generated social capital have declined or disappeared entirely. More people are choosing to remain single and/or live alone. The traditional family – married couple and children – has become a minority. Union membership and card playing are unlikely to make a comeback.

But in the years since cellphones became popular,  new ways of connecting have emerged – options that didn’t exist when Putnam wrote the book:  coworking spaces, improv drama troupes, book clubs, and more popular fitness centers. 

And yes, we’re seeing more remote working. Jobs have changed. The workplace has changed. 

Contemporary focus on loneliness

The phrase “bowling alone” has become iconic. But we rarely talk about the book’s underlying premise – the loss of social capital. 

Putnam seems to view this decline as negative, but I’m not so sure, For example, we used to need social capital so we could get food when we couldn’t get out; we needed a ride when the car broke down and public transit wasn’t an answer. 

But now we can purchase, for very reasonable prices,  all kinds of food delivery services and ride shares. A busy friend might easily wonder, “Why don’t they just call Uber or Uber Eats?”  

Many of us have experienced enormous changes in the roles and expectations of friends and family. As people get more complex lives, they may no longer be willing or available to be part of someone else’s social capital. To take a familiar but simple example, you may wish for social capital to get a ride home from the hospital when your friends’ families no longer include a non-working spouse.  

Perhaps most importantly, the mental distress of living and working alone may be a temporary condition as people learn to make new kinds of social connections that don’t depend on the traditional methods. 

We may have simply decided to replace bowling leagues not with bowling alone, but with bowling with others on a mutually convenient schedule. Less catchy but more realistic.

The post We’re Not Bowling Alone. We’re Bowling on Our Own Schedule. appeared first on .

Image by Catherine Heath on Unsplash.

My primary care doctor – who I really like – is moving. And, as a single person, I’m a little nervous about my next step in the medical system.

I usually turn to the Internet when I have a question.  What insights can I get when it comes to health care and being single?

I started with the prompt “gay people seeking medical care.” My doctor was gay and I know that’s another stigmatized group. It would be a good baseline for comparison.

These days, search results come with AI-generated summaries. This one said:

The post What AI Told Me About Single People and Health Care appeared first on .

Image by artellliii72 on Pixabay.

I’ve read so many posts lately that begin this way

“I could use some help in making decisions.”
“I wish I had someone to share the rent.”
“I got some really bad news and I’d like to share.”

Comments like these arise from a certain set of beliefs. “Partners provide help. I want help, so I want a partner. I see couples X, Y and Z. I want what they have.”

But while I enjoy these people and look forward to spending time with them, I don’t envy them, even for a minute. I’m an example of what Bella DePaulo calls “single at heart.” I’ve always known that I’d be my own best source of support.

I know several people who are happily married or living with supportive partners. They help each other make decisions, share funds and are there for each other.

But people sometimes mistake a desire for support, companionship, guidance, or practical help for a desire for a romantic partner”

I’ve come to see that embarking on a relationship often fails to fill the dream of assuming something constant. It’s easy to believe that finding a partner means finding someone who will be the solution to many problems, from getting new tires to the car to disposing of a dead mouse to proviing emotional support for a crisis or decision.

In fact, they’re placing at least three bets that a partner will be the answer.

The first bet is that your partner will always be there for you.

Your partner pitches in to make decisions, shoulder some burdens, pay their share, and above all, be a major source of support.

And then something happens. They decide to leave. They become unavailable. Maybe they’ve always been the breadwinner and now they lost their job, as well as their motivation to find another one.

The partner left standing has to learn new skills. They’ve never been alone before. They don’t know how to do the things their partner did.

“Janice” seemed to have a storybook marriage to a great guy. She posted about their romance with evocative lines about their great sex life. He seemed to be a perfect father. And now she’s divorced. It was messy. She said she’d been suffering for years. He said she was unfaithful. We’ll never know.

But if you’d taken a snapshot during the years she was married, you’d think she had everything. But if you’d taken another snapshot right after the divorce, the picture would have been very different.

The second bet is that your partner will be helpful and supportive.

I knew” Nancy” as a teaching colleague from way back when I was a professor. She was married to a handsome professional I’ll call “Vince.” They had three lovely children.

Nancy was really good at her job and soon applied to a more prestigious university for a more competitive position. The application process was getting rough. It would be easy to think, “At least she has a husband to support her.”
But in fact, Vince’s comments lowered her self-confidence. “You might be getting in over your head,” he said. “Are you sure you’re qualified?”

Nancy got the job and went on to win awards and promotions. I lost track of her for many years and when I came across her online presence, she was listed as “divorced.”

The third bet is that your partner will remain as the the person you chose.

Your partner might start out as a rock you can count on. But they might undergo a personality change. They might be affected by a traumatic experience or a mental illness. They might do something illegal.

You not only lose a supportive resource. You have to step up to deal with a new set of problems, and ths time you’re on your own. That happened to someone I met; they became their spouse’s caregiver after a dementia diagnosis.

In a less extreme example, I heard a talk show episode, one partner decides to join the police force; the other had never considered being in in a relationship with a cop. It would mean round-the-clock stress, late nights alone and a change to the partner’s psychological state.

An end to couple envy

A lot of single people honestly believe that having a partner will make life easier. Sometimes it does, as long as you understand the assumptions you’re making.

Some of those singles are actively looking for a partner; some mostly enjoy the single life but have occasional “if only” twinges. Those of us who are single at heart (the term used by Bella DePaulo) rarely if ever have those moments, especially if we’ve been single all our lives.

So yes, the belief system often works. I’ve heard people say, “My partner is my rock and my best friend.”

But saying “I need help” doesn’t always lead to the conclusion, “I need a partner to help.” Sometimes the partner can’t or won’t help. Many of us “single at heart” people have learned to say, “I need a solution to a problem.”

In her books and videos, Bella DePaulo says, “Married people have The One. Single people have The Ones.” That way if one resource becomes unavailable you have another one. And you’ve learned to identify solutions in the community beyond looking to the One Partner. Som

Ironically, strong people also attract the best partners. When you lean on someone too heavily they’ll break. And usually when that happens you’re almost always much worse than you were before.

The post “Here’s where I could use a partner…” appeared first on .

Photo by. Cihan-Cimen on Pexels.

A few days ago the WSJ ran an article about aging alone. They described ONE 65-year-old person who lived alone in a house in Boston. She had just been through back surgery and heart surgery and was still recovering. She has a roster of friends who visit regularly.

I find this article distressing because it paints a one-sided, misleading picture of aging solo. It’s ludicrous to show the life of one person in detail with the editorial note, “Here’s what it’s like.” The implication is that she’s typical, when in fact the millions of people who will age alone are extremely diverse.

The post Aging Solo: Do you have to be miserable? appeared first on .

From Depositphotos.

 The Missing Question in the Research on Aging Alone

A recent article from the AARP represents an example of research that distorts the reality of single people who choose to live alone. The article focuses on people who are “aging solo.”  A sociology professor from the Institute for Health & Aging at UCSF calls it an “unprecedented” change…a reality check that times have changed.” 

The article gets that right, but distorts the perception of solo agers in two ways. 

First, and most seriously, the article lumps together people who are voluntarily single with those who are formerly coupled. 

There’s no indication that the researchers asked anyone – including the “never married” – how they feel about living alone. Are they living alone because they value solitude or are they forced by circumstances? Do they feel fulfilled or have they embraced the belief that being single is a deficit? 

And are people who have lived alone a long time different from those who have just begun to be alone (e.g., newly divorced) and have not yet learned the skills of singlehood, whether they want to or not?

And second, the research fails to address two key questions. Are these problems specific to solo agers or do they reflect the problems common to Americans of all ages and household sizes? And second, do these problems reflect the amount of time people have lived alone? 

Problems of lumping “live alones” together

For example, the article says that two in five – 40% of the sample – said the worst parts of aging alone were “loneliness and isolation.”   

Fair enough. But here’s the catch. The study – with 503 single subjects –  included “never-married, divorced, separated or widowed.” No distinction was made for those who were voluntarily single – what Bella DePaulo calls “single at heart.” No distinction was made for those who had been “divorced, separated, or widowed.” 

Even the “never married” aren’t always single by choice.  You can live a very coupled life without getting married. And some people live a lifetime of regret, feelings of failure and a sense of missing something. 

 We don’t know if formerly married missed their ex-spouses, resented living alone (and lacked the skills to be single even if they wanted to), and maybe searched for a new spouse, as compared to those who never looked back and were now happily single with no plans to date or marry again. 

So let’s look at that number: 40% report feelings of “loneliness and isolation.” Therefore it’s statistically possible that 100% of those who resent their solo status feel lonely, while zero percent of the “single at heart” report those feelings. 

We don’t know whether that’s true. However, the study design makes it impossible to tell.

It’s not just solo agers – it’s the general population

The article assumes certain problems are unique to solo agers, when actually they are found among the general population. 

For example, the article points out that many solo agers have no plan and no resources for a health crisis, like a heart attack. 

But we can compare answers from people who don’t live alone. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 53% of Americans over 50 had a will, and 76% of those over 75. 

They also asked the research question, “Do solo agers feel financial stress?” And of course the answer is “yes.”

But the presence of financial stress is not unique to solo agers. 

If you asked a solidly middle-class married couple – especially with young children – the same question, you’d get the same answer. 

In fact, the Federal Reserve estimates that 37% of the population couldn’t come up with $400 to cover an emergency.  Clearly, the problem of “financial stress” isn’t limited to solo agers.

Ideally, you’d compare people of the same age and income brackets, living alone versus living with others, by choice or by circumstances. 

For those living alone by choice, financial stress may be nonexistent – or may be preferred as a choice rather than living with others. Some people might prefer to live alone in a shack rather than live with others in a palace! 

More thorough research might even show that living with others can be costly. You’re exposed to financial fraud.  You may be responsible for debts and actions of co-residents.

People change as they live solo.

The study was what researchers call cross-sectional – looking at one moment in time and ignoring how the numbers might change over a period of years. 

A person who’s newly divorced or widowed needs time to learn the skills of singlehood, become more self-sufficient, and learn how to use resources and services. 

I would expect a person who’s lived alone for a lifetime to have developed new skills and an awareness of resources they can call on. In online forums, people living solo point out they can deal with anything from a medical crisis to a dead mouse.   

Summary

In many respects, the problems of aging alone are a microcosm of the problems of the larger community. For instance, health care costs can be outrageous even for a solidly middle-class family, not just a solo ager. Many cities do not have decent public transportation. 

As an experienced single-for-life person who’s growing older, I’d say the biggest problem is teaching others (especially the medical community) how to deal with people who live alone by choice and who are voluntarily and happily single. Articles like this one distort reality.  

As Bella DePaolo says in her book, single-at-heart people do not want forced companionship to alleviate a non-existent loneliness. They’ve taken self-sufficiency to a new level, and they’re remarkably good at setting boundaries and solving problems.  

Articles like this do us “single at heart” people a major disservice. They reinforce the deficit model of singlehood – the idea that being single means “something is missing.” Reinforcing this model will also reinforce stereotypes and false beliefs, ultimately leading to inappropriate responses by services.

When we talk about “solo agers,” we can focus more on the “solo” than the agers. That should lead to a more realistic and more hopeful perspective.

The post What the AARP’s “Solo Aging” Story Can’t Tell Us appeared first on .

Image from Depositphotos.

When I watch the romance scam channels on YouTube, I can’t help noticing that none of the victims seem to define themselves as single, let alone single by choice.

Scammers target people who are not only lonely, but who fear loneliness. “Being alone” seems painful and they’re willing to spend time, money and energy to avoid it.

Potential scam victims have a lot to learn from people who are happily single.

Potential scam victims have often experienced a recent break in their relationship or their marriage. Their identity has shifted.
“When her husband left her after 20 years of marriage…”
“After a really bad breakup, she was eager to find a new partner…”
“He felt the spark had gone out of his marriage and he was lonely…”

At this point someone often suggests they look into online dating as a way to feel less alone.

Then they get a message. “You’re beautiful.” “I care about you.” “You’re my queen!”

Besides being lonely, many targeted victims are innately kind and generous. When they love someone they want to give. They can’t imagine that the caller has a different agenda. The caller wants them to drain their bank accounts, sell their homes, and wait for a partner who never comes.

Victims appreciate the affection and often also are genuinely kind.  they feel bad when the caller is stranded on an oil rig or left behind by the US military after serving a mission. They think soldiers and sailors have to pay for going on leave or changing assignments.

Targets of a romance scam never seem to realize that being single isn’t the worst thing in the world. On some programs, the hosts even encourage this feeling. After the big reveal, they say reassuring things like, “I’m sure there’s a perfect person out there. Just date in your own community, don’t send anybody money, and make sure you can meet them.”

But if you’re “single at heart” you don’t get scammed in the first place.

You enjoy your own company. You don’t start dating because you assume it’s the only way to fill time. You don’t desperately hang on to that strangely-accented voice telling you how beautiful you are; the moment that voice turns to “I need money because my bank account has been frozen,” you realize you can live just fine without another person.

After all, why should you be the last resort for someone you’ve known less than six months? Don’t they have other friends? Or relatives?

Happy single people seem to be especially good at setting boundaries.

We learn fast. After all, people are always saying, “You’re single so you probably have lots of time on your hands.” Or, “You’re single so you won’t mind working late…or working on Christmas Eve…or handling this time-consuming chore for me.”

We guard our time not to be selfish, but because a single person isn’t necessarily put on earth to be everybody’s first responder.

If we have an empty week, we don’t have to fill it by dating.

And if a handsome stranger says, “If you don’t do this, you’ll never hear from me again,” a happily single person will look forward to more time with their dog, cat, art class, or gym time.

No, you can’t get money out of a “single at heart”  person by threatening to leave them alone forever. They just might reply, “Is that a threat or a promise?”

The post Why happily single people won’t get romance-scammed appeared first on .

Photo by Kruthivarsh Koduru on Unsplash.

Sometimes I feel like I’m drowning in relationship advice. Loneliness can be deadly. We need social contact to age better. We can’t survive without friends.

Alone too much? There’s a term for you: hyperindependence. People with this trait risk burnout and exhaustion. They become part of the loneliness epidemic. Some say they lack social skills.

But what if you’re terrified of hyperindependence? You bought the package about how being alone is unhealthy and scary.

 I would say you never learned solitude skills. 

Learning to appreciate solitude

Years ago, British psychiatrist Anthony Storr wrote a book called Solitude, which is mostly still relevant after all these years. He argued that Freud talked about “life and work.” But we tend to give attention to people who want to focus on relationships and ignore people who’d prefer “work.”

And let’s face it: sooner or later, even the most sociable people will find themselves alone. Can they handle it?  That’s where solitude skills come in.

The ability to enjoy one’s own company. How to entertain yourself if you find yourself alone at home, in a waiting room, on some form of transportation. Can you absorb yourself in reading? Or if you forgot to bring a book, will you be able to explore your own mind?

Can you handle Christmas without family and Valentine’s Day without a partner?

Or (this one may be hard to face) suppose you’ve lived with a partner for twenty, thirty, or fifty years…and something happens so you’re now alone. It could be death, disability, or desertion. Can you face your new solitude in a healthful way?

These problems may seem unlikely, far-fetched or far off into the future. But they can happen unexpectedly. And without the skills of enjoying your own company, you can find yourself sinking into a swamp of despair and loneliness.

When you lack solitude skills…

I’ve been watching stories of romance scams, especially on the channel Catfished. Scammers pretend to be stranded in the military, needing to pay for leave or promotion. They claim they lost gold bars in transit or got stuck on an oil rig with no access to their money.

Even smart people fall for these schemes, especially when they’re facing a sudden loss of a partner. A woman says she lost well over $100K, which means she was smart enough to earn large sums in the first place. But she’d just had a bad breakup and felt alone during holidays in a coupled world. So she was open to advances from a stranger. And now her bank account is gone.
Even less drastic consequences can be harmful. I’ve met people who have stayed with a partner who’s abusive, controlling, or just plain annoying and unreasonable…because they can’t bear to think of the alternative.  

Or you can find yourself feeling lost and depressed when plans get cancelled, a friend disappears, or the grandchildren have become too busy to see you.

So what’s your life like after you develop solitude skills?

Coming home to an empty space and not turning on the television for background noise.
Going to theatre or movies alone because you want to see the show.Enjoying holidays alone when they come your way by choice or by chance
Saying “OK I’ll do my own thing” if someone cancels plans or gets stranded elsewhere
Surviving a difficult experience when nobody’s available to help

And most importantly, not responding to social pressure to “find someone.” Even mainline mental health professionals warn that a consequence of being “too independent” is “having trouble finding a relationship…” which for some people is not a problem at all, since they never wanted one in the first place.

I would argue that people need to develop these skills of solitude even if – perhaps especially if – they’re happy in a long-term relationship. 

Sooner or later, they will find themselves alone, temporarily or permanently. Those who haven’t developed solitude skills will experience a deeper loneliness and an intense longing that can lead to a series of harmful behavio

 Seems a high price to pay for refusing to learn the skills of a healthy form of solitude.

The post We Teach Relationship Skills. Why Don’t We Teach Solitude Skills? appeared first on .

From Depositphotos.

When someone says they’re single, you are only getting the tip of the iceberg of what they mean. They could be what Bella DePaulo calls “single at heart:” people who love being single and are not looking to get coupled.

 “Single at heart” people might have been single their entire lives. They might have known they’d be single since the time they were six. They want to be single.

Or they may have been previously married or divorced. They like their newly-single status and are moving to being “single at heart.”   

But they often are “reluctant singles,” who would rather be coupled and perhaps are actively looking. They do not want to remain single and very much wish they were coupled.

To be sure, all people who are single in the legal sense of “not married” face certain challenges in common, e,g., government tax classifications. 

The issue isn’t that someone is coupled or not: it’s that some are grieving an old relationship and/or want to stay coupled. Others are enjoying being single. For others, being single is a deliberate choice, or a choice that feels inevitable: “I was born this way.”

This distinction matters.

When you lump the “at heart” and “reluctant” singles together, you get a distorted view of what it means to be single. And this distortion has implications for everything from policy decisions to health care interventions to commercial services. Here are three areas where the distortion can be especially misleading.

Loneliness vs. Solitude 

In an article about “solo agers,” the AARP defines “solo” as “living alone.” The truth is, some married people technically live alone, maintaining separate residences. Some single people live with roommates or extended family. 

The AARP goes on to say, “Two in 5 solo agers [in their survey] said loneliness and isolation were the worst parts of aging alone.”

They are referring to 40% of a population consisting of people who live alone by choice as well as people who are divorced or widowed. 

But is it true that 40% of single people across the board, happily single or missing a partner, are lonely? We can hypothesize that people who are single at heart – especially those living alone – would be grateful for solitude rather than lonely. In fact Bella DePaulo’s small survey of single people found that nearly all wanted periods of “alone time” every day. 

Efforts to find partners vs. Efforts to remain solo

The AARP also found that some people who lived alone had tried dating apps and other approaches to finding romance. It seems safe to say that none of these were in the “single at heart” segment: by definition, being “single at heart” means enjoying life as a single person, not chasing romantic interests. 

People who are “reluctantly single” will go to great lengths to find partners.  They invest thousands of hours in developing a profile, dating, and figuring out how to make a relationship “work.”

Yet we rarely hear about those who are wholeheartedly devoted to living a single life, making enormous efforts to create islands of solitude, sacrificing disposable income, and resisting intrusive attempts to make them change. Narratives about single life

There’s also a difference in the way these groups talk about singlehood. Those who want to replace their lost partners will talk about “coping” with their single status or “coming to terms” with not having a partner. 

This language assumes coupledom is a superior state desired by everyone. It often comes as a shock when the speakers realize that not everyone sees this state as superior or desirable. 

Imperfect but Necessary Distinctions

This division into “reluctantly single” vs “single at heart” may seem simplistic, arbitrary, and binary. After all, some scientific articles say sexual orientation is a continuum, not binary;  I haven’t seen the same kind of approach directed to singlehood.
But as a bare minimum, it seems critical to avoid lumping “single at heart” with “single by circumstances” into one group. 

Misleading data can lead to harmful or senseless prescriptions, e.g., prescribing solutions for “loneliness” or “susceptibility to romance scams” when the probability is zero percent in one group of singles and 100 percent in another.

In fact, it’s difficult to overstate the dangers of assuming the word “single” covers anyone who isn’t married or at least coupled. Even if the categories are perfect, we can correct many distortions if we don’t stop with one word. We can go on to ask the question, “But do they wish they had a partner? Or are they enjoying a rich, fulfilling life as a solo?”  ,

If you liked this article, please don’t forget to clap if you’re a member. That helps me with Medium.
Please note: This article follows my earlier article: One word, three identities
And if you wonder why I use cat pictures on my articles, click here. 

The post The problem with treating all single people the same appeared first on .

Photo by Kristina Yadykina on Unsplash.

You meet someone who explains their marital status: “I’m single.”  You think you get it … but what does that word actually mean?

On a superficial level, you know they currently are not married in a relationship. Some scientists try to say that unmarried people who are in a relationship are still single; they want that piece of paper. But what about people who are *not* in a relationship?

Scholars have defined single in at least two ways: as a temporary status and as a chosen identity. Confusing these definitions distorts both research and lived experience

Some researchers argue that being single is a temporary status because a single person *could* get married and probably will. That definition seems based on the belief that marriage is “normal.” Many single people do not see themselves on a path that will eventually end in coupledom. They see themselves as already arrived: they like the way they are and have no intention of changing.

And some have moved from “status” to “identity.”

Let’s illustrate with real examples of three people: two from articles published in the Chronicle of Higher Education and one from my own conversations.

Randi Lynn Taglen wrote about her experiences as a higher ed administrator who, from what I can tell, was reluctantly single for a period of fifteen years. She’s a higher ed administrator who began her adult life with a wish to be married and hold children in her arms. She went to college and grad school, obtained professorial positions, and along the way experienced a brutal break-up with her boyfriend,

Her article displays exceptional honesty. She talks about how she found herself single, dealing with prejudices encountered by all species of singles. When she arrived on a new campus, her new colleagues wanted to know her marital status immediately. Ironically, if she’d been divorce or widowed, I suspect people would be more understanding.

Randi adapted to her new life as a single academic. She flourished in her career and was eventually invited to enter administration. She ignored resentful comments from colleagues who attributed her success to her unmarried status. She acknowledges that being single gave her freedom to make certain moves that wouldn’t be possible in a marriage. She adopted a dog and found avenues of self-expression.

But she writes poignantly, “I came to campus every day carrying a form of complicated grief, a silent ache for the life that never came to be and the child I could feel in my arms but would never hold.” 

Eventually, she was surprised to find a partnerwhen she was somewhere in her forties. She seems truly happy to be coupled again.

As I read this article, Randi seems to represent the concepts of Bergstrom and Bree, who saw singlehood as a status: “Singlehood as a result of separation is rarely a long-term singlehood,” they say.

I couldn’t help contrasting her article with Craig Wynne, who wrote a response emphasizing the prejudices single people experience. Craig is an associate professor at a university in Washington, DC.  He has published research and inaugurated an undergraduate course in the field of singlehood studies.  He expressed dismay at the prejudices Randi encountered. He suggests that fostering a climate that welcomes singles will make life easier for the reluctantly or temporarily single.

It seems safe to say that Craig has no regrets about being single and childless. He’s not looking for a partner. For him, being single is an identity that comes with annoyances and obstacles, but not with a sense of lack.

Craig writes, “I became a solo homeowner a year and a half ago, shortly after earning tenure. Not all singles are happy to be, but after a day of teaching, department and committee meetings, hallway conversations, and the increased emotional labor that comes with helping students these days, I’m happy to come home and be greeted by the meows of my cat, Chester.”

That quote clearly suggests he doesn’t see singlehood as a temporary stop on a journey to marriage, but as a destination he sought voluntarily. In other writing, Craig suggests he sees himself as what Bella DePaulo calls “single at heart.” 

A cat instead of a kid? For someone who’s single at heart, that’s not settling; it’s choosing.

As a final example, I’ll refer to someone I’ll call Mary, who was divorced about 15 years ago. When I met her recently, for the first time, she said she’s enjoying her freedom. She has no interest in getting back to her old life or finding a new partner.  She doesn’t describe herself as “unmarried” but as “single.” She’s still doing some exploring about filling her life, but she wants to expand her identity, not change it.

I didn’t want to ask a lot of questions, but some things stood out. Unlike Lynn, Mary had been married and she has a status of “divorced.” In some circles, that carries less stigma than “never married.” This was brought home to me recently when a male acquaintance expressed surprise that I wasn’t divorced or widowed: “But you seem happy!” he said, bewildered. He couldn’t imagine how a single person could be happy.

Mary seems somewhere between Randi and Craig. Initially, she saw singlehood as a status, but she has quickly evolved to being “single at heart.” In transition, she’s explored ways to cope but soon realized she was doing more than coping: she was learning to enjoy aspects of her single life.

Will she go back to being coupled? It’s at least possible. But Mary is older. She has grown children who don’t live near her. She doesn’t have regrets. She doesn’t want to date. And she’s discovering the positive, non-deficit side of being single.

As singlehood becomes more widely accepted as an identity and a choice, I suspect people like Mary will avoid re-coupling; they’re now on a one-way trip and they intend to stay that way.

From this, we can conclude that “being single” has very different meanings, depending on the circumstances and values of the people involved.

Unfortunately, a lot of research – especially in most of the last century – has confounded these definitions of single, suggesting there’s one definition for all people who can be lumped together as “unmarried.” When asked ‘How happy are you with being single,” the lower ratings of those who are reluctantly “single as a status” could cancel out the high ratings of the voluntarily “single at heart.”

Fortunately, that is changing as we see new research emerging by scholars who don’t bring a “coupled is the norm” agenda.

A status can be temporary and may call for coping mechanisms; “coping” usually represents a response to an undesirable situation. An identity is something to be proud of — something that calls for expanding and, as many single-by-choice would say, a celebration.

In an ideal world, you would happily describe yourself as “single” and people around you would just nod and move on. More and more of us are taking pride in the word “single,” and we’re happy to claim that identity. As illustrated here, it’s by no means the same as “wishing you were half of a couple.”

One thing is clear. When someone says, “I’m single,” it could mean at least three things…and why are you asking them, anyway?

The post Being single: One word, three identities appeared first on .

AI-generated image from Kalsstockmedia.

A common question for advice columnists is, “My spouse refuses to see a doctor. When they get sick, am I supposed to take care of them?” This column from Carolyn Hax is a good example.  The wife worries that she’ll be active “in retirement” while her husband is sidelined and unable to join her.

I’ve heard live comments, too. A male coworker said (many years ago), “I told my wife I wouldn’t take her on vacation unless she went to the doctor for a checkup.”

Statements like these make me very, very happy to be single…aside from the fact that the speakers are not just being coercive: they are exaggerating the benefits of “preventive” health care. Of course this kind of pressure can appear in non-spousal contexts, but in the letters to the advice column you can almost hear the desperation.

And of course there’s a consideration: married people have to consider the impact of health decisions, as well as financial and child-bearing decisions, on their partner.

It’s different when you’re single.

As a single person, I used to get a lot of horror stories from friends.  I was one of those people who never went to doctors. I skipped mammograms, colonoscopies, and yearly blood tests. When asked why, I explained that I hated the medical profession and was skeptical of their advice.

Of course no one would suffer from my choices. My will included provisions for the pets.  I exercised, ate more or less sensibly, skipped the sugar soda, and didn’t let my mind rot on daytime television. I went decades without entering a doctor’s office. Those were my personal tradeoffs.

And now that I’m well beyond Medicare age, nobody bothers me. They can’t say I’ll die young if I skip the tests. Doctors bite down their surprise at my lack of test records. They know I’ll reject their well-meaning offers of tests and drugs. They nod resignedly when I say, “I don’t care about living to be 100. I want to die before I go into a nursing home.”

Ultimately, it’s all about tradeoffs. Specifically: 

(1) Data on so-called preventive care doesn’t send a clear message.

Screenings miss a lot of disease and give you a lot of false positives. Read books by Gilbert Welch and look for his videos. False positives can send you for more tests that increase your risk of life-threatening consequences that are worse than the original disease. Unless you have a history or symptoms, the benefits of screening can be murky.

One local hospital routinely sends out postcards with the message, “Mammograms save lives.” That’s true, but how many do they save? The National Cancer Institute estimates you’d have to screen 1300 women to save one life. You have to make your own tradeoff.

(2) Population-based evidence may not apply to you.

We all know people who were careless about their health and lived to be 90, while fastidious, fit vegetarians die painful deaths at fifty.

All you can do is move the needle–and often not very far. Eating a heart-healthy diet won’t necessarily save you from bad genes or a dust-filled environment. ? There are no guarantees. You could could do everything right and still wind up helpless as the victim of an accident, obscure hereditary illness, or just the wrong side of the statistics.

(3) It’s a deeply personal decision.

People differ in the amount of discomfort they experience at medical visits. Some population segments get treated worse; some places treat everyone like pieces of meat. Some treatments are more painful than others; both treatments and side effects can bother people differently.

People also differ dramatically in their beliefs about medical interventions. I once encountered a professional woman – a lawyer – in the dog park. She mentioned that mammograms were a yearly non-negotiable. I asked her if she knew the statistics.. She said, “I don’t care. I want my medical tests.” That’s her prerogative. It’s not a mandate for everyone.

Bottom line…

It’s legal for people to choose high-risk factors that could kill them, such as smoking and sugar sodas. It’s legal to refuse care, even if the consequences are serious. And most importantly, I believe it’s up to each of us to make this decision independently, from a place of information, even if we seem to be acting against our own best interests.

And every time I read one of those advice columns with the question, “How can I make my spouse see a doctor?” I am even more grateful for my life as a single person. I make my own tradeoffs.

The post Being single means no pressure to see a doctor appeared first on .