NY Times columnist David Brooks argues that people are better off when they “bind themselves” to two-parent families. He thinks that laws should discriminate in favor of “family formation and fertility.” I’ll take him on with data.
Usually, I decide for myself what to write about here, but every so often, a story shows up in my inbox so many times that I feel that I have no choice but to share it. An essay in the BBC News Magazine is a recent example.
A recent report shows that single people are not as far along in their retirement planning as married people are. Here are some big-picture answers to why that is and what can be done, and not just with regard to money.
Does it matter that movies and TV shows are awash in matrimania? Is there any link between watching these shows – or believing in the messages they convey about romantic relationships – and how people in romantic relationships feel about their real relationships?
Did you think the issue of choice was missing from last night’s debate? Actually, we heard about a different kind of choice, one that has probably been missing from all Presidential debates throughout history.
A New York Times reporter interviewed experts on marriage, asking them for their suggestions for making it stronger. I’ll tell you about some of them here. First, though, guess what suggestion none of the experts offered.
A recent post asking whether you really do want lifelong singlehood, or whether you are just fooling yourself, is a throw-back to the 1950s. The authors repeat the usual bogus claims about marriage, and seem oblivious to contemporary critical thinking about marriage and single life.
In 2004, I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about the caricaturing and dismissive ways that single people were being treated in the Presidential campaign. Now, it is not just single people who are under assault.
A story of four single men who have been living together for nearly two decades is also a story about the living arrangements of our 21st century lives, and how we find our place, our space, and our people.
A lengthy story in the New York Times pronounces married-parent families superior to single-parent families, especially economically. There was no acknowledgment of the financial favoritism built right into our laws, nor of any of the other workings of singlism. The reporting of the social science data falls short, too.
In "Minimizing Marriage", Professor Elizabeth Brake takes on the prevailing mythologies about marriage by subjecting them to rigorous philosophical analysis. Her insights are about so much more than just marriage.
“Choosing whether or not to have children is,” a philosopher argues, “the most significant ethical debate of most people’s lives.” The burden of proof should rest “primarily on those who choose to have children, not those who choose to be childless.”
Increasingly, we can live as we like, have sex with whomever we like – or not at all – and avoid much of the stigma of the past. What I never anticipated is a direction that today’s young adults are heading.
In the law, marriage fraud includes faking a marriage in order to get benefits such as health insurance or immigration status or tax breaks. Maybe the real fraud is that you need to be married at all (“legitimately” or otherwise) in order to qualify for some fundamental human dignities.
Here’s how people who are single-at-heart differ from those who are not in matters such as valuing solitude, feelings of personal mastery, preferences for socializing, feelings after a romantic relationship ends, and much more.
The important people in the lives of adults – other than nuclear family members – are often invisible. Friends and extended family, for example, are not as often recognized, valued, or celebrated as are children or partners in marriage.
In the spirit of the book, Singled Out, Living Single is a myth-busting, consciousness-raising, totally unapologetic take on single life. At this blog, we discuss just about everything about single life -- except dating!