Singled Out

Imagine that there were a novel therapy that claimed to make people happy. The evidence offered in support of this therapy was a study with the following conditions:

·         The participants got to decide whether they were assigned to the therapy or the control group (self selected, rather than random assignment)

·         For the group that received the therapy, only successful cases were reported

·         The unsuccessful cases that did not achieve happiness from the therapy were grouped in with the control group that did not receive the therapy and a statistical comparision was done between the two groups

·         Reports were published in the popular media and even in some journals that the group receiving the therapy (self selected successful cases) were happier than the control group (the failures combined with those who abstained).

Am I writing once again about Thought Field Therapy or the latest pseudoscientific intervention? No, not even TFT is this outrageous. I’m switching topics for a change. The above conditions are those of studies that have been cited in support of marriage as an “intervention” for happiness. This myth, along with an analysis of highly flawed interpretations adduced in support of the notion that married people are happier than single people, has been exposed in the recently published book, Singled Out: How singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored, and Still live happily ever after by Social Psychologist Bella DePaulo.

DePaulo has coined the term Singlism, which is a largely unrecognized prejudice and stigma against single people and its counterpart, Matrimania, which is the glorification of marriage as the one and only legitimate lifestyle for adults. This is not a book that bashes marriage, but rather, a book that challenges the highly prevalent notion that marriage is for everyone and the only worthwhile path for an adult to take and that single people are somehow lesser human beings. Single people, especially those who have not married by the time they reach middle age, are frequently viewed as losers in life by married people and sometimes by singles themselves who have internalized the oppression. DePaulo has a chapter for each of the myths about being single and debunks them one by one, with good solid scientific evidence. These myths include:

1. Marrieds know best.
2. Singles are interested in just one thing (getting coupled)
3. Singles are miserable and lonely and their lives are tragic
4. Singles are self-centered, childlike, immature and have nothing to do but play because their time isn’t worth anything
5. A single woman’s work won’t “love her back” and her eggs will dry up. Also, they either don’t get any or are promiscuous
6. Single men are horny, slovenly, irresponsible, scary criminals or are sexy, fastidious, frivolous and gay
7. The kids of single people are doomed
8. Single people are incomplete, don’t have a life and don’t “have anyone”
9. Singles who grow old will die alone in a room where they won’t be found for weeks (this is a good example of what cult experts call phobia indoctrination)
10. Couples are given perks, benefits, etc. in the name of “family values”

In spite of the fact that this is an expose of the myths of singlism and the stigma it entails, what I especially like is that this is not a book that portrays single people as downtrodden victims because in spite of the stigmatization, DePaulo cites research that when correctly interpreted shows that single people are, on average, living quite happily ever after and always single women actually have the strongest social support networks and are far from being lonely.

Some of the reviews on amazon.com have mischaracterized this book and DePaulo of bashing marriage and having a harsh “tone” when to the contrary, she makes it very clear at the beginning of the book that the purpose of the book is not to trash married people, but rather, to challenge the idea that marriage is the only valid lifestyle choice a person can make. I find it interesting that people who rightfully assert themselves to oppose oppression and stigmatization of an out group are often characterized in this way and it appears to be no different when it comes to singlism. Given that there are currently more households with single people than with married parents and children, the time is right to be exposing myths that many people take for granted as the “truth.”

It has been my observation that many psychotherapists attempt to engage in the equivalent of reparative therapy for singles, assuming that if someone is single, they need therapy in order to change so that they can get married. The truth is that people have normal, healthy differences in personality and temperament and some people are actually happier being single than married and that while marriage is a good choice for some people, it is not the best choice for everyone. One size does not fit all when it comes to the choice to get married.

I highly recommend this book to single people, married people who make unwarranted assumptions about singles, and especially to professionals such as therapists who work with single people and might be trying to fix something that doesn’t need to be fixed. For more and information about ordering the book, see Bella DePaulo’s Website:

http://www.belladepaulo.com/

Comments

[Citizen Deux]

I find the characterization of any easily delineated group to be suspect. As a member of the "guilty class", white males are typically loaded with a wealth of sinful attributes, regardless of the truth of the matter. In the case of marrieds versus singles, I think there may be an underlying social reason for supporting married couples versus single people. At its most basic, married people tend to procreate. Replication being a basic need to the survival of the species and society has been encouraged via supporting marriage.

Thoughts?

[Monica Pignotti]

Yes, married people procreate but the modern romantic idea of what marriage should be is very recent in human history. Prior to relatively recently in our evolutionary history, marriage had nothing to do with the idea of romantic love and finding a partner that will be all things and the couple was not as isolated from the rest of society and that relationship was not seen as the primary one. In those days, couples didn't necessarily do everything together -- a person's spouse wasn't expected to fulfill every relationship need. Matrimania, as DePaulo has written about, didn't exist into relatively recently and yet the human race managed to procreate and reproduce itself for millinea.

Another thing to consider is that today, marriage isn't necessary to procreate and many children are being raised in nontraditional families and are doing quite well. Another change is that we don't need for everyone to procreate to survive as a species. Today, not all procreation involves marriage and not all people in marriages procreate [although those couples who elect not to have children can also be stigmatized, but that's another topic].

I have to emphasize again, however, that the point is not to demonize marriage, but rather, to point out that marriage, especially as it is portrayed in the popular press as the primary and most important relationship an adult has while making less of other relationships, doesn't work for everyone and the people it doesn't work for should not be pathologized or thought of as lesser human beings. None of this should take away from the fact that there are people for whom marriage is very meaningful and I can certainly respect and appreciate that. What I challenge is that such people should be held up as better than those for whom such relationships have not worked and are happier as singles.