Monday 7 May 2001

Pic of the day: "Boo hoo, I'm so single!" (Screenshot from The Sims.)

Poor singles, yet again

I slowly woke up to the clock radio reporting on the singles' national organisation demanding equal rights. Evidently they are once again fed up with having to pay for water and garbage disposal with the same amount as a family with lots of diapers. Quite apart from the sad fact that we singles already are pretty hard pressed financially: One person need approximately the same number of stoves, fridges, tables, stereos, kitchen sinks etc as a couple; but while most couples today have two incomes (or one and a half), the single has only one.

Of course, until recently it was common for couples to have only one income too. They may have saved some money by making their own food, but overall they probably had less money left for fun than the singles. I don't recall singles' organisations making lots of noise to correct that imbalance.

Most importantly, no one seems to ask why there should be equality. We already have a trend towards more and more singles. We ought to ask, is this a good thing? If we reward people for living as couples, we just may get more couples and less singles. Statistics show that singles, and more exactly single males, are responsible for much of the crime in our societies. They are also less likely to pay their debts and stick with a job. Would it not be better to get these restless males domesticated by competent women?

This, of course, ignores the possibility that said males may be single because women find them creepy and disgusting. (And this probably takes a lot, seeing how many creepy and disgusting males are married or at least cohabiting.) Could it be that, if they could afford it, even more women would prefer to kick out the beer-swilling swine and live a better life alone? Quite possibly. Certainly the nations with the higher personal income for women are also the nations with a rapidly rising number of singles.

So, in conclusion, how we treat singles is not just a question of fairness but of what kind of society we want. Is the need to domesticate stupid males more important than the need to let women live their own lives?

***

In the past, various methods have been employed to convince women to take on the task of domesticating males. There was, and still is, an extensive literature of fiction which glorifies the idea of women bonding with the slightly wild and scary male. I am sure I need not give you examples of this. It is bad enough to confess that I have actually read a few of those. Eeww. In the fiction, it turns out the scary male isn't all bad and the woman gets his better side out. But in reality, more women are likely to find that the prince turns into a troll.

Still, this is peanuts compared to the draconian measures of the past. (Or for that matter, of present cultures living in the past.) Women were systematically kept from earning their own income, so that they were forced to rely on a man to survive.

Society also exploited the fact that most women want to have a child, or if not, at least to have sex. Any of these were highly illegal unless you were married. Now you may say that this is religion and as such outside the scope of logical debate. But I counter that if it were so, then the men would have been similarly bound. They were not. To this very day in many southern countries, premarital or extramarital affairs are a honor for a man but a great dishonor for a woman. The punishment for the woman varies from social disapproval like the loss of friendships to outright painful death.

(My fellow believers may remember the biblical story about a woman who was caught in adultery and brought to Jesus for judgement. Modern readers rarely fail to wonder where the man was brought - it used to take two even at that time. According to the story, the situation resolved itself when the men were forced to think of their own lives. Wish it were that simple in all christian countries.)

Again the explanation probably is practical rather than ideological. It is generally hard to control with any accuracy whether or not a man has had sexual intercourse. There are no lasting physical changes. Once again, it is not a question of fairness, but of what kind of society we want.

***

I know, I know. This all reads so cynical. It's like I don't believe in Romance, True Love and all that jazz. Like I believe people are only motivated by greed and fear. As if romance is just an illusion crafted to motivate women to accept their lot.

This is of course not the case. I just happen to believe that you may achieve much with a smile, but much more with a smile, a stack of dollar bills and a loaded gun.