Where is the market failure in marriage?

In honor of National Unmarried and Single Americans Week, I’m going to put on my economist hat and ask: Is there an economic rationale for government incentives to get married? By ‘government incentives to get married’, I’m talking about all the ways in which the government (and society in general) privileges married people. One widely-cited statistic is that there are over 1000 benefits, rights and protections in Federal laws that are based on marital status. Given my current situation, I’ve been doing a lot of research on some of those benefits. Some can still be obtained by the unmarried, with additional work (e.g., I can manually change the beneficiary for my retirement accounts or sign an advanced health directive so my partner can make medical decisions for me) but many are simply not available to unmarried people, period. It’s no wonder that single-sex couples are so eager to gain access to legal marriage (completely aside from the social acceptance aspect, of course).

But as an economist, I wonder: why should people have to get married to get these benefits in the first place? Is there any economic rationale for government policies that confer benefits on the married? In my Intro classes, I teach my students that government intervention may be warranted in situations of market failure; that is, where the market outcome may be “inefficient” for some reason. In econ-speak, an “inefficient” outcome is one where benefits to society do not line up with costs. In most markets for traditional goods, the costs and benefits only go to the people buying and selling the goods (e.g., when I eat a hamburger, the person who benefits is me and the price I pay covers the costs for the company selling the hamburger). In some markets, there may be costs or benefits for people other than the buyer or seller and if those external costs or benefits are not reflected in the price of the good, then the market may be inefficient because there will be ‘too much’ of some goods (when there are external costs) or ‘too little’ (when there are external benefits). The classic example is smoking – when I consume cigarettes, I create costs for people other than just me and if those costs don’t get built into the price of cigarettes, then I’ll buy more cigarettes than society wants me to.

These external costs or benefits are one justification for government intervention in markets; basically, taxes or subsidies can reflect the social costs or benefits so the ‘price’ reflects the full costs or benefits. If the government taxes cigarettes than the price goes up and I buy fewer cigarettes. Applying this to the marriage ‘market’, one would have to argue that there are external benefits of marriage so the government needs to provide extra incentives to get people to 'consume more’ marriage. So people other than a particular couple must presumably benefit somehow from that couple being married. I guess the conservative argument is that married couples are more “stable” and better behaved (?) and this is therefore better for society than if those people were running around just cohabitating or being single. I don’t know that there is really much evidence of this – a quick Google search turned up lots of rhetoric along the lines of ‘family values’, and studies about how marriage benefits the people IN the marriage (though the psychologist Bella DePaulo has also written a lot about how those studies often don’t actually show causality), but I couldn’t find anything showing that marriage, per se, has external benefits, such as causing people to act any better (for society) than before they were married. The closest I could find was arguments about the impact on children (i.e., kids do better when their parents stay together) but if that’s the basis for government intervention, then all the benefits should only go to couples with kids, not just anybody who is married.

Although I can’t think of a good argument for marriage benefit policies based on the standard idea of economic efficiency (i.e., the market ‘underprovides’ marriage so the government needs to provide incentives to boost consumption/production), I can imagine an argument based on administrative efficiency – i.e., some policies were probably adopted simply to reduce paperwork (e.g., most people would name their spouse as their beneficiary/spokesperson in most situations anyway so making that the default saves time and effort), or because “legal spouse” seems like an easy shortcut to identify “Very Important Person in my life”. But given that 46 percent of American households are now maintained by unmarried men or women (including 6.7 million specifically ‘unmarried-partner’ households), and the increasing trend in the percentage of couples choosing cohabitation over marriage, it seems like perhaps we should starting questioning whether marriage as the ‘default’ is really the most efficient way to go…

"Cat lady" vs. Cat Woman

Over the last couple days, the universe seems to be telling me something. First I read Bella DePaulo's post about a 20/20 segment on "Cat Ladies", a documentary about women with cats. As you can imagine (especially if DePaulo is covering it), the segment does not portray such women in a particularly flattering light. Then I finally got around to watching an episode of Private Practice from, I think, two weeks ago (I'm way behind on my crap TV watching), in which one of the main characters, Addison, ends up with the cat of a patient who dies from cancer. Addison is torn about taking the cat, in no small part because she fears being a 'cat lady' and part of the storyline concerns her fear that, like her patient, she will die alone. The title of this post was inspired by a line from one of Addison's colleagues, who wonders why being a 'cat lady' seems sad while Cat Woman is totally hot. That line, in particular, got me thinking about the cat lady stereotype.

And then, yesterday morning, I finally had a cat door installed for my indoor/outdoor cat. I've been meaning to do this for a while but kept putting it off. I was finally motivated to do it because as low-maintenance as my cat already is, I still have to be around to let her in and out. And that means that if she's outside and I'm gone for too long (for example, if I want to stay over at my boyfriend's place), I feel guilty; or if I know I'll be gone, I try to keep her inside, and I feel guilty. So installing a cat door means more freedom for both of us. And that's when it occurred to me that the stereotype of cat ladies as lonely and pathetic makes absolutely no sense. If I were really lonely and pathetic, I wouldn't have a cat; I'd have a dog! No one gets a cat for devoted companionship, unconditional love or any other dependent feeling that one would assume from the cat lady stereotype; cats are way too independent. The reason Cat Woman is hot is because she's like a cat: independent and not giving a crap about what anyone thinks of her. And any woman who is like that is going to prefer having a cat, not a dependent, needy dog who can never be left alone and will piss on your shoes if you don't give it enough attention.

So where the heck did the 'cat lady' stereotype come from?!?!

Can I be sappy without being seen as smug?

I just got back from an overnight trip to L.A. to visit a close friend who recently moved there with her husband. I drove up with my Significant Other, who my friend was very curious to meet, and we had a really fun evening, with good food, drink and conversation. This morning, the guys watched football while my friend and I took her dog for a walk. Of course, I wanted to get her opinion of my S.O. This is a friend who knows all about my previous, incredibly unhealthy relationships, and she's been hearing about this new guy for a while. What she said this morning was that the guy is great but more than anything else, she has never seen me this happy, that she thinks she heard me laugh more in the previous 24 hours than in the last several months, and that she is really, really happy for me.

I'm sharing this because I think that readers of this blog know that when I talk about how happy I am in my current relationship, I do not intend in any way to belittle or diminish those who are NOT in relationships, or to refute anything I have ever said about how important it is to be comfortable with being single. Mostly, when I talk about how happy I am in my current relationship, I do so because this happiness is new, certainly a departure from relationships I have known in the past, and honestly, I'm still kind of incredulous about it. I think that people who care about me will be happy to know that I have found this happiness, as my friend said this morning. But Bella DePaulo has a couple of posts that have me feeling sort of defensive. Her first post was about people who post annoying Facebook status updates about their relationships; her follow-up post talks about how people with these sorts of updates must be insecure (that is, these folks must be insecure or else they wouldn't feel the need to "act" so affectionately in public). What bugs me about that is that lately, I have been one of those people and I know that my motivation is about as far from what she's saying as you can get. When I post something on Facebook about the amazing weekend I had my guy, I'm not bragging about my relationship; I'm letting my friends know that things are great and I'm happy (I should say that I am only friends on Facebook with people that I am actually friends with in real life). Without exception, my friends have responded with comments like "You deserve it!" or "I'm so happy for you!" My S.O. also happens to be a really affectionate person, which I love since I did not get ANY public affection in my last relationship (heck, I didn't get much private affection either). I am sure that to other people, we are probably annoyingly affectionate but a) we are still sort of new at this so maybe it will lessen over time and b) if it doesn't, well, I hold his hand and sneak a quick smooch because it makes me silly happy to do so, not because I want others to think anything in particular (and just to be clear, I'm not talking about making out in a restaurant here).

I get that there are plenty of people who buy into matrimania and who want everyone to know they are in a relationship because they think that they will be seen as a 'loser' if they aren't, and I get why DePaulo feels they should be mocked. I guess I just wish that DePaulo, and many who commented on her posts, wouldn't sound so much as if everyone with sappy Facebook updates must fall into that group. DePaulo talks a lot about 'singlism' which she defines as "the stereotyping and stigmatizing of people who are single"; maybe it's just me being defensive now that I am part of a couple, but sadly, I feel like the singles community is just as likely to engage in 'couplism'.

Reining in defensiveness

Clever Elsie has a really thoughtful Singletude post about how to respond when someone asks 'why are you single', pointing out that giving the benefit of the doubt is likely to be a better approach than getting defensive:

As offensive as it can be, though, if you're so inclined, it can be a great opportunity to educate the nosy party about singles. Something I've noticed over the past year and am still coming to terms with is that many people who ask questions like this aren't aware that they're offensive or--hello?--awkward. Sometimes they imagine you must be upset about your singleness (usually because they would be if they were single) and want to encourage you or help in some way. Other times, they may be genuinely curious. They may even just be making small talk and don't know what else to say.

Does that mean it's okay for them to ask why you're single? If it's not okay with you, of course not. But if they're not asking with intent to hurt or irritate, then they're asking out of ignorance, and the best way to combat ignorance is with knowledge--in this case, your firsthand knowledge of being single... As much as you might relish firing back with a real zinger, a candid explanation...could help a singlist person (i.e., someone who has a bias against singles or being single) open his or her mind and understand how "single" can be a good choice, not an unfortunate mistake. It might also help them realize how a question like "Why are you single?" can deeply affect someone. On the other hand, a sarcastic comeback could put them on the defensive or make you seem defensive, reinforcing their unfavorable attitudes about singles.

Her point about people asking out of ignorance made me think about the questions I sometimes get as an Asian-American (for example, 'what are you' or 'where are you from' when the real question they mean to ask is 'what is your racial/ethnic background' ). The person asking usually has no idea how offensive their question is, or that the question itself is rooted in racist assumptions, and every time it happens, I have to consciously remind myself that they probably don't mean to be rude and I should think of it as an opportunity to educate them. At the same time, I have to admit that a big part of me is annoyed that I even have to go through that thought process. That is, why is it my job to educate them, to choose my words carefully so I don't directly suggest that they are racist? Of course I know that the alternative (i.e., saying what is really going through my mind) would be totally unproductive, but it would also be so much easier (well, for me at least). Along similar lines, when I encounter singlist attitudes, I generally try to find a diplomatic way to reply but sometimes I think having to make that effort is, in itself, annoying. Fortunately, it doesn't happen to me all that often. It would be nice to think that we will eventually reach a point where this educating process won't be necessary...

Do I have to stay single to prove I am happy being single?

I've started dating someone. It actually has taken me a while, and a lot of false starts, to even write that sentence, partly because I don't want to jinx it (things are definitely still in the beginning stages), but partly because I'm not sure how I feel about admitting that I'm dating someone on a blog that, to this point, has been so much about being happily single (of course, if you're the type that only defines 'single' as 'not married' then nevermind). But after some hard thinking, I realized that I shouldn't need to be single to promote the idea that one can be happily single. And more generally, I think of this blog as being about everyone's right to be happy being whatever the heck they want to be, without other people making a bunch of assumptions about them, and I shouldn't need to be single to champion that.

My hesitation to share the fact that I'm dating is, itself, an indication of how hard I think it is for people to accept that one CAN be happily single. My biggest fear is that people will say, "Oh, I knew Jenn was just in denial all that time she was saying she was perfectly happy being single. She just hadn't met the right guy yet; NOW she's really happy." What crap. Anyone who says that just doesn't get it. I'll probably tackle this in more detail in a future post but the reality is that if I hadn't grown to the point where I was perfectly happy being single, I don't think I'd ever have developed the self-esteem I need to have a truly healthy relationship. God knows my past relationships weren't healthy and I wasn't happy. And I'm already finding that simply being in a relationship at all is bringing out insecurities I thought I had conquered. But whereas past boyfriends made me feel like a needy freak when I voiced those insecurities, I've grown enough to choose to be with someone who helps me confront those insecurities head on, in a mature way. I'm also finding it easier to be more assertive about what I need from him because I know I'm just fine on my own - after all, if this relationship isn't better than staying single (which I already know is pretty darn good), then what's the point?

Self-confidence and He's Just Not That Into You

I saw the movie He's Just Not That Into You last weekend and basically hated it. CAUTION: there's sort of a spoiler ahead so if you haven't seen the movie but plan to, feel free to stop reading. On the other hand, I don't think anything I write here can really be considered a 'spoiler' because do you really not know how it's all going to turn out?

The only storyline I found somewhat appealing was the one with Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck - she basically issues an ultimatum and actually follows through with leaving him when he won't marry her after 7 years together. They get back together when she realizes that having a man who loves her and who IS committed to her even if he doesn't want to pin the label of marriage on that commitment, is more important than having that label. I would have felt the movie was actually worth my money if they had ended with that and shown a couple that was truly happy and committed without being married, but I guess that's too much to ask for.

Part of what was so disappointing is that I'm actually a huge fan of the book. I know there are plenty of women out there who think it's too simplistic but like Miranda in the SITC episode where the phrase first appeared, I find the idea liberating - forget the games, give up the drama, just accept that he's not into you and move on. In the book (but, I felt, mostly missing from the movie), Greg Behrendt makes the point repeatedly that we all deserve someone who recognizes our fabulousness, that if someone is not acting like he's into you, you deserve better. And the first time I read that, I did my impression of Carrie Fisher in When Harry Met Sally - you know, where she keeps saying "you're right, you're right, I know you're right" when Meg Ryan tells her that her married boyfriend is never going to leave his wife. We all know that we are supposed to be with someone who thinks we're fabulous and that we should walk away from anyone who doesn't treat us as we deserve to be treated. However, what Behrendt doesn't tell you in his book (and CERTAINLY is not shown in this movie) is how to do that, how to stop wanting someone who isn't into us, how to actually walk away and let it go.

The problem is that you have to have a certain level of self-confidence to shrug it off when someone (who you presumably are into) is not that into you. There's an irony here that took me years to appreciate: if you think you're awesome, it's a lot easier to accept that someone else doesn't think so. It's not personal, it's not damaging to your own self-esteem, so you don't need to dissect it, you can just let it go. And the even more ironic catch-22 is that the more you chase after people who are not that into you, the harder it is to find that self confidence, but actually BEING with someone who believes you're fabulous - or simply surrounding yourself with supportive friends who always make you feel great about yourself - can't help but make you feel more self-confident.

I wish they made more movies that showed that!

News flash: I don't hate Valentine's Day!

Valentine's Day is just around the corner, which means that it's time for me to pull out every ounce of patience I've got to tolerate the nonsense that happy singles are about to be subjected to. I'm not talking about the overwhelming commercialism of a day dedicated to romance and the inevitable focus on coupledom. I'm talking about the well-meaning but completely clueless people who will assume that because I'm single, Valentine's Day must make me suicidal. For example, Allison on womenbloom.com (a blog supposedly about inspiring and supporting women) believes that the world is made up of only three kinds of people:

Category 1 is for those for whom Valentine’s Day is a BIG full blown deal they celebrate with their romantic partner. Category 2 includes those who are in a relationship but frankly, can take it or leave it. The third category is for those who get irritated and depressed about Cupid’s Day because it inevitably makes them feel that they are SINGLE LOSERS (emphasis in original) because they don’t have a significant other. It’s a day on which the entire freaking country conspires to make you think you’re an oddball of the highest order because you’re on your own.

Ironically, Allison goes on to say that she knows (and admires) plenty of singles who throw Valentine's parties for themselves and their friends, celebrating the fact that there's plenty of love outside of coupledom. I'm not sure what world Allison thinks these people live on, since they certainly don't fall into one of her 'three kinds of people'.

I get that some singles hate Valentine's Day; heck, I know plenty of coupled people who think it's stupid too. I also know singles who choose to use February 14th to celebrate their singledom - that's the whole idea behind International Quirkyalone Day. And I know singles who are completely indifferent about Valentine's and treat it like any other day. My point is this: don't assume that just because someone is single, they must be miserable this time of year. Personally, I love Valentine's Day - I think it's awesome to have a day specifically devoted to the idea of telling people we love them. When I'm in a relationship, I love to make a big deal about it, being romantic and gushy. But whether I'm in a relationship or not, I look forward to the candy I know my mom is going to send (and the fact that I get a believable excuse for having lots of chocolate in the house), and I usually wish everyone I see a happy Valentine's Day. I think Quirkyalone's description of International Quirkyalone Day sums it up best: "IQD is a celebration of romance, freedom and individuality. It celebrates true romance (as opposed to the fake versions presented to us in reality dating shows), independence, creativity, friendship, and all kinds of love--including love for yourself."

Are you reading Bella DePaulo?

If you are single, whether you are happy about that status or not, you should be. DePaulo, the author of Singled Out, is simply really good. In a recent post, she methodically dissects the singlism in a recent study about how singles are no more likely than coupled people to have "issues with attachment". What I love about her work is that she is so careful to avoid the same kind of bias that she is critiquing in others; for example, she often makes a point to say that she is not suggesting that all single people are happy, have full lives, or whatever else people are saying they aren't. She's just trying to get people to see the biases and flaws in so many of the 'studies' often touted as claiming marrieds are better in some way than singles.

What I find interesting is that she has gotten slammed by some commenters as being 'extreme'. And I'll admit that there have been times when I'm reading her blog and I think maybe she's reading more into something than is really there. But then she also comes up with posts like this one, where the examples of singlism are so acute (and obvious) that I just want to scream. And that makes me wonder - those times when I am resistant to the idea that singlism is rampant, is it because I buy into it myself? Or because I want to believe it isn't there? And do I only think DePaulo is biased because it's so weird to have someone point out singlism? That's why I think DePaulo is so good, because she makes me ask those questions.

Crazy cat lady

I've always been a dog person. I've never actually owned a dog but when I was growing up, I SO wanted a dog and I was always bummed we couldn't have one because of my mom's and sister's allergies (though I actually found out many years later that apparently the real reason was my parents couldn't agree on what kind of dog - my mom being a small dog person and my dad being a big dog person - but that's a whole different post). When I was finally living on my own, I kept thinking that I'd get a dog as soon as I got settled somewhere; I distinctly remember that when I got my current job eight years ago, I thought that I needed to find an apartment that would let me have a dog, or buy a house as quickly as possible so I could have one.

So although I've never owned one, I've definitely always thought of myself as a dog person. I definitely was NOT a cat person. Cat's have never liked me and I've never particularly liked them. What's to like about these weird animals that seem to think they are doing you a favor if they deign to look in your direction? But five years ago, I somehow became a cat owner. I'm still not quite sure how it happened. Well, I mean, I know how it happened - my sleeping partner at the time was going on sabbatical and couldn't find anyone to take care of his cat and was about to take her to the shelter so being a complete sucker, I said I'd take care of her for the six months he would be gone. And at first, it wasn't that big a deal. The upside of cats' notorious aloofness is that they are incredibly low maintenance. You pretty much just feed them and scoop out their litter box once a day (and if you have an outdoor cat, not even that). I didn't really pay much attention to her. But slowly, day by day, she began to grow on me. She would come sit on the couch with me while I was watching T.V., and then she started sleeping on my bed. She would bump my legs as I was sitting at my computer until I'd pick her up and then she'd just sit there in my lap. Somehow, by the time her former owner came back to town, she had become 'mine'.

What's particularly weird is that other cats seem to know that I'm now 'a cat person'. It used to be that if I encountered cats in other people's homes, they ignored me, just as I ignored them. Now, it's like they can sense something - if I walk into a house with cats, they will make a beeline for my legs. And my cat is curled in my lap as I write this, purring away.

So given my cat history, I loved a recent post from Bella DePaulo, about the stereotype of singles and their cats:

I wonder why it is that single people - women especially - are so often cast as cat-crazy. Is it a way of attributing a cat-like caricature to singles - say, aloof and unsociable? Or maybe even a more flattering portrait of cool and unruffled independence? By itself, the perception of singles as cat-people (or pet-people) doesn't bother me. What does rub me the wrong way is the interpretation that is sometimes offered for the supposed link between being single and having a pet - that singles have pets as "compensation" for not having a spouse.

In the comments, Becky points out that dogs simply require a lot more time and work: "So it's not a crazy lonely cat lady, it's a person with a full time job and social obligations without kids to keep them home... if you have control over it, a cat is often a more practical and humane choice in a pet if you are a busy single." That is certainly the view I have come to have. I love that I can go away for the weekend and not worry about what I'm going to do with my cat. If I get caught up at the office, or decide to spend the night somewhere at the last minute, I know my cat will be fine. She's still happy to see me and still keeps me company when I'm just hanging out at home but there's no guilt when I leave either. I still love dogs and I stop to pet every dog I see on the street. But I've come to think about dogs the same way I think about kids: they're adorable and I love to play with them at other people's homes, but I certainly don't want to give up my life to have one of my own. So go ahead and call me a crazy cat lady - I'll just take a lesson from my cat and ignore you...

In praise of singletude

I started the week with all kinds of good intentions to write something about it being Unmarried and Single Americans Week. Unfortunately, this semester is seriously kicking my butt so the week is over but I still wanted to take at least a few minutes to pay tribute to the fact that according to the Census Bureau, over 40% of the population 18 and over is unmarried (that includes never married, widowed or divorced). I thought it was interesting that the week was originally National Singles Week, intended "to celebrate single life and recognize singles and their contributions to society" but the Census website says it is now generally known as 'Unmarried and Single Americans Week' to acknowledge that "many unmarried Americans do not identify with the word “single” because they are parents, have partners or are widowed." Which leads me to ponder once again: what does 'single' mean to you?

I've also been thinking about the term single because I've come across some twists on the word that strike me as cool attempts to de-stigmatize singlehood. There's obviously Quirkyalone, the inspiration for the title of this blog. I also like Singular, which is the name of a new magazine for singles in L.A. But my favorite is singletude, as in Singletude: A Positive Blog for Singles. The rest of the tagline reads: "a positive, supportive blog about life choices for the new single majority. It's about dating and relationships, yes, but it's also about the other 90% of your life--family, friends, career, hobbies--and flying solo and sane in this crazy, coupled world. Singletude isn't about denying loneliness. It's about realizing that whether you're single by choice or by circumstance, this single life is your life to live." Amen to that.

Single-sex marriage is still marriage

Two related posts have me thinking about the role of government in privileging certain relationships. On Feministing there is a lively conversation about the fact that gay marriage does not address “fundamental problems of inequality” since it still only bestows benefits like access to healthcare and medical decision-making on those who are married. Bella DePaulo makes the same point, though she specifically calls this out as singlism. The point of both posts is that marriage confers benefits that really should be available to everyone, not just those who are in a certain type of relationship. I have to admit that when I first read DePaulo’s post, I resisted the idea that these laws are ‘discriminatory’. After all, I'm not really disadvantaged since I don’t need to cover anyone else with my health insurance and I could make a living will if I were really worried about who will make medical decisions for me if I’m every incapacitated, etc. But after thinking more about it, I think I agree that there is something problematic about employers and the government privileging certain relationships (spouse) over other relationships (family, friends).

Now, before I get flamed by anyone thinking that I’m somehow saying that marriage is no different from friendship, let me quote a comment on Feministing from Bethany, who expresses my thinking well: “…I do think a formal relationship IS useful for things like hospital visitation and child adoption because it creates a way for both partners to agree about the nature and seriousness of the relationship and its long-term commitment. Maybe we need some other kind of formal relationship that's not tied up in sex, since you don't need a sexual relationship to care for each other or a child together.” I have no problem with society valuing committed relationships, and I believe that there is some justification for government policies that encourage people to enter into committed relationships, since such relationships have positive externalities like promoting stability and stronger community ties (though it's important to note I say can, not must). But if such externalities are the rationale for these policies, then they apply to many types of long-term relationships, including family and friendships, not just marriage (heterosexual or otherwise). So while I am hoping that California continues to make me proud and does not do anything to jeopardize gay marriage, I also hope that all those who are currently advocating for gay marriage will continue fighting to honor all types of committed relationships.

News Flash: 30-something woman is OK being single!

When I was younger, I used to have nightmares about being imprisoned in a mental hospital – you know, that catch-22 situation where there is simply no way to convince people that you are actually sane because everyone expects crazy people to say that they aren’t crazy. I was reminded of this when I saw a recent article in The Atlantic by Lori Gottlieb in which says:

“…every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried… all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying.”

So not only does this perpetuate the stereotype that all single women must be desperate to get married, but it conveniently makes it impossible to refute the stereotype because if you even try, you must be lying! I don’t think that Gottlieb sees that her statement that “every woman I know” feels that way is completely self-fulfilling since she apparently doesn’t believe any woman who doesn’t feel that way. On the one hand, stuff like this makes me insanely frustrated because it’s just wrong, not to mention stupid, but for reasons I don’t understand, a lot of people want to believe it and this allows those people to think they are right. On the other hand, I am fortunate enough to mostly be surrounded by people who don’t think this way, let alone spout such nonsense aloud, so hearing stuff like this mostly just makes me feel really sorry for people like Gottlieb. I honestly can’t imagine how sad it must be to believe that the only way to have a fulfilling life with lots of love and support is through marriage. So let me say for the record (and I do hope that somehow, in the crazy world that is the internet, this will find a way back to Ms. Gottlieb): I am 37, single, and pretty much have exactly the life that I want. And whether you believe me or not, I have thought about this long enough and hard enough to be pretty sure I’m not in denial. But in case it seems I doth protest too much, I should say that I’ve also never been interested in having kids so that probably helps, and I don’t try to argue with those who tell me that a relationship with the right person is better than being single (although I’m not sure I know anyone who can really make that comparison objectively). But to any woman out there who is even thinking of taking Ms. Gottlieb’s advice to settle because a mediocre relationship is better than being alone, all I can say is, she’s wrong. Of course, if you already believe she’s right, then she is, since you must already believe being alone has to suck - what I'm telling you is that it doesn't have to. But at the very least, go read some Bella DePaulo, Kay Trimberger, or the many other authors with essays in Single State of the Union before making up your mind…