Article: Singled Out: Are Unmarried People Discriminated Against?

Quote
TheDailyBeast
Singled Out: Are Unmarried People Discriminated Against?

...Activists say that unmarried people are systematically discriminated against. They pay more for health and car insurance than married people do. They don’t get the same kind of tax breaks. Co-op boards, mortgage brokers, and landlords often pass them over. So do the employers with the power to promote them. “Singleism—stereotyping, stigmatizing, and discrimination against people who are single—is largely unrecognized and unchallenged,” says activist Bella DePaulo, the author of Singled Out...

...“The argument of advocates of same-sex marriage is, why do we have to be a certain kind of a couple in order to be treated fairly?” says DePaulo. “My argument is wider-reaching: why does anyone have to be part of any kind of couple to get the same federal benefits and protections as anyone else?” She adds: “People don’t notice singleism, and if their attention is called to it, they think there’s nothing wrong.” That’s why, for instance, car and health insurance companies get away with charging less for couples and families. “They can attract more business [that way],” DePaulo notes. In the process, they leave single people to essentially subsidize the benefit by paying more. “When married workers can add spouses to a health-care plan at a discount and single workers can’t add someone important to them, that’s discrimination,” says DePaulo...

...The U.S. government not only turns a blind eye to the problem of “singleism,” but helps enforce it, activists say. Just look at Social Security. “A childless singleton can work side by side with a childless married person, doing the same job, for the same number of years, at the same level of accomplishment—and when the married person dies, that worker can leave his or her Social Security benefits to a spouse,” says DePaulo. “The single person’s benefits go back into the system.”...

...“Married people had a supermajority of political power at the time the [current tax] rules were enacted,” Kahng notes. But today? “Single people continue to be marginalized even though they comprise close to half the adult U.S. population,” she says. That might have something to do with their lack of homogeneity as a group. Says Klinenberg, “There are so many different kinds of singles”—unmarried parents and the childless, those who cohabitate with partners and those who live alone, the young and the old—“that single people have had trouble organizing as a political bloc. But there are now so many ... it’s hard not to pay attention to them.”

That’s especially true given how much they contribute to society—more, activists argue, than married couples with families. “On average, singles have more disposable income,” Klinenberg says. “They're fueling urban economies that would be in much worse shape without them. And compared to married people, they’re more likely to spend time with neighbors, to participate in public events, and to volunteer.” (If any of that surprises you, think about how much less free time your married friends and colleagues have after their children are born.)...

...Singles may also be contributing more at the office, without being compensated for it, activists say. “Studies have shown that singles are often paid less than married people, even if they share the same title, responsibilities, and years of experience,” says Langburt. “And if you agree that time equals dollars, then it doesn’t stop there: there’s maternity leave, all the time off leading up to the pregnancy for doctors’ visits, and sick days.” On top of that, it’s de rigueur for companies to provide benefits for spouses and children—without providing equivalent perks for singles...

Quote
nannyb
I live in the UK and am growing increasingly frustrated at being discriminated against because I'm single. If I'd stayed married, retired on my government pension and then died, my husband would have received £12500 a year pension for life. I can't nominate my children to receive any part of this, so it goes back into the system.

I recently tried to book a touring holiday in the U.S. on line, advertised in a national newspaper. I accept that I have to pay an exorbitant supplement as a single traveler, but this time a pop up informed me that all rooms on all dates were full. For curiosity I started to book the same holiday for 2 people and - like magic - all rooms were available on all dates! Seems we're not even entitled to enjoy the same leisure experiences as married folk.

Quote
Techie
Here is one of the 2 comments from the article, but it points out that the discrimination against single people is a global issue:

Quote
nannyb
I live in the UK and am growing increasingly frustrated at being discriminated against because I'm single. If I'd stayed married, retired on my government pension and then died, my husband would have received £12500 a year pension for life. I can't nominate my children to receive any part of this, so it goes back into the system.

I recently tried to book a touring holiday in the U.S. on line, advertised in a national newspaper. I accept that I have to pay an exorbitant supplement as a single traveler, but this time a pop up informed me that all rooms on all dates were full. For curiosity I started to book the same holiday for 2 people and - like magic - all rooms were available on all dates! Seems we're not even entitled to enjoy the same leisure experiences as married folk.

Add to that even some local leisure activities that are designed for couples and not single people.

Quote
mrs. chinaski
And what about FOOD?

When I was single (and studying) I had to buy stuff together with my roommate.
Items were sold in packages which a single person could not use up.
So we bought one package of something and then split it 50:50.

Now you have also small packages for singles but when you look at
"family package" of the same item you'll find out that you always
pay more per unit that a family does!

Quote
mrs. chinaski
And what about FOOD?

When I was single (and studying) I had to buy stuff together with my roommate.
Items were sold in packages which a single person could not use up.
So we bought one package of something and then split it 50:50.

Now you have also small packages for singles but when you look at
"family package" of the same item you'll find out that you always
pay more per unit that a family does!

Quote
freya
A tax break to you is an implicit tax penalty to anyone not receiving said break.

Quote
Person above me



Also, as a small aside, why is it that on online surveys or anything else that asks you to describe your relationship status, there is nothing that would indicate the presence of a fiance, girlfriend or boyfriend? It's always "single, married, widowed or divorced" as the options. So I guess dating long-term or being engaged means you're not in a real relationship?

Quote
Techie
I see very little difference between Jim Crow laws and the current legal situation for single people. The only difference was that Jim Crow laws were contained to the USA where discrimination against single people is global.

Quote
paragon schnitzophonic

Quote
Techie
I see very little difference between Jim Crow laws and the current legal situation for single people. The only difference was that Jim Crow laws were contained to the USA where discrimination against single people is global.

Really? You don't see a difference between racist laws that banned a group of people from dining at restaurants, buying homes in most neighborhoods, even using a water fountain, let alone being barred from voting and faced violent and sometimes fatal retaliation for bucking those laws vs. having to pay more to subsidize breeders?

I agree this discrimination exists, but come the fuck on now.

Quote
yurble
I think the Jim Crow laws were worse, but things are heading in that direction for single people. The situation for single people is gradually degrading over time and there is no dialogue over it whatsoever. There is outright discrimination which is legally sanctioned already, such as "protected family status" which only applies to some types of families.

Quote
blackpearl
I guess married folks get some benefits because society assumes that marriage=kids. Haven't you noticed that immediately after signing those papers, the next question is about kids? And then the bingo why did you get married if you don't want kids?

On another note, where i live married couples without kids don't really get the benefits that they used to. The benefits come when the married couple has kids. At least me and DH did not notice anything different. It's true that it does help when there are 2 incomes in the house but otherwise we pay the same amount of money for everything from insurance to taxes.

As for the family status, i really don't want to sound harsh but most of the times family=kids. For example, we have a stupid law stating that if you work in different city (and reside there temporarily) than your spouse or parents and you travel every weekend home to spouse/your parents, you don't get travel deductions because you don't have a family (kids).

And there was the point of banning certain people from some places. I posted here 2 years ago i think, how a camping area in Finland banned childless people under 35 on Midsummer because they are violent and get drunk. Only people with kids were allowed in the camping because of course, having kids makes you more responsible with alcohol. eyes2

Here is the link in Finnish if interested.

Edit: reading the comments and there are childless couples who are really upset about it. Two couples booked a place there and they found out about this "rule" from the newspaper as back then, the camping place didn't bother to put it on their site. They had some fights with them to get the money back. At least the camping place could have had the courtesy to inform them BEFORE booking and paying.