The idea floated by a co-worker — married with kids — seemed like the stupidest thing I'd heard.
The cost of our employer's family insurance coverage was going through the roof. Why not charge everyone with company-paid individual insurance to subsidize the parents? My reaction as a 30-something DINK (Dual Income, No Kids): Dude, I didn't tell you to have the little monsters.
Two decades and two kids later, I'm on the other side of the office divide. Now, I wince when singles gripe about the parent who takes off in mid-afternoon to pick up kids from school. All I can think is: They just don't get it.
Maybe I'm guilty of singlism. I wasn't even familiar with the term before talking to Bella DePaulo, a psychology professor in California and author of Singled Out: How Singles are Stereotyped, Stigmatized and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After.
She makes some decent points on how singles get shortchanged, including:
Social Security. Die without a spouse or children and Uncle Sam holds on to your death benefit. Singles should be allowed to pick a relative or other "peer equivalent" for the payment, DePaulo says.
Family and Medical Leave: Same deal. Parents can take time off to care for a sick kid or spouse. Why not give singles unpaid leave to care for a sister, niece or even a best friend?
Health Insurance: Many companies subsidize or pay for family coverage, a benefit worth thousands of dollars that singles don't receive.
But the day-to-day friction comes from situations like parents getting first choice of vacation time at Thanksgiving. Or when singles get stuck working late because Mom needs to feed the kids and tuck them in.
The root problem, DePaulo says, is when folks get married, "they think they're better people than single people." Ouch. We're not better people but people with a more important job: raising and shaping the next generation of humans.
Steve Huettel can be reached at huettel@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3384.
News
