All in the family - urp!

Writers need to be careful with their words. I am finding this to be more and more true as the dizzying race to create the smallest, fastest and sleekest mobile devices threatens to put us all out of business.

While it's bad enough that everyday people can't use words correctly -- everything from saying "your" when one means "you're" to using "me" instead of "I" and vice-versa -- the blight has now hit my profession.

Apart from poor and wrong word choice and grammatical sins, writers aren't giving a smidge about cultural and social sensitivity. Oh, you think I'm wrong about this? How many of you have turned on your TVs only to be sold to "your family"? You pet your dog/cat and are stumped. 'Are they speaking to me? I use/spray/devour deoderant/pest repellant/licorice, too!'

Well, here in America apparently non-families are the silent huge minority. How huge?

According to Nov. 2013 census data from the US Government, a whopping 31.4 percent of adults (defined as ages 15-85+ years), had never been married. According to the same survey, another 10.2 percent had been divorced; 2.2 percent were separated; 5.7 percent widowed; and 1.4 percent were defined as married but with a "spouse absent" (not sure how that is different from "separated", but hey, I'm enjoying being single.)

The majority of adults, 49.1 percent, were defined as married with a spouse present. Forty-nine point one percent. Apparently, enough to drive an entire trend in advertising, one that appeals only to families and only marginally to singles. Gay families are being included, as they should, at quite a clip but where's the love for we singles?

Admittedly, including teenagers in your sample is going to skew the results, and it did. To be fair, Census data shows that in my age group and others in the 40s-to-50s, the number jumps to over 60 percent. Yet, statistics still show that the number of divorces is significant, and in my age group, even higher than the number of never-marrieds.

Why is advertising discriminating against us, then?


It's almost as if Bridget Jones made the advertising community wary of anyone who could or would choose to enjoy the single life. Women especially are seen as less than. I remember while other little girls were dreaming about their weddings, I was dreaming about my children. When I was unable to have them, I certainly didn't care about a wedding anymore. I started dreaming about my career, the next trip to Europe, my cat Wally and yes, some exotic man on a barstool in France.

I think what is wrong with America is our feigned puritanical streak. Remember Hollande's visit? The big story on CNN and other news outlets was how to seat the man, singly, at this big fancy dinner. Honestly, do you think Michelle and Barack Obama cared one whig? I think Michelle even dug the chance to keep the spotlight solely on herself (and she did look fab in that Carolina Herrera gown, I must say.)

I'm not against families; I'm not against marriage or suburbia or middle-aged paunches. I'm against SUVs for environmental reasons, but that's another story....

So dear Advertisers of America (and I'm speaking to you, Sprint, with your "Framily" plan - and by the way, it took me a minute to figure out that wasn't just a misspelling), throw we singles a bone. We buy and decorate homes, throw lavish and not so lavish parties, eat chicken wings, put up Christmas lights and yes, suffer from indigestion and hemorrhoids just like the rest of you.