One 'single' Peeve ..... Only Rmpwf Welcome!

I am seriously upset. With a certain brand of people called 'respectable married people with families' (RMPWF). Why? Well it's like this. Just a few days back, I read a statement here on one of the threads where a single lady was told that one of the disadvantages of remaining single is the difficulty in finding housing in a place like the one I live in. I have certainly heard about this kind of stuff and am not totally oblivious to the fact that such things do happen. But (I am tired of starting sentences with 'however' and am in no mood to follow the rules of grammar. In fact, I want to break all rules, RIGHT NOW!) I was not aware of the seriousness of the issue nor was I aware that the people around me belonged to the same category.

Scene: Annual General Body Meeting of XYZ block.
Issue: Higher rates of maintenance for apartments let out to PGs.
Complainant: One gentleman who has 2-3 tenants sharing an apartment and says he charges nothing more than what is charged for a family. No one has had any complaint against his tenants so far.

Without getting into the nitty gritties of the issue, let me get down to the point. From past experience, people are fed up of PGs (read flats with 8-10 inmates, who work all odd hours, walk in and out as they please, party late into the night, make a racket, have scant respect for rules of decent living, use huge amounts of resources such as water, indulge in PDA on the balconies in full view of the impressionable minds of the children of RMPWF). So it was decided that it was unfair to charge PG accommodations the same as normal residential flats. They were to be treated as commercial flats.

One of the statements made at the AGM was that this step was taken to 'discourage' letting out flats to 'singles'. (All singles 'make nuisance' ..... whatever that might mean ..... which means these RMPWF admit to having done the same till the shehnai echoed in their ears and set their brains right). My ears stood up. My flesh crawled. My fangs were bared. If it had not been for a tightly scripted agenda, I would have gone for the person who made this statement. I shall certainly bring it up at one of the monthly meetings.

The implication is that a roof over the head necessitates a 'respectable' state of life - one with a partner. Of course said partners should be welded together by a piece of paper issued in one of the government offices. They can have as many family members or visitors, it does not affect the amount of water used (but no, any visitor visiting a 'single' is one visitor too many and drains out all the tanks in the building). The house owner has a right to have a say on the person's private life. He must have a partner. The partner must be of a particular gender. It does not matter if they pretend to be married. No one is going to check out the docs but they should claim to be married. So long as they 'look' married.

So. What happens if a single daughter or son lives with parents in their own home or in a rented house (staying with parents makes them respectable, right?) and the parents move on to another dimension? Should said single son or daughter be thrown out onto the streets or be compelled to get married (to restore respectability) or jump off the highest point in the building?

What happens if a person loses his/her spouse? Do they still remain 'respectable' despite being 'single' for all practical purposes? (I am talking of couples without kids).

I was seriously thinking of a solution to this problem. One is not allowed to discriminate against people of any religion, caste or community, but 'singles' are fair game. We talk of the need for retirement homes for elderly couples whose evil children do not care for them. We have nursing homes for the invalid. Why not have builders come up with a concept of 'singles villages' where homes are sold only to singles - RMPWF strictly unwelcome? Paranjape schemes, Shobha builders, Mantri builders and ..... any other builders in this 'single' unfriendly country, are you listening?

BTW, the PM of this country is a bachelor. A previous PM (of the same party) was also a bachelor. If the current opposition party comes into power, the likely candidate will also be a bachelor. How come they are allowed to occupy huge, rambling bungalows at the expense of the taxpayer, while tax paying, rent paying singles are not allowed to rent even a tiny apartment? Some wise person once said "All people are equal, some are more equal than the others'.

 

I don't know whether one can really enforce a law which would prevent owners from turning away singles. It is my house. It is my wish whom I let it out to. Besides, they might actually give any other reason. Associations might be able to charge extra for a PG as a commercial establishment, which is a different matter. But frowning on owners letting out their homes to peaceful singles is ridiculous.

You are right. RMPWF don't necessarily make better tenants. But say a word against their kids, and you run the risk of being lynched as a child hating witch.