This briefing paper, prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families, was originally released on January 16, 2019.

Although many sexist prejudices have weakened over time, gender stereotypes still influence employers’ decisions during the hiring process, and those stereotypes disadvantage both women and men. In a forthcoming article in Social Forces, I show that employers continue to assume that men and women have “naturally” different skills and preferences that make members of each sex better or less suited for different types of jobs. They associate men with physical prowess, leadership, mechanical aptitude, and competitiveness, whereas they associate women with nurturance and “people skills” such as tact, patience, cooperation and communication. Women are assumed to be less capable or interested in the first set of qualities and men are assumed to be less capable or interested in the second set.

We have long known that sexist stereotypes hurt women’s hiring prospects in the labor market, but my research shows that it hurts some women more than others and that it also hurts men. I find that employers tend to discriminate against female and male applicants when either applies for a job typically associated with the other sex. Think of a woman applying to a manufacturing job, or a man applying to an administrative support position. Surprisingly, however, I found no discrimination against women in the early hiring phases when they applied for male-dominated middle-class jobs, at least in the mid-status, entry-level positions that I tested. By contrast, working-class women applying for traditionally male-dominated working-class jobs faced significant discrimination, while men applying for jobs that have traditionally been staffed by women faced discrimination in both working-class and middle-class contexts.

Using a field experiment, I submitted fictitious male and female resumes to openings for more than 3,000 jobs. Specifically, I sent resumes for male-dominated and female-dominated jobs in both middle-class and working-class occupations, as indicated in the chart below. The middle-class jobs were entry-level, required a bachelor’s degree, and paid well above minimum wage but well below high-paying professions. The working-class jobs paid minimum wage or higher and had few educational requirements. In each class of jobs, the average pay rate varied by gender, with jobs that mainly employ men typically paying more than the jobs that mainly employ women.

Each job opening received one male resume and one female resume. The male and female resumes were comparable in education, skill, and work experience. I then recorded the callbacks that the male and female applicants received from real employers for a job interview.

Discrimination against Female Applicants

My findings show that employers discriminated against female applicants for working-class jobs primarily occupied by men. For example, in manufacturing and janitorial positions, male applicants were 44 percent more likely than equally qualified female applicants to receive a callback from employers. Discrimination was particularly pronounced when male-dominated working-class jobs also emphasized masculine attributes in their job ads, such as requiring job seekers to demonstrate physical strength or mechanical aptitude. In these cases, male applicants’ probability of a callback for an interview was double that of female applicants (.10 versus .05).

By contrast, I found no discrimination against female applicants during the early hiring process in middle-class male-dominated jobs, likely because these jobs stress attributes, such as general cognitive ability, that have become less exclusively associated with men. As late as the 1960s, most Americans did not view women and men as equally capable of rationality and critical-thinking. This seems to be one area in which sexist prejudices have been greatly reduced, to the benefit of women seeking entry into jobs that require educational credentials. In contrast, masculine cultures in working-class employment continue to stress attributes that are stereotypically linked to men, such as mechanical aptitude or physical strength. This is true even when few real differences exist in requirements. For example, female applicants faced hiring discrimination in janitorial work even though a female-dominated working-class job such as a house cleaner often requires similar strength and stamina.

Despite the fact that women of all education levels have incentives to enter male-dominated jobs because they pay significantly more than comparable female-dominated jobs, only women with bachelor degrees or higher have done so in significant numbers. The fact that working-class employers exclude women from initial job-candidate pools might help explain why many working-class jobs remain as segregated today as they were in the 1950s.

Discrimination Against Male Applicants

Male applicants also faced discrimination during the hiring process due to sexist gender stereotypes surrounding men’s fit with female-oriented work, and in this case, discrimination occurred in both working-class and middle-class occupations during early hiring processes. I found that regardless of the occupational class or educational requirements of a job, employers were significantly less likely to extend an interview invitation to a male applicant compared to a female applicant for a job in a female-dominated occupation. Female applicants were 52 percent and 21 percent more likely than male applicants to receive a callback in middle-class and working-class contexts, respectively. So, in contrast to my findings about women, discrimination against men entering female-dominant occupations was highest in middle-class jobs.

Male applicants were particularly disadvantaged when a job was both female-dominated and the job ad emphasized feminine attributes. For example, when a middle-class female-dominated job emphasized supposedly feminine attributes, such as friendliness and good communication skills, in the job ads, a female applicant was almost twice as likely as the male applicant to receive a callback (.10 versus .06).

One possible reason for this discrimination is that “women’s work” is generally considered beneath men, suggesting that there might be something “wrong” with a man who wants to do it, or raising suspicion that the man would leave as soon as he got a better, more “masculine” job. Indeed, research shows that men in female-dominated jobs have a higher turnover rate, tending to leave soon after their entry.

Alternatively, employers may assume (or fear that customers will assume) that the stereotypes associated with masculinity will make a man less competent at the work and that he will be less patient, less tactful, less nurturing, and so forth.

Sexism thus limits men’s career choices as well as women’s. Although restricting men’s entry into female-dominated jobs, which are typically lowerpaying, is less costly than barring women from typically higher-paying male-dominated jobs, such discrimination could be increasingly problematic for men, since industries dominated by women, such as service and healthcare, are projected to add the most jobs in the future.

Still, it does not follow that men are now more disadvantaged by sexism than women. For one thing, once men do gain entry to female-dominated jobs, they continue to earn higher wages than similarly qualified women, and in some cases are actually promoted more quickly. So while men may struggle to get an interview, these disadvantages often quickly dissipate (particularly for White men) if they land a job in a female-dominated field.

Second, it is important to note that although women have had success entering middle-level jobs that were traditionally occupied by men, they have had limited success entering or being promoted equally in elite male-dominated jobs. Coupled with my findings about discrimination against women entering male-dominated working-class jobs, this suggests that women are still discriminated against in work thought to require any of the physical OR mental prowess, leadership, and status traditionally associated with men.


In conclusion, gender stereotypes and biases during the hiring process limit both men’s and women’s career options. For women applying to male-dominated jobs, hiring inequality seems to be most pronounced at both the bottom of the occupational hierarchy and at the very top, where rewards are exceptionally high. For men applying to female-dominated jobs, hiring inequality exists across the occupational structure. Although this discrimination is less costly than the kind experienced by women, it may hamper working-class men in particular from adjusting to the changing occupational structure of America, as blue-collar jobs continue to shrink. And until we stop prejudging people’s interests and capacities on the basis of sexist stereotypes, we will continue to steer men and women into different and unequal jobs, denying them the opportunity to develop a well-rounded combination of human, as opposed to gender-specific, capacities.

By Jill Yavorsky, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Organizational Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, CCF advisory available here.


Stephanie Coontz offers reflections on the Council on Contemporary Families brief, Hiring-related Discrimination: Sexist Beliefs and Expectations Hurt both Women’s and Men’s Career Options, by Jill Yavorsky.

VR: You edited Jill Yavorsky’s brief on hiring-related discrimination, where she reports that both men and women are stereotyped in hiring decisions–and men suffer from this, though women suffer more. How does history play a role in this? 

SC: It wasn’t until 1972 that The Equal Employment Opportunity Act prohibited job discrimination on the basis of sex, and not until 1973 did the Supreme Court definitively rule that newspapers could not sort job ads, as had been done for decades, into “Help Wanted: Male” and “Help Wanted: Female.” I studied New York Times ads from the 1960s where employers openly stipulated that applicants must be “pretty-looking, cheerful,” “poised, attractive,” “perky,” and even “really beautiful.” No ads for females stressed analytical abilities—only ads for males did. Many employers clearly agreed with the psychiatrist who argued in a 1962 Yale Review article that most young women “are incapable of future long-range intellectual interests” before they had married and raised their children – if then.

The fact that women are now considered equally capable of handling jobs that require education, analysis, and reason is a step forward. But as Yavorsky shows, employers still tend to believe that men are best suited for challenging jobs that require physical or mental prowess. Her findings likely underestimate the full extent of discrimination because many studies find that when jobs are described as requiring stereotypically male attributes, or the majority of workers pictured in the ads are male, women are discouraged from applying in the first place.

VR: What is your view of Yavorsky’s finding that women applying to men’s middle-class jobs experience fewer barriers in getting in the door–but they appear to face significant barriers once they are at work? 

SC: This seems to be especially true in elite professions. As I point out elsewhere, the greatest wage discrimination by gender used to be in working-class and lower middle-class jobs, partly because of men’s greater rates of unionization. But as wage rates and job security in many traditional blue-collar jobs have fallen, we now see the opposite. Many women have established a firm foothold in mid-level middle-class jobs, and their wages have risen significantly. In the most elite professions, however, men’s wages have risen exponentially more, so that the biggest gender wage gaps are now at the top of the occupational ladder rather than at the bottom or middle.

Once women (and minorities) do get hired in traditionally male blue-collar jobs, they tend to be paid similar wages to men, accounting for seniority. But professional jobs where raises, promotions, and incentives rest on more subjective standards allow more free rein to sexist and racist biases.

VR: Men who apply for women-dominated working-class jobs appear to be subject to hiring discrimination, and Yavorsky suggests that as jobs shift to more service sector jobs, this could become a growing problem. Do you agree?

SC: On average, women’s wages still lag behind those of men with comparable education and experience. But more women than men have been upwardly mobile over the past 40 years, because working women have made slow but significant gains from a very low base, while men have lost many of the secure, well-paying blue-collar jobs once open to men without a college education. Between 1979 and 2007, the percentage of workers in middle-skill occupations fell, but for women the vast majority of this shift was due to their moving into higher-skill jobs as they got more experience and education. By contrast, a full half of the shift for men was into lower-skill jobs. Ironically, then, women’s historical disadvantages have incentivized many to seek more education to make a secure living, but men’s historical advantages have slowed their response to the changing job market. Many still believe they can earn a living wage without a college degree, or they assume that all female-dominated jobs will pay less and have less opportunity for advancement. As Yavorsky shows, employers exhibit the same stereotypes in reverse, discriminating against men even in – especially in — the mid-status, middle-class jobs that are expanding much more quickly than other sectors of the economy and that now pay more than many traditionally male-dominated blue-collar jobs. With most families requiring two incomes to get by, gender equality in hiring and promotion ought to be on the agenda of all people who make their living through wages, not just feminists.

Stephanie Coontz is author of Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage. Follow her at @StephanieCoontz. Virginia Rutter is co-editor of Families as They Really Are. Follow her at @VirginiaRutter. 

Picture by CC0 Creative Commons

Originally published in the Harvard Business Review

Few people today call a doctor when they feel a bout of nostalgia coming on. But for 200 years, nostalgia was considered a dangerous disease that could trigger delusions, despair, and even death. A 17th-century Swiss physician coined the word to describe the debilitating algos (pain) felt by people who had left their nostos (native home). In the U.S. during the Civil War, Union Army doctors reported 5,000 serious cases of nostalgia, leading to 74 deaths. In Europe, physicians anxiously debated how to treat home-sickness and contain its spread.

Alarm waned toward the end of the 19th century, as experts came to believe that “modern industry” and “rapid communications” were making people more open to change and hence more resistant to the disease. And by the 20th century, researchers had begun to recognize a milder form of nostalgia that is actually quite healthy: a longing to reproduce a feeling once experienced with friends or family, rather than to literally return to another place or time. This kind of nostalgia makes people feel warmer themselves and act more warmly toward others, including strangers.

In recent decades, however, we have seen a revival of the more pernicious form of nostalgia, what we might call past-sickness. This is the longing to reproduce an idealized piece of history. When people are collectively nostalgic about their past experiences as members of a group or as inhabitants of an era, rather than individually nostalgic for their personal experiences, they start to identify more intensely with their own group and to judge members of other groups more negatively. They become less optimistic about their ability to forge new connections — and more hostile to people perceived as outsiders. When such nostalgia gets politicized, it can lead to delusions about a mythical, magical Golden Age of the homeland, supposedly ruined by interlopers.

Collective nostalgia invariably involves a denial of the racial, ethnic, and family diversity of the past, as well as its social injustices, creating romanticized myths that are easily refuted by anyone willing to confront historical realities. But the cure to the pathologies of past-sickness does not lie in the equally romanticized vision of modernization and innovation we have been offered for the last 40 years — something that might be called future nostalgia, or modernization-sickness.

For much of the 20th century, it was possible to argue that the inequities of life stemmed from the incomplete expansion of technology, industry, and the market, and would be resolved by further modernization. But for several decades it’s been clear that the gains of modernization for some have produced substantial losses for others. While the innovations of the past 40 years have opened more opportunities for professionals and affluent entrepreneurs than they have closed off, that’s not the case for many working-class, small-town, and rural men and women. The failure of policy makers and opinion leaders to acknowledge their losses has left the pain of the “losers” to curdle into a toxic mix of nationalism, racism, and conspiracy theories across Europe and the U.S.

Despite institutionalized discrimination, working-class Americans of all races made significant economic progress in the 35 years following World War II. While it’s true that white male workers were given preference over minorities and women in hiring and pay, most of the gains made by white working-class men in that era came not from their advantages over minorities but from their greater bargaining power vis-à-vis employers. The greater prevalence and power of unions was a huge factor, and although minority and female workers were only gradually admitted to those, strong unions tend to pull up wages in other sectors of the economy and act as a counterweight to business influence over government policy.

In that environment, labor took home a much larger share of economic growth than it does today. From 1947 to the start of the 1970s, every successive cohort of young men earned, on average, three times as much in constant dollars as their fathers had at the same age. And in every single economic expansion in those same years, 70% to 80% of the income growth went to the bottom 90% of the population. Economic disparities between big urban centers, small towns, and rural areas steadily narrowed.

Since the late 1970s, a very different set of trends has prevailed. Between 1980 and 2007, even before the Great Recession hit, the median real earnings of men age 25 to 34 with a high school diploma declined by 28%. Since 1980 every cohort of young men has earned less, on average, than their fathers did at the same age. Meanwhile, in periods of economic expansion the top 10% of earners have taken 95% or more of income growth. Similar increases in inequality have occurred in Europe and elsewhere. A new Oxfam study reports that the richest 1% of the world cornered 82% of the wealth created in 2017.

The reaction of the “creative classes” to these trends has been cavalier to say the least. Despite the clear signs of working-class distress in the 1980s and early 1990s, most pundits insisted that the real story of the era was “the explosion” of new and ever-cheaper consumer conveniences produced by technological advances and globalization. Economist Robert Samuelson dismissed worries about job losses and wage cuts as “alarmist hype” that had American families “feeling bad about doing well.” Conservative columnist George Will speculated that modern affluence had produced so much “leisure, abundance, and security” that our brains, which evolved to deal with constant hazards, had gotten “bored.” Even the socially conscious Microsoft founder Bill Gates was complacent: “Entire professions and industries will fade. But new ones will flourish….The net result is that more gets done, raising the standard of living in the long run.”

During the Great Recession, pundits briefly discovered that “average” increases in income often mask serious inequalities, but that went out the window as soon as the economy started growing again. Last fall the chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley brushed aside worries about job losses due to automation, arguing that “when new technology destroys, it leaves behind a layer of ash in which new jobs grow.” This January, after yet another year of global job gains without wage gains, a writer in Bloomberg News breezily announced that “brisk growth that’s not shared by all is better than no growth at all.” Besides, “there’s basically no country in the world where the consumer is not doing well,” added Bart van Ark, chief economist at The Conference Board.

As for the people who actually provide those affordable consumer goods and services? In the U.S., the “recovery” exacerbated the 40-year rise in economic inequality and insecurity. A survey of the job and business gains in the U.S. between 2011 and 2015 found that most were confined to the wealthiest 20% of zip codes in the country. The bottom 60% of zip codes together got just one in four of the new jobs created in those years. And the 20% of zip codes that were most distressed before the recession continued to lose jobs and businesses throughout the “recovery.” In 2007 the bottom 90% of the population held 28.6% of America’s total wealth. As of 2016, that had fallen to 22.8%.

 Despite futurist predictions that the information revolution would lead to the “death of distance,” a few coastal enclaves and political or technical centers have continued to garner a disproportionate share of resources, reversing the 40 years of economic convergence among regions that occurred after 1940. The average per capita income advantage of Washington, DC and New York City over the rest of the country doubled between 1980 and 2013. Average airfares per mile to “loser” regions are now often nearly twice as high as to the “winners,” while many towns have lost rail service altogether.

Like nostalgia epidemics of the past, our recent outbreak was triggered by an understandable sense of loss and disorientation. But there’s an interesting difference between past and present in the groups most vulnerable to the disease. From the 17th to the 19th century, pathological nostalgia was seen most often among people who moved away from the communities in which they had been raised — often bettering themselves materially but feeling lost and isolated in their new surroundings. Today the upwardly and geographically mobile have easy access to new technologies, professional networks, and flexible work and consumption techniques that allow them to navigate unfamiliar territory and make themselves at home wherever they go.

Those same innovations, however, have marginalized individuals whose identity, security, and livelihood depend on their familiarity with a particular place and set of skills, and their placement within long-standing personal networks that involve relations of mutual dependence and reciprocity. These include industrial workers who get jobs at a local factory because a relative puts in a good word with the foreman; farmers, feed suppliers, and farm equipment mechanics who rely on clients or employees who are also neighbors; and local businesses that depend on personal connections with their customers.

Today the most debilitating nostalgia is found among those who cannot or do not want to move — and should not have to — but see the traditional sources of security that their native land, or nostos, once provided being dismantled or relocated, while their habits, skills, and social relationships are devalued. Instead of leaving their homes behind, they feel left behind in their homes.

As always, working-class African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans suffer disproportionately from job losses, wage cuts, and increased volatility. Zip codes where most residents are racial or ethnic minorities are twice as likely as predominantly white zip codes to be in economic distress. Still, whites account for a significant portion — 44% — of the more than 52 million Americans in the most distressed communities. This shared exclusion from the rewards of modernization ought to be a source of solidarity, not division, but division is what happens when one group romanticizes where we’ve come from and another romanticizes where we’re going, instead of carefully examining the gains, losses, and hard trade-offs of the here-and-now.

To cure this outbreak of past-sickness, the winners in this system must stop pretending that the answer is more of the same, with a little more diversity at the top. To make modernization work for all, we must take a more critical look at how we measure economic and technological progress. Self-driving cars and delivery drones may save some people time and money, but they take away other people’s livelihoods. To stem the contagion of pathological nostalgia, we need to inoculate ourselves with a dose of the healthy nostalgia that spurs us to integrate the best values and ideas of the past into the improvements and advances we promote.

One of those values is the traditional democratic belief that the people who grow our food, make our coffee, fix our cars, educate our children, nurse our sick, and pick up our garbage are at least as essential to a healthy society as the people who invent new algorithms for stock trading, social media, and marketing. They deserve to live in thriving communities, send their kids to good schools, earn a living wage, and get home in time to enjoy dinner with whomever they count as family.

Stephanie Coontz is the CCF Director of Research and Education and a Professor of History at The Evergreen State College.

Families Belong Together

DATE: June 21, 2018

A deluge of people who study and work with families, many of them among Council on Contemporary Families members, have joined scholars in other organizations (such as the American Psychological Association, Physicians for Human Rights, the American Anthropological Association and others listed here) to express concern and alarm about the family separation policy. We are sharing a statement on behalf of the 926 cosigning family scholars around the country.

Family Scholars and Experts Statement of Opposition to Policy of Separating Immigrant Families


We write as family scholars and experts to express our opposition to the Trump Administration policy of separating immigrant parents and children at the border as they enter the United States to seek refuge. This practice is an inhumane mistreatment of those seeking refuge from danger or persecution, and goes against international law. As scholars and experts devoted to identifying and sharing information relevant to policies to improve individual and family wellbeing, we deplore the Administration’s callous disregard of the overwhelming scientific information demonstrating the harm of separating children from their parents. This practice is known to be extremely traumatic for dependent children who stand a strong likelihood of experiencing lasting negative consequences from the sudden and inexplicable loss of their caregiver. Government should only separate children from their parents as a last resort when children are in danger of imminent harm. We urge the Administration to reconsider and reverse this policy.



Eileen Mazur Abel
Leisy Abrego, University of California Los Angeles
Dolores Acevedo-Garcia, Brandeis University
Katie Acosta, Georgia State University
Luke Adams, LMFT
Britni L. Adams, University of California Irvine
Fenaba Addo
Sarah Adeyinka-Skold, University of Pennsylvania
Janet Afary, University of California Santa Barbara
Ahmed Afzal, California State University Fullerton
Constance Ahrons, University of Southern California
Theresa Aiello, New York University
Brittnie Aiello, Merrimack College
Jennifer Ailshire, University of Southern California
Silke Aisenbrey, Yeshiva University
Randy Albelda, University of Massachusetts Boston
Aayat Ali, University of Michigan
Amanda Allan, University of Michigan
Elaine C. Allard, Swarthmore College
Katherine Allen, Virginia Tech
Adero Cheryl E Allison, Arizona State University
Marisa Allison, George Mason University
Rachel Allison, Mississippi State University
Rene Almeling, Yale University
Olga Alonso-Villar, Universidade de Vigo
Julie Alonzo, University of Oregon
Laura Alston
Jennifer Andersen, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Donna Anderson, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Elaine A. Anderson, University of Maryland
Abigail Andrews, University of California San Diego
Sophia Angeles, University of California Los Angeles
Elizabeth A. Armstrong, University of Michigan
Rachel Arocho, The Ohio State University
Bruno Arpino, Pompeu Fabra University
Angela E. Arzubiaga, Arizona State University
Marysol Asencio, University of Connecticut
Nina Asher, University of Minnesota
Sagiv Ashkenazi, Psychologist
Lori Askeland, Wittenberg University
Ragui Assaad, University of Minnesota
Javier Auyero, University of Texas at Austin
Kate H. Averett, University at Albany SUNY
Patricia G. Avery, University of Minnesota
Melanie Ayres, University of Wisconsin – River Falls
Maria Aysa-Lastra
Betsy W Bach, University of Montana
M V Lee Badgett, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Roksana Badruddoja, Manhattan College
Regina Baker, University of Pennsylvania
Radhika Balakrishnan, Rutgers University
Nina Bandelj, University of California Irvine
Pallavi Banerjee, University of Calgary
Nina Banks, Bucknell University
Katherine Barko-Alva
Medora W. Barnes, John Carroll University
Ashley Barr, SUNY Buffalo
Veronica R. Barrios, Miami University
Phillip J Barrish, University of Texas-Austin
Bernadette Barton, Morehead State University
Professor Emerita Leslie Baxter, Univ of Iowa
Megan Doherty Bea, Cornell University
Brigitte Bechtold, Central Michigan University
Sam Beck, Cornell University
Jonathon Beckmeyer
Rebecca Bedwell, University of Arizona
Andrea Beller
Lourdes Beneria, Cornell University
Ellen C. Berg, California State University Sacramento
Suzanne Bergeron, University of Michigan Dearborn
Catherine White Berheide, Skidmore College
Debra Berl, University of Southern California
Danielle Bessett, University of Cincinnati
Amy Best, George Mason University
Jennifer L. Bevan
Amy Bhatt, University of Maryland
William T Bielby, University of Illinois Chicago and University of California
Carole Biewener, Simmons College
Martha Bigelow, University of Minnesota
Sharon Bird, Oklahoma State University
Abigail Bishop, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Consuelo Biskupovic, Chile
Margunn Bjørnholt, Policy and Social Research Norway
Tim Black
Maylei Blackwell, University of California Los Angeles
Sherry Blair
Mary Blair-Loy, University of California San Diego
Dee Blinka, LCSW, ACSW, BCD
Katrina R. Bloch, Kent State University at Stark
Linda Blum, Northeastern University
Chris Bobel, University of Massachusetts Boston
Arthur Bochner, University of South Florida
Deborah A. Boehm, University of Nevada
Catherine Bolzendahl, University of California Irvine
Jennifer Bouek, Brown University
Christine Bowditch, Lehigh Carbon Community College
Dr. Christie Boxer, Adrian College
Elizabeth Boyle, University of Minnesota
Jen Bradley, Swarthmore College
Amy Brainer, University of Michigan-Dearborn
Dawn O. Braithwaite, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Jenifer Bratter, Rice University
Caroline Brettell, Southern Methodist University
Karin L. Brewster, Florida State University
Tristan Bridges, University of California Santa Barbara
Tanya Broesch, Simon Fraser University
Elizabeth Levine Brown, George Mason University
Michelle Brown
Melissa Brown, Texas Woman’s University
Jason Brownlee, University of Texas at Austin
Emily Bruce, University of Minnesota–Morris
Angela Bruns, University of Michigan
Leah E. Bryant, DePaul University
Linda Lausell Bryant, New York University
Xiana Bueno, Harvard University
Bonnie Bui, University of California Irvine
Renee Bullock, IITA
Tina Burdsall, Portland State University
Thomas Burton, University of Alberta
Kevin Bush, Miami University
Erika Busse, Macalester College
Rachael Byrd, University of Arizona
Kate Cairns, Rutgers University
Jessica Calarco, Indiana University
Rebecca Callahan
Kristina Callina, Tufts University
Esther Calzada, University of Texas at Austin
Richard Carbonaro, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Emily Carian, Stanford University
Daniel L. Carlson, University of Utah
Laura M. Carpenter, Vanderbilt University
Deborah Carr, Boston University
Dianna Carrizales-Engelmann, University of Oregon
Megan Carroll, University of Southern California
Dr Julia Carter, University of West England
Monica J Casper, University of Arizona
Yasemin Besen Cassino
Mari Castaneda, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Diane T Castillo, Trauma Psychologist Independent Practice
Shannon Cavanagh, University of Texas
Olivia Celis
Andrea Gómez Cervantes, University of Kansas
Debadatta Chakraborty, Univ of Massachusetts – Amherst
Elizabeth Chambers
Paul Chang, Harvard University
Robin K. Chang, York University
Constance Chapple, University of Oklahoma
Maria Charles, University of California Santa Barbara
Charusheela, University of Washington
Anna Chatillon, Univ of California, Santa Barbara
Sergio Chavez, Rice University
Vanessa Chavez, Professional Counselors of El Paso
Janet Chavez
Leo Chavez, University of California Irvine
Ann Cheney, University of California Riverside
Kristen Cheney, International Institute of Social Studies
Melissa Cheyney, Oregon State University
Alberto Minujin, The New School and Equity for Children
Nancy J Chodorow, Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical School
Jaehee Choi, University of Texas at Austin
Esther Chow, American University
Savvina Chowdhury, Evergreen State College
Kimberly Christensen, Sarah Lawrence College
Heidi Cisneros, University of Southern California
Karen St. Clair, LCSW
Samuel J. Clark, Ohio State University
Mariah Clegg
Philip N. Cohen, University of Maryland
Avis H. Cohen, University of Maryland
Joshua Coleman, Council on Contemporary Families
Marilyn Coleman, University of Missouri
Jessica Collett, University of Notre Dame
Caitlyn Collins, Washington University in St. Louis
Tanya Cook Community, College of Aurora
Kelly Condit-Shrestha, University of Minnesota
Dalton Conley, Princeton University
Daniel Cook, University of Nevada Reno
Claire Cook, Middle Tennessee State University
Jeff Cookston, San Francisco State University
Marianne Cooper, Stanford University
Hector Cordero-Guzman, Baruch College-CUNY
Madeline Cordle, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
David A. Cotter, Union College
Carolyn Pape Cowan, UC Berkeley
Philip A. Cowan, University of California Berkeley
Kathleen Cramer, Faulty Emeritus University of Minnesota
M.A. Gabriel Crespo, The New School
Ana Croegaert, University of New Orleans
Robert Crosnoe, University of Texas at Austin
Christina Cross, University of Michigan
Elizabeth Culatta, Augusta University
Mick Cunningham, Western Washington University
Miranda Cunningham, Portland State University
Sarah E. Cunningham, Oregon State University
Jessica Daily, University of Oregon
Heather Dalmage, Roosevelt University
Sarah Damaske, The Pennsylvania State University
Colin Danby, University of Washington Bothell
Samuel David, University of Minnesota
Elsa Davidson, Montclair State University
Laura Davidson, Washoe County School District
Dr Laura Davies, Leeds Beckett University
S Davies
Rebecca Davis, University of Delaware
Shannon N. Davis, George Mason University
Leslie Davis, University of Maryland
Elizabeth Davis, University of California Riverside
Georgiann Davis, University of Nevada Los Vegas
Melissa Day, University of New Hampshire
Michelle Miller Day, Chapman University
Natalia Deeb-Sossa, University of California Davis
Carmen Diana Deere, University of Florida
Monica DeHart, University of Puget Sound
Lorraine Demi, University of Southern California
Vasilikie Demos
Anne Dempsey
Elizabeth DeMulder, George Mason University
Melinda Denton, University of Texas at San Antonio
Bella DePaulo, Social Psychologist
Brittany Dernberger, University of Maryland
Heather Dillaway, Wayne State University
Amy DiNoble
Julie Dobrow, Tufts University
Danielle Docka-Filipek, Christopher Newport University
Héctor Domínguez-Ruvalcaba, Univ of Texas at Austin
Robin Donath, LCSW
Kira Donnell, San Francisco State University
Rachel Donnelly, University of Texas at Austin
Jennifer Doty, University of Minnesota
Maria Duenas, University of California Merced
Lynn Duggan, Indiana University
Maria Duggan, University of Southern California
Catherine Dunn, Swarthmore College
Elizabeth Dunn, Indiana University
Kathleen Dyer, California State University
Margaret Van Dyke
Gary Dymski, University of Leeds
Nancy E. Dowd, University of Florida
George Earl
Ann Easterbrooks, Tufts University
Kim Ebert, North Carolina State University
Heather Edelblute, UTSA
Brad van Eeden-Moorefield, Montclair State University
Fabiola Ekleberry, LPC-S, NCC
Bert Eliason, University of Oregon
Kyla Ellis-Sloan, University of Brighton
Paula England, New York University
Laura Enriquez, University of California Irvine
Holly Straut Eppsteiner
Norman B. Epstein, University of Maryland
Joyce L. Epstein, Johns Hopkins University
Julia Erhart, Associate Professor, Flinders University
Jennifer Erickson, Ball State University
Stacy Ernst, University of Minnesota
Juan Raul Escobar, Observatorio Javeriano de Juventud
Gosta Esping-Andersen, Pompeu Fabra University
Ivan Evans, University of California San Diego
Lilia Fabila
Rick Fantasia, Smith College
Rebecca Fauth, Tufts University
Ann Fefferman, University of California Irvine
Cynthia Feliciano, University of California Irvine
Kathryn Feltey, University of Akron
Abby Ferber, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
Geri Ferber
Myra Marx Ferree, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Tina Fetner, McMaster University
April Few-Demo, Virginia Tech
David Fields, University of Utah
Jessica Fish, University of Maryland
Mona Fishbane, Ph.D. Clinical Psychologist
Tobi Fishel, University of Southern California
David FitzGerald, University of California San Diego
Terence Fitzgerald, University of Southern California
Eugenie Flaherty
Erin K. Fletcher
Elizabeth Fogarty, University of Minnesota Twin Cities
Paula Fomby
Nanette Fondas, DBA., M.Phil.
Clare Forstie, Farmingdale State College SUNY
Bonnie Fox, University of Toronto
Kimberly Fox, Harvard University
Shawn Fremstad, Center for American Progress
Karin Friederic, Wake Forest University
Dr. Friedman, New York University
Frank Furstenberg, University of Pennsylvania
Michael Gaddis, University of California Los Angeles
Manuel G. Galaviz, University of Texas at Austin
Josie Gall, Viterbo University
Sally K. Gallagher, Oregon State University
Joshua Gamson, University of San Francisco
Lawrence Ganong, University of Missouri and CCF
Justin Garcia, Indiana University
Lorena Garcia, University of Illinois at Chicago
Myrna Garcia, Northwestern University
Michael Alexis Garcia, University of Texas at Austin
Rocío R. García, University of California Los Angeles
Pamela Garner, George Mason University
Betsie Garner, Tennessee Tech University
Sandy Gartin, LMFT (EMDR therapist)
Lauren Gaydosh, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Noni Gaylord-Harden, Loyola University Chicago
Claudia Geist, University of Utah
Susan Gerbino, New York University
Kathleen Gerson, New York University
Naomi Gerstel
Vawnee Gilbert, Eastern Michigan University
Alicia Girón, UNAM-MEXICO
Antonio Gisbert
Kalina Gjicali, Graduate Center CUNY
Jennifer Glass, University of Texas and CCF
Rebecca Glauber, University of New Hampshire
Miriam Gleckman-Krut, University of Michigan Sociology
James P. Gleeson, ACSW
Jennifer E. Glick, The Pennsylvania State University
Patricia Goedde, Sungkyunkwan Univ. Law School
Kristen Goessling, Penn State University Brandywine
Alice Goisis, London School of Economics
Rachel E. Goldberg, University of California Irvine
Jessica Goldberg, Tufts University
Jess Goldstein-Kral, University of Texas at Austin
Pilar Gonalons-Pons, University of Pennsylvania
Roberto G. Gonzales, Harvard University
Melinda Gonzales-Backen, Florida State University
Gonzalez-Lima, University of Texas at Austin
Gloria Gonzalez-Lopez, University of Texas at Austin
Kim Goodman, University of Southern California
Joan Goodman, University of Pennsylvania
Paul Goodman, Green Party
Elzbieta M Gozdziak, Georgetown University
Theodore N Greenstein, North Carolina State University
Elizabeth Gregory, University of Houston
Scott T. Grether, Longwood University
Lisa Gring-Pemble, George Mason University
Diane Grodney, New York University
Zoya Gubernskaya, University at Albany SUNY
Debra Guckenheimer, California State University East Bay
Jhumka Gupta, George Mason University
Sanjiv Gupta, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Vanessa Gutierrez, University of Chicago
Karen Benjamin Guzzo, Bowling Green State University
Nora Haenn, North Carolina State University
Jacqueline M Hagan
Darcy Wente Hahn, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Nafisa Halim, Boston University
Robert D. Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Macy Halladay, University of Tennessee
Pansy Hamilton, IAFFE Member
Laura Hamilton, University of California-Merced
Anna Hammersmith, Bowling Green State University
Karen V. Hansen, Brandeis University
Mary Beth Hanson, Women’s Foundation of Minnesota
Jennifer Hardesty, University of Illinois
Jessica H. Hardie, Hunter College
Michael P Harney
Scott Harris, Saint Louis University
Corey Harris, Alvernia University
Tracie Harrison UT Austin
Megan Haselschwerdt, University of Tennessee
Jennifer Haskin, Arizona State University
Anna Haskins, Cornell University
Elizabeth Y. Hastings, University of Texas at Austin
Angela Hattery, George Mason University
Orlee Hauser, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Robert L. Hawkins, New York University
Daniel Hawkins, University of Nebraska Omaha
Lindsey Haynes-Maslow
Melanie Heath, McMaster University
Rachel Heiman, The New School
Suzanne W Helburn
Lori Helman, University of Minnesota
Heather Helms, University of North Carolina Greensboro
Natalie D. Hengstebeck, Scholars Strategy Network / Duke
Joan Hermsen, University of Missouri
Rosanna Hertz, Wellesley College
Heather Hewett, SUNY New Paltz
Leah Hibel, University of California Davis
Jacob Hibel, University of California Davis
Marianne Hill
Lacey J. Hilliard, Tufts University
Emily P. Hoffman, Western Michigan University
Joan Hoffman, City University of New York
Prof. Heather Hofmeister, Goethe University Frankfurt
Dr. Bryndl Hohmann-Marriott, University of Otago
Elizabeth Holdsworth, University at Albany
Amanda Holman, Creighton University
Elizabeth Holt, Robert Morris University
Pierrette Hondageneu-Sotelo
Jennifer Hook, U of Southern California
Barbara E. Hopkins, Wright State University
Rodney Hopson, George Mason University
Sidney J. Horton
Kristen A Hostmeyer
Jason Houle, Dartmouth College
Leah Houtman, Community Doula Program
Aaron Hoy, Minnesota State University Mankato
Kathleen E. Hull, University of Minnesota
Audrey Hurley
Heather McKee Hurwitz
Diana Iglesias
Natalie Ingraham, California State University East Bay
Dorene Isenberg, University of Redlands
Patrick Ishizuka, Cornell University
Dr Maureen Ittig, Penn State Fayette
Crystal Jackson
Spencer James, Brigham Young University
Tyler Jamison, University of New Hampshire
Michelle Janning, Whitman College
Jonathan Jarvis, Brigham Young University
Daniela Jauk
Robert Jenkot, Coastal Carolina University
Carole Joffe, University of California Davis
Katherine M. Johnson, Tulane University
Wendi L. Johnson, Oakland University
Ben A. Johnson, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson, Washington State University
Lesa Johnson, California State University at Chico
Barbara Rose Johnston, Center for Political Ecology
Kelly Jones, American University
Meredith Jones, Univ of North Carolina at Wilmington
Allen Jordan, Utah Valley University
Terry Jordan, University of Southern California
Shareen Joshi
Rachel Kahn-Hut, San Francisco State University
Jennifer Kam, University of California Santa Barbara
Dr. Sophia Kanaouti, Hellenic Open University
Emily W. Kane, Bates College
Erika Kaplan, LICSW, Psychotherapist working with families
Matt Karush, George Mason University
Barret Katuna, Sociologists for Women in Society
Gayle Kaufman, Davidson College
Dr. Emily Kazyak, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Douglas Kelley, Arizona State University
Sheela Kennedy, University of Michigan
Oshin Khachikian, University of California Irvine
Mushira Khan
Farida Khan, Unversity of Colorado
Kalpana Khanal, Nichols College
Jill Kiecolt, Virginia Tech
Elizabeth Kiester, Albright College
Anna Killmeier, Oregon State University
Rachel Kimbro, Rice University
Mary C. King, Portland State University
Kendall A. King, University of Minnesota
Loni Knudsen, Brigham Young University Idaho
Sally A. Koblinsky, University of Maryland
Karen Kocher, University of Texas at Austin
Andrew Kohen, James Madison U
Ebru Kongar, Dickinson College
Dr. Jeanne Koopman, Boston University
Tanya Koropeckyj-Cox, University of Florida
Sherrie A. Kossoudji, University of Michigan
Barbara Koziak, St. John’s University
Evan Kraft, American University
Alena Křížková, Czech Academy of Sciences
Rhiannon Kroeger
Amy Kroska, University of Oklahoma
Laura Krull, UNC-Chapel Hill
Jaime Kucinskas, Hamilton College
Arielle Kuperberg, UNC Greensboro and CCF
Demie Kurz, University of Pennsylvania
Katherine Kuvalanka, Miami University
Kuldip Kuwahara, North Carolina Central University
Kim de Laat, University of Toronto
Melissa LaGraff, University of Tennessee Knoxville
Alison Landsberg, George Mason University
Barbara Larsen, Social Psychology
Louise Laurence
Nathanael Lauster, University of British Columbia
Erin Lavender-Stott, South Dakota State University
Vanja Lazarevic, San Diego State University
C.N. Le, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Karen W. Leaf, MSW, LCSW
Amy Lee, University of Minnesota
Robyn Lee, University of Alberta
Jennifer Lee, Columbia University
Catherine Lee, Rutgers University
Evelyn Lehrer
Mara Leichtman, Michigan State University
Mušić Lejla, Sarajevo University
Winnie Lem, Trent University
Lora Bex Lempert, University of Michigan-Dearborn
Eileen B. Lemus, University of Southern California
Jenny Lendrum, Wayne State University
Richard M. Lerner, Tufts University
Leigh Leslie, University of Maryland
Jaime Lester, George Mason University
Bethany Letiecq, George Mason University
Tama Leventhal, Tufts University
Jessica Leveto, Kent State University at Ashtabula
Judith A. Levine, Temple University
Deborah Levison, University of Minnesota
Ricci Levy, Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Amy Lewin, University of Maryland
Anne Lewis, University of Texas at Austin
Kevin Lewis, University of California San Diego
Cynthia Lewis, University of Minnesota
Joellen Lewsader, Central Michigan University
Caroline Lim, University of California Los Angeles
Lynne May Lim, Eliot Pearson Children’s School
Carol S Lindquist, Texas Tech University
Nathan Wong Link, Rutgers University
Margaret Linn, Swarthmore College
Adam Lippert
Noah De Lissovoy, University of Texas at Austin
Roseann Liu, Swarthmore College
Jeni Loftus, University of Memphis
Diertra Lomeli, University of Oregon
Linda Long, University of Southern California
Kristina Lopez, Arizona State University
Judith Lorber, City University of New York Graduate Center
Judith Lorber, City University of New York
Amy Lucas
LInda E Lucas, Eckerd College
Virgen Luce, New York University
Shelly Lundberg, University of California Santa Barbara
M.Brinton Lykes, Boston College
Dr. Gertrude Lyons
Norah MacKendrick, Rutgers University
Michael MacKenzie, Rutgers University
Erin Madden, University of Texas at San Antonio
Cari Maes, Oregon State University
Deanne Magnusson , University of Minnesota
Katheryn Maguire, Wayne State University
Sarah J Mahler FIU
James W. Messerschmidt University of Southern Maine
Shannon Malone, University of Texas at Austin
Emily Mannheimer, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Jimmie Manning, Northern Illinois University
Alex Manning, University of Minnesota Sociology
Valerie L Manusov, University of Washington
Diane Rothbard Margolios, University of Connecticut
Rachel Margolis, University of Western Ontario
Susan Markens, City University of New York
Melinda Stafford Markham, Kansas State University
Jaclyn Marsh, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Nancy Marshall, Wellesley College
Megan Marshall, QMHP
Lauren Jade Martin, The Penn State University
Molly Martin, The Pennsylvania State University
Patricia Yancey Martin
Blake Martin, North Carolina State University
Alberto Martinez, University of Texas at Austin
Claudia Masferrer, El Colegio de México and McGill Univ
Thomas Masterson, Levy Economics Inst. of Bard College
Jordanna Matlon, American University
Jordan Matsudaira, Teachers College Columbia University
Caitlin Maudlin, Community Doula Program
Laura Mauldin, University of Connecticut
David J. Maume, University of Cincinnati
MJ Maynes, University of Minnesota
Edwin Mayorga, Swarthmore College
Joan Maya Mazelis, Rutgers University-Camden
Chad McBride, Creighton University
Janice McCabe, Dartmouth College
Linda C. McClain, Boston University School of Law
Lauren McClain, Western Kentucky University
Katherine McClelland, Franklin and Marshall College
David McClendon, Children at Risk
Elizabeth Aura McClintock, University of Notre Dame
Jill McCorkel, Villanova University
Kelly McDonough, University of Texas at Austin
Kent McIntosh, University of Oregon
Emily McKendry-Smith, University of West Georgia
P.A. McManus, Indiana University
Pamela McMullin-Messier, Central Washington University
Hannah McQueen, North Carolina State University
Julia McQuillan, University of Nebraska
Christine M. McWayne, Tufts University
Prof Caryn Medved, Baruch College
Sancha Medwinter, Uinversity of Massachusetts
Mona Mehdy, University of Texas at Austin
Ann Meier, University of Minnesota
Anna Meigs, LICSW
Rashid Memon, Lahore Univ of Management Sciences
Cecilia Menjivar, University of Kansas
Chadwick L. Menning, Ball State University
Marina Merrill
Melissa Mesinas, Stanford University
Michael D Metzler, MD, PhD
Jess Meyer, Northwestern University
Ann Miles, Western Michigan University
Melissa Milkie, University of Toronto
Amanda Miller, University of Indianapolis
Monica K Miller, University of Nevada Reno
Daniel Millimet, Southern Methodist University
Stella Min, Florida State University
Skye Miner, McGill University
Marcelo Miño, Centre Maurice Halbwachs
Deborah Minter, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Diane Mirabito, New York University
Amanda Mireles, Stanford University
Joya Misra, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Tara Misra, School Psychologist
Jayanthi Mistry, Tufts University
Kerri Modry-Mandell, Tufts University
Stefanie Mollborn, University of Colorado Boulder
Veronica Montes, Bryn Mawr College
Margaret V Moore, LCSW
Mignon R. Moore, Barnard College-Columbia Univ
Sara Moore, Salem State University
Katherine A. Moos, UMass Amherst
Richard Mora, Occidental College
Zitlali Morales, University of Illinois at Chicago
Kari Morgan, Kansas State University
Dr. Mark T. Morman, Baylor University
Emily Morris, University of MN
Kent Morris
Jeylan Mortimer, University of Minnesota
Alison R. Moss, Indiana University South Bend
Eva Moya, University of Texas at El Paso
Anna Mueller, University of Chicago
Kate Mukungu, University of Cumbria
Melanie Munden
Christin Munsch, University of Connecticut
Colleen Murray, University of Nevada Reno
Kelly Musick, Cornell University
Ellen Mutari, Stockton University
Kit Myers, Roanoke College
Adina Nack, California Lutheran University
Lourdes Gutiérrez Nájera, Drake University
Laura Napolitano, Rutgers University – Camden
Stephanie Nawyn, Michigan State University
Megan Tobias Neely, Stanford University
Brooke Neely, University of Colorado
Margaret K. Nelson, Middlebury College
Andrew Nelson, University of North Texas
Ruth Nemzoff, Brandeis University
Rhonda Nese, University of Oregon
Joseph F. T. Nese, University of Oregon
Jan Nespor, Ohio State University
ChorSwang Ngin, California State University Los Angeles
Laura Nichols, Santa Clara University
Arthur Nielsen, MD Northwestern Medical School
Tanya Nieri, University of California Riverside
Jenna Nobles, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Kei Nomaguchi, Bowling Green State University
Donald Nonini, University of North Carolina
Sonny Nordmarken, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Audra Nuru, University of St. Thomas
Lynn Nybell, Eastern Michigan University
Judith Nygren
Jamie O’Quinn, University of Texas at Austin
Abigail Ocobock, University of Notre Dame
Maureen O’Dougherty, Metropolitan State University
Wendy Olsen, University of Manchester
Jay Oppenheim, City University of New York Graduate Center
Mirranda Willette University of Oregon
Taylor Orth, Stanford University
Judy Osborne, Stepfamily Associates
Chinyere Osuji, Rutgers University
Coral del Rio Otero, Universidade de Vigo
Berkay Ozcan, London School of Economics
Anthony Paik, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Emily Pain, University at Albany SUNY
Angela Palmer-Wackerly, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Nina Palmo, University of Texas at Austin
Sung S. Park, University of California Los Angeles
Ashvina Patel
Lisa Pearce, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Pearce, University of California Irvine
Susan C. Pearce, East Carolina University
Susana Peña, Bowling Green State University
Anna Penner, University of California Irvine
Clayton Peoples
Joanna Pepin, University of Maryland
Christine Percheski, Assistant Professor Northwestern University
Cole Perry
Maureen Perry-Jenkins, Univ of Massachusetts Amherst
Léa Pessin, The Pennsylvania State University
Rebecca Todd Peters, Elon University
Elizabeth Peters, American University
Lacey Peters, Hunter College, CUNY
Richard J. Petts, Ball State University
Carla A. Pfeffer, University of South Carolina
Kaitlin Phillips, Utah State University
Sarah D. Phillips, Indiana University
Katy M. Pinto, California State University Dominguez Hills
Joy Rayanne Piontak
Mari Plikuhn, University of Evansville
Ania Plomien, London School of Economics
Julie Poehlmann-Tynan, University of Wisconsin Madison
Gabriela Polit, University of Texas at Austin
Ivan Polk, University of Oregon
Sarah Potter, University of Memphis
Marilyn Power, Sarah Lawrence College
Christine Proulx, University of Missouri
Allison Pugh, University of Virginia
Isaura Pulido, Northeastern Illinois University
Stephanie A. Pullés, University of California Irvine
Karen Quek, Bethel University
Pamela Anne Quiroz, University of Houston
Elise Radina, CFLE Miami University
Sara Raley, McDaniel College
Kelly Raley, University of Texas
Delma Ramos, University of Denver
Jennifer Randles, California State University
Katharine Ransom, California Institute of Integral Studies
Rebecca Rasmussen, MSW, LCSW
Geoffrey Raymond, University of California Santa Barbara
Lisa Reber, Arizona State University
Megan Reed, University of Pennsylvania
Ande Reisman, University of Washington
Nicholas Reksten, University of Redlands
Rachel R Reynolds, Drexel University
J V Reza
Dr. Aimee Rickman, California State University Fresno
Barbara J. Risman, University of Illinois at Chicago
Christine Rittenour, West Virginia University
Andrea Roach, California State University Fresno
Judy Robinson, Castleton University
Brandon Andrew Robinson, Univ of California Riverside
Eden Hernandez Robles
Elizabeth Robles, LPC
Yana V. Rodgers, Rutgers University
Nicole Rodgers, Family Story
Nestor Rodriguez, University of Texas at Austin
Abigail Rombalski, University of Minnesota
Mary Romero, Arizona State University
Akos Rona-Tas, University of California San Diego
Sonia Roncador, University of Texas Austin
Ashley Rondini, Franklin and Marshall College
Michael Rosenfeld, Stanford University
Amelia Roskin-Frazee, Columbia University
Maya Rossin-Slater, Stanford University
Jennifer Rothchild
David Rothwell, Oregon State University
Kevin Roy, University of Maryland
Mérida M. Rúa, Williams College
Sharmila Rudrappa, University of Texas at Austin
Stephen T. Russell, University of Texas at Austin
Anna Acosta Russian, Indiana University Bloomington
Roberta Rutigliano, University of Groningen
Virginia Rutter, Framingham State University
Krysti Ryan, Stanford University
Nancy Rydberg, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Ellen Irwin Saal-Patterson, Medical Social Worker
Albert Sabater, University of St Andrews
Awa Kebba Saidy, University of Minnesota
Prof. Josefina Saldaña-Portillo, New York University
Cesar A. Salgado, University of Texas at Austin
Sharon Sassler, Cornell University
Liana C Sayer, University of Maryland College Park
William Scarborough, University of Illinois at Chicago
Anne Scheer, SIU School of Medicine
Shelley Scheffler, LCSW, NDRI
Samantha M. Schenck, Central Connecticut State Univ
Mary Kay Schleiter, University of Wisconsin-Parkside
Leah Schmalzbauer, Amherst College
Mary Beth Schmid
Rachel Schmitz, Oklahoma State University
Barbara Schneider, Michigan State University
Danny Schneider, UC Berkeley
Ozlem Omer, The New School
Lauren Scott
Eleanor Seaton, Arizona State University
Marcia Texler Segal, Indiana University Southeast
Stephanie Seguino
Ruchira Sen, Binzagr Institute of Sustainable Prosperity
Barbara H. Settles, University of Delaware
Kevin Shafer, Brigham Young University
Willa Shaffer
Gershon Shafir, University of California San Diego
Nasrin Shahinpoor, Hanover College
Harriet Shaklee, University of Idaho
Darren Sherkat, Southern Illinois University
Jessica Holden Sherwood, Johnson & Wales University
Kristy Shih, California State University Long Beach
Snehal Shingavi, University of Texas at Austin
Rebecca Shlafer, University of Minnesota
Susan Short
Nicholas Shunda, University of Redlands
Tim Sieber, University of Massachusetts Boston
Judith Siegel, New York University
Jane Siegel, Rutgers University-Camden
Karin Astrid Siegmann, International Institute of Social Studies or Erasmus University Rotterdam
Sydney M Silverstein, Emory University
Kimberly Simmons, University of Southern Maine
Robin Simon, Wake Forest University
Valerio Simoni, Graduate Inst of International & Development Studies
John Simons, Licensed psychologist
Kathy Simons, Retired child development specialist
Ray Sin, Morningstar
Sharmistha Sinha, NILERD, India
Arlene Skolnick
Roz Slovic, University of Oregon
Michelle Smirnova, University of Missouri – Kansas City
Carrie Lee Smith, Millersville University
Cynthia Smith, Tufts University
Pamela Smock, University of Michigan
Lisa Smulyan, Swarthmore College
Lauren Smyth
Katie Snider, University of Nevada Reno
Monica Snowden, Wayne State College
Jordan Soliz, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Stephen Sonnenberg, MD UT Austin
Sophia, University of Waterloo
Andrea South, Northern Kentucky University
Joan Z. Spade, State University of New York Brockport
Elizabeth Sparks, Boston College
Brian H. Spitzberg, San Diego State University
Susan Staats, University of Minnesota
Tara Stamm, Virginia Commonwealth University
Sophia Stephens, Community Doula Program
Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan
Amanda A. Stewart, University of Illinois at Chicago
Karla Stone, University of Minnesota
Fatima Suarez, University of California Santa Barbara
Sandy Sufian, UIC
Jooyeoun Suh, Institute for Women’s Policy Research
Timothy E. Sullivan, Towson University
April Sutton, University of California San Diego
Tara Sutton, Mississippi State University
Teresa Swartz, University of Minnesota
Rebecca Swartz, University of Illinois
Kathryn A. Sweeney, Purdue University Northwest
Elizabeth Sweet, San Jose State University
Charles Swift, Asst Prof–CUNY
Jaclyn A Tabor, Indiana University
Kara Takasaki, University of Texas at Austin
Alex A G Taub, Wenatchee Valley College
Tiffany Taylor, Kent State University
Brittany Taylor, Georgia State University
Marshall A. Taylor, University of Notre Dame
Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota
Martin Terry, Sul Ross State University
Martin Terry, Sul Ross State University
Marie Thoma, University of Maryland
Stephen B Thomas, University of Maryland
April Thomas
Mieke Beth Thomeer, Univ of Alabama at Birmingham
Saranna Thornton, Hampden-Sydney College
Trisha Thornton, PCEP
Charles Thorpe, University of California
Allison R. Thorson, University of San Francisco
Laura Tilghman, Plymouth State University
Kathryn Tillman, Florida State University
Castelline Tilus, Middlebury Inst. of International Studies
Julia Torquati, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Stacy Torres, University at Albany–SUNY
Mayo Toruño, California State University San Bernardino
Natalicia Tracy, University of Massachusetts Boston
Heike Trappe, University of Rostock
Bernadette Trevizo
David Trimble, Boston University School of Medicine
Danielle Triplett, University of Oregon
Jessica Troilo, West Virginia University
Kristin Turney, University of California Irvine
Debra Umberson
Megan R. Underhill, University of North Carolina Asheville
Nancy C. Unger Santa Clara University
Sandra Bailey Montana State University
Jennifer Urban, Montclair State University
Luis Urrieta, University of Texas at Austin
Amy Vachon,
Isabel Garcia Valdivia, University of California Berkeley
Angela Valenzuela
Sara VanDonge
Kelcie Vercel, University of Notre Dame
Ashton M. Verdery, Pennsylvania State University
Colleen Vesely, George Mason University
Roberta Villalon, St. John’s University
Luna Vives, Université de Montréal
Heather L. Voorhees, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Jeannette Wade
Lisa Wade, Occidental College
Tina Pittman Wagers, University of Colorado-Boulder
Sara Wakefield, Rutgers University-Newark
Alaka Wali, The Field Museum
Alicia Walker, Missouri State University
Maureen Waller
Leslie Wang
Catherine Wanner, Pennsylvania State University
Jennifer Ward, University of Tennessee
Jane Ward, University of California Riverside
Natasha Warikoo, Harvard Graduate School of Education
David F. Warner, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Tara D. Warner, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Kelly Warzinik, Instructor at University of Missouri
Alisse Waterston, City University of New York
Alisse Waterston, City University of New York
Marc Weigensberg, University Southern California
Matthew Weinshenker, Fordham University
Eva Weiss, Temple University
Abigail Weitzman
Suzanne L. Wenzel, University of Southern California
Kathleen Westman
Lorey Wheeler
Rebecca M. B. White, Arizona State University
Andrew Whitehead, Clemson University
Sarah Jey Whitehead, University of Texas at Austin
Tanya Rouleau Whitworth, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Elizabeth Wildsmith
Karin WIlkins
Annie Wilkinson, University of California Irvine
Sarah Willen, University of Connecticut
Kristin J Wilson, Cabrillo College
Tamar Diana Wilson
Howard Winant, University of California Santa Barbara
Diane L. Wolf, University of California Davis
Nicholas H. Wolfinger, University of Utah
Jaclyn Wong, University of Chicago
Marleen Wong, University of Southern California
Hyeyoung Woo, Portland State University
Braedon Worman, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Rev. Dr. Jean Wright, AAMFT Clinical Member
Colleen Wynn, University at Albany SUNY
Alison Wynn, Stanford University
Jenjira Yahirun, University of Hawaii
Michael Yarbrough, John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY)
Emily Yates-Doerr, Oregon State University
Jill E. Yavorsky, University of North Carolina Charlotte
Nora S Yerena, Central Coast Doula Services
Lecinda Yevchak
Youngmin Yi, Cornell University
Betty Yorburg, City University of New York
Christina Yoshimura, University of Montana
Natalie A.E. Young, University of Pennsylvania
Brigitte Young, University Muenster
Gay Young, American University
Linda Young, Ph.D. Psychologist
Kristen Zaleski
Pilar Zazueta, University of Texas at Austin
Elizabeth Ziff, New School for Social Research
Anisa Zvonkovic, East Carolina University
Cynthia Zwicky, University of Minnesota







Special help from Philip Cohen, Frank Furstenberg, Joanna Pepin, and Virginia Rutter.

Picture by Pexel

Reposted from Psychology Today 

Enough already. Aziz Ansari is not a rapist nor necessarily even a liar. Nor is “Grace” the woman who had the worst night of her life either a victim or a vixen. They are both casualties of our gender structure. Let me explain.

Most people think that gender is an identity, some authentic knowledge about the self. But identity is really only a small part of how gender structures our lives, our society. If we want to understand what happens in heterosexual hook ups, we have to understand the gendered meanings of the hook up culture. Every society has an economic structure, and so too every society, including ours, has a gender structure which has implications for our personalities, our expectations of others, our ideology about what should be, and our acceptance (or rejection) of sexual inequality.

Gender is part of how we define ourselves. Most of us are still raised to be good little boys and girls.  Good boys don’t cry, but they do get notches in their belts from peers for objectifying women, and pursing them sexually.   Girls are told they can be anything they want to be, you go girl, but when it comes to their bodies, they should accessorize fashionably and please men. Girls may ‘rule’ but they are still expected to be nice when doing so.  And of course, women remain the sexual gatekeepers, deciding when boys get that notch on their belt. There is strong evidence that gender gets inside us, that socialization helps create feminine girls and masculine boys.  Socialization shapes how we behave. Girls like “Grace” are taught to be nice, to be subtle and polite in their rejection of men, to give off non-verbal cues rather than causing a scene or using a four letter word. Boys learn that they are entitled to get what they want, but only if they go for it.  They are taught to tackle, to score. No one has to do anything to encourage women and men to behave this was as adults, gender is internalized into who we are.

But that’s only the beginning of the explanation for the he said/she said sexual drama, the overt and covert coercion that the #MeToo movement has illuminated. Gender isn’t only how femininity cripples women, nor how toxic masculinity empowers men. It is also the expectations we take for granted, when we interact, and the unconscious scripts that have problematic outcomes, including  during heterosexual casual sex. Erotic imagination in male-centric. Take this date in question.  The woman spent time discussing an outfit with friends; she is attempting to appear desirable. Aziz controlled the very existence of the encounter (doing the asking) and orchestrated it (choosing the wine, the restaurant, and paying the bill). Without conscious reflections, cultural expectations and scripts are followed: the man’s agency creates the date, the man is the sexual aggressor, the woman sought after, and paid for. This is still the lay of the land in 2018, the script that “Grace” describes of her evening with Aziz. Has he bought just dinner, or the expectation of sexual intercourse?

What men and women expect from one another is not just a part of their relationship, but part of a societal story  about sexual desire, desirability, nudity, and power. Does a woman who goes to a man’s home, undresses, and acquiesces to receiving  oral sex providing non-verbal cues that she intends to have penetrative sex? No woman should ever be pressured into any kind of sex. And yet, the narrative of heterosexual seduction at the core of our romantic myths includes  a reluctant woman won over by a persistent suitor. Pair that with the material wealth and status advantage most men have over their dates (and the super star quality of this particular man) and you get an explosive potion for coercion, under the cover of erotic play. And a prescription for male privilege: research shows clearly that men are far more likely to orgasm in a hook up then are their dates. Our heterosexual script has desirable women seduced by powerful, sexual men.  If you disagree, explain how the movie 50 shades of grey made such a fortune.

Sexual coercion, non-consensual sex, is always wrong. Any form of assault is a crime. And still, there are shades of grey, beyond 50, when women and men are confused by a changing gender structure. In today’s world everything is in flux. As my forthcoming book suggests, some young adults totally reject their socialization as feminine male-pleasing women and chauvinistic men and instead try to incorporate both masculinity and femininity into their personalities.  Others fully endorse a world where men are expected to be the pursuers of feminine woman.   Our gender structure is changing, but unevenly, and without any clear guidelines.  When it comes to casual hetero sex, gender is embedded in our own desires, our expectations for partners, and acceptance of cultural norms, and power differentials. And desire, expectations of acceptable norms may contradict one another.

Perhaps half way thru the encounter a woman decides she’s had enough, and doesn’t care any more about being desirable for a powerful man she does not desire.  She can, and should, dress and walk away. But her socialized internal gendered self, however, may scream: be nice.  And so she politely tries to indicate non-verbally, she’s not into it. He should get the hint.  But then again, his training for masculinity, toxic as it may have been, screams keep trying, that she’ll get into it eventually, if he is just seductive and persistent enough. She feels pressured, he becomes a predator. Neither plans on the transformation of a date into a #MeToo moment.

The only way out is to smash the gender structure entirely. Let’s stop arguing about whether she should have been more assertive (less girly) and walked away earlier, or whether he should have understood her signals.  It’s both/and not either/or.  Let’s stop raising masculine boys and feminine girls. Stop teaching girls to be nice, even to men who pressure them.  Stop raising boys who feel entitled to sex even if their partner is not enthusiastic. Let’s raise boys to have empathy for others, to cry when they feel pain.  Let’s raise good people, not women and men.  We must shatter gender stereotypes, including those about dating and sex. All people experience desire and arousal, seek orgasms, and love. No one should wait to be desired, nor be expected to give more then they get, whether sex or love.  Can this happen when men still hold the power outside of the bedroom? Probably not.  The male privilege deeply embedded in our gender structure must end everywhere: how we raise our children, what we expect from one another, and the distribution of power and prestige at work, in government, in Hollywood, including between the sheets.

Barbara J. Risman is a Distinguished Professor of Sociology in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.  She is also a Senior Scholar at the Council on Contemporary Families.

Picture by Surdumihail via pixabay

Re-posted from Education Week

The #MeToo movement has brought to the forefront what has been a long-standing concern for women across various communities: sexual harassment and, more broadly, gender inequality.

It’s critical that we implement sanctions against perpetrators of sexual harassment and that we increase men’s awareness of what is and is not acceptable. But this movement also highlights the need for thinking more seriously about how we teach children and teens about these issues.

Sexual harassment is not merely something that young people will need to contend with sometime in their distant future when they are adults in the workforce. Rather, it is something many of them, especially girls, are experiencing right now and right in their schools. Like it or not, schools are formally and informally communicating lessons to their students about expectations for men’s and women’s sexual conduct. Thus, we should look to education as a significant avenue to tackle sexual harassment and gender inequality.

In particular, we need to rethink what is typically referred to as “sex education.” First, we need to change the very word we use for it from “sex” education to “sexuality” education. This education must address not just “the birds and the bees,” but sexual harassment, including the ways in which it sometimes affects different groups of women and girls.

The conventional wisdom about sexuality education in schools is that there are two choices: an abstinence-only curriculum or a comprehensive curriculum that includes both abstinence and other topics, such as options for preventing pregnancy and protecting individuals from contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

While research has largely established that the latter approach is more effective than abstinence-only education in delaying sexual activity and reducing adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, comprehensive sexuality education would be even more effective if it were even more comprehensive.

One way to do this is to expand sexuality education curricula to incorporate lessons about sexual harassment and gender inequality. A 2011 nationally representative survey commissioned by the American Association of University Women found that nearly half of middle and high school students surveyed reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment during the 2010-2011 academic year. Girls were more likely than boys to be sexually harassed, but the problem was widespread across genders: 56 percent of girls and 40 percent of boys reported experiencing sexual harassment. This included in-person sexual harassment, such as unwelcome touching or sexual jokes, as well electronic sexual harassment, such as unsolicited pictures or videos.

I have encountered this high rate of sexual harassment in my own research as well. When interviewing Latina girls in Chicago on their sexual experiences, I heard repeated stories of boys groping them in the hallway or making sexual comments about their bodies in school.

Teachers and other school employees need better training in how to identify and stop sexual harassment. In her 2007 book Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School, sociologist C. J. Pascoe found that teachers frequently witness the harassment yet fail to do anything about it, or they may minimize the seriousness of the incident.

It is also important that school employees become aware of how unconscious racial biases may influence their perceptions of such incidents. Research shows that black and Latinx students face more disciplinary action and are assumed to be more adult-like and less innocent, and thus in less need of protection. Researchers, including Monique Morris and Jody Miller, have documented how school personnel routinely label black girls as “loud,” or “unladylike” when they are perceived to fail to conform to white, middle-class expectations of femininity.

Such research demonstrates how racial and gender stereotypes of girls of color can inform some school personnel’s understanding of their harassment. It can even lead educators to punish these girls’ attempts to protect themselves or to assume they provoked their own sexual harassment.

The prevalence of sexual harassment in schools also suggests that sexuality education should be made more comprehensive in terms of when it is taught. Instead of treating it as a discrete topic limited to health class, it should be incorporated into other aspects of school.

In rethinking sexuality education to address the issue of sexual harassment, for instance, schools need to think about dress-code policies. By focusing almost exclusively on girls’ attire, school officials often reinforce the sexual double standard that permits boys more freedom than girls, thereby reinforcing gender inequality. Instead, schools should concentrate on training school personnel and students on identifying, preventing, and addressing sexual harassment.

These lessons can also be incorporated into classroom discussion, where students could learn and dialogue about relevant topics in an age-appropriate manner. For instance, students can explore Title IX through history class assignments. Students’ familiarity with the federal law—which prohibits sex discrimination in educational activities and programs by institutions that receive federal funds—can empower them to demand gender equity in their schools, as well as in the larger society. Gender equity can also be examined in the social studies classroom, where teachers can facilitate student discussions of gender stereotypes in the media, for example. These types of classroom activities can also assist students in developing media-literacy skills, such as understanding how our engagement with media relates to social interactions.

Young people are already facing sexual harassment in their lives, including their schools. Why not help them take it on now in a more structured context? It’s time to start these conversations earlier, help youths recognize harassment, call it out, and demand that something be done about it. Maybe this can help us move in a more concerted effort to stop making sexual harassment and gender inequality a “normal” aspect of our culture. It’s gone on too long. It’s about time we figure it out.

Lorena Garcia is an associate professor of sociology and Latin American and Latino studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is a sociologist who studies the intersections of gender, sexuality, and race and the author of Respect Yourself, Protect Yourself: Latina Girls and Sexual Identity (New York University Press, 2012).

Marriage in Black: The Pursuit of Married Life among American-Born and Immigrant Blacks (Routledge, 2018) by Katrina Bell McDonald and Caitlin Cross-Barnet examines contemporary Black marriages in the United States. Based upon in-depth interviews with 60 couples, they examine the historical and continuing impact of racial inequalities in the United States on Black marriages, distinct features of Black marriages, and the diversity among Black marriages. Their interviewees included African American couples, immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, and White American couples. I enjoyed reading the book and recently had the opportunity to interview the authors.

AK: What are some of the ways that you found racial inequalities in the United States impact Black marriages in contemporary society?

KBM and CC-B: There are so many angles to consider in response to this question. If we consider the legacy of African American life from the slave era onward, there have been enormous efforts by the state to exert social control over Black relationships. Under slavery, legal marriage was prohibited, but after emancipation, Black couples were pressured or forced to formalize their unions. The context of heterosexual marriage in the United States has historically been situated in White patriarchy, but the privilege accorded White men to support that model of marriage was never extended to Black men. Thus, you see a long history of paid employment among Black wives; married White women didn’t meet married Black women’s employment rates until the 1990s. Systemic racism is a constant for Black couples—structural barriers mean that couples have to negotiate discrimination in housing, employment, the criminal justice system, and everyday interactions with institutions ranging from government offices to the grocery store. That stress spills over into relationships and can create instability that is beyond a couple’s control. But then there also is an increasing proportion of the American Black population that is made up of immigrants. The context of marriage is different in Caribbean and African countries, but their cultural practices and meanings of marriage (in those countries as well as in the United States) don’t always conform to conventions in the United States. And then there is the question of assimilation. Institutionalized racism has historically prevented the assimilation of American-born Blacks into the full privileges of White American middle-class life, so for Black immigrants, what does assimilation mean?

AK: What other distinctive features did you find among Black marriages?

KBM and CC-B: Part of what we found is that there aren’t necessarily any universal features of Black marriage. Intersectional identities make it difficult to define “Black marriage” because individuals have many more components to their identities than race. Black families do have to confront particularly entrenched institutionalized racism, and that means there are certain problems Black couples are more likely to face or just fear—poverty, housing discrimination, incarceration. But when it comes to couples’ ideals or behavior, there are wide variations in marital ideals and practices by social class and immigration status in addition to variation by individuals, creating much more diversity among Black couples than we saw between Black couples and White couples (our sample included 14 White couples). Our sample was small—61 couples all living in the same geographic area—so there could be clearer patterns that would emerge in a larger group, but that would probably be true of any categorization of people, such as by social class or geographic location. That being said, we did find a few patterns that we thought were worthy of further investigation (see next question).

AK: One thing that struck me about your book was the diversity you found among the Black couples you interviewed. What were some differences you found among Black married couples?

KBM and CC-B: Sociologists have speculated that Black married couples are more egalitarian than couples of other ethnic backgrounds, particularly Whites, and because we were looking at Black couples from such diverse backgrounds, we were excited about investigating that idea more deeply. We did find that, regardless of their marital ideals, American-born Black couples were more likely than Whites or immigrant Blacks to share tasks and power fairly equally and that black husbands generally weren’t threatened by Black wives’ income earning power. Conservative religious values of headship and submission expressed by some American-born Black couples actually translated into more role sharing in daily life because the men were more involved with their families. No couple ever used the word “egalitarian,” but some couples professing to share everything “fifty/fifty,” still left the wife with most of the responsibility for housework and childcare even though she worked.

But the American-born Blacks were distinct from the Caribbean and African immigrants, who had radically different approaches to ideas of egalitarianism. African immigrants usually said they wanted to “adjust” or “adapt” to more egalitarian practices, which they saw as distinctly American and necessary to life in America. They generally weren’t fully egalitarian, but they were certainly not replicating the practices they had grown up with in their home countries, where they commonly compared their fathers to “dictators.” Caribbean immigrants, particularly men, were the opposite, wanting to maintain patriarchal power they would have had on the Islands. Caribbeans–and also whites—who were more conservative or traditional attached those values to economic power for men and felt strongly that men should be providers and that mothers shouldn’t work outside the home. For American-born Blacks, working wives and mothers were a norm regardless of the couples’ marital ideals.

Sometimes quantitative work can lead people to believe that an aggregate difference between two groups indicates that there is homogeneity within each group. When it comes to “Black marriage,” that perspective has often led people to view Black couples as deficient because marriage rates are lower than those among white couples, and poverty and divorce rates are higher.  But there are lots of Black couples who marry and work things out, and within the group of those who do, there are many approaches to being in a marriage.

Katrina Bell McDonald is Associate Professor of Sociology and Co-Director of Africana Studies at The Johns Hopkins University. Caitlin Cross-Barnet is a federal researcher and an Associate at the Hopkins Population Center. Arielle Kuperberg is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Follow her on twitter at @ATKuperberg.

A brief report prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families by David Cotter, Professor of Sociology at Union College

The General Social Survey[i] has been asking a set of four questions about gender ideology since the mid 1970s. These cover the relative suitability of women and men for politics, whether or not families should have a breadwinner/homemaker division of responsibilities, and whether mothers’ employment is harmful to children. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, the answers to each of these trended in an egalitarian direction. Then from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s this support for gender equality stalled, even reversed. Since the early 2000s, however, all have returned to an egalitarian direction – and in every case are now above their mid-1990s peak. (See Figure 1.)

The Gender Ideology Index  my colleagues Joan Hermsen, Reeve Vanneman and I use is comprised of these four questions, which have been asked most consistently in the General Social Survey since the 1970s. For each egalitarian answer a respondent gets one “point,” so that someone who answered all four questions in an egalitarian way would get four points, and someone who answered all four in a traditionalist way would get a score of zero. The index now allows us to trace almost forty years of change. As with the items that make it up, it charts a pattern of rapid change from the 1970s up to the mid-1990s, a stall, and then a resumption of the trend toward egalitarianism. See Figure 2.

Gender Ideology by Gender
Gender differences in the Gender Ideology Index are, for the most part, relatively unremarkable. For nearly all of the series men are slightly (but significantly) less egalitarian than women. This remains true.  However, it is notable that the gap has now narrowed from what was nearly its widest point in 2012 to its smallest point in 2016. In addition, most of the change in the last few years is attributable to men’s “catching up” with women’s egalitarian attitudes. See Figure 3.

Gender Ideology and Generation: More Evolution than Revolution
Further analysis reveals that much of the change happens between generations – something that is particularly true in the post-stall period where individual generations show little secular trend. The fact that the Greatest Generation is fading from the survey and being replaced by Millennials after 2000, and especially since 2012, seems to be what is driving the movement toward egalitarianism. But those large differences between generations are less pronounced among the more recent cohorts: The difference between the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers in 1977 was nearly as large as the whole change from 1977 to 2016, but the differences between Baby Boomers, GenXers, and Millennials barely as large as the overall change from 2012 to 2016. See Figure 4.


[i] The General Social Survey is a nationally representative survey of the U.S. population conducted regularly (annually or biennially) since 1972.  It is among the best sources for ongoing social science data on Americans’ attitudes about gender and a number of other issues. Yearly sample sizes in this analysis range from 904 in 2004 to 1,984 in 2006 (

A brief report prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families by Dan Carlson, Assistant Professor, Family and Consumer Studies, University of Utah,

The stories inspired by the #MeToo movement reveal that despite decades of struggle for gender equality at work, patriarchy, misogyny, and the sexual objectification of women run deep. And yet the fact that some harassers, abusers, and predators are being held accountable indicates that proponents of gender equality continue to make progress.

But what’s happening on the home front? Has the gender revolution there stalled or is progress being made? Today, married men do roughly four hours of housework per week, up from two hours in 1965 but roughly the same as in 1995 (Bianchi et al. 2012). Married women perform much less housework today than in 1965 (14.2 hours vs. 30.4), but the amount hasn’t changed much since the mid-90s (14.2 hours vs. 15.8). Among youth, egalitarian attitudes about male authority at home and separate gender spheres increased from the 1960s through the mid-90s, but have reversed since, becoming more conventional.

Does this mean the gender revolution stalled? Not necessarily. Since the mid-90s, women have obtained a larger share of college degrees than men and increasingly earn as much or more than their partners, especially in the middle, working, and lower classes (Glynn 2012). Men have nearly tripled the amount of time they spend in direct care of children since 1965, with more than half of these gains occurring since the 90s (Bianchi et al. 2012) and twice as many men today are stay-at-home dads than 20 years ago, with four times as many saying they are doing it to care for their family (Pew Research Center 2014). Additionally, even though the attitudes of youth have become more conventional, results from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS) indicate that after a lull in the mid-90s, U.S. adults’ valuation of gender egalitarianism has continued to increase since the mid-2000s (Shu and Meagher 2018).

In new research to be published later this month in Socius, my colleagues Amanda Miller, Sharon Sassler, and I find a significant increase in the proportion of low- to moderate-income parents sharing routine housework tasks between 1992 and 2006. In the 1990s, couples were most likely to share shopping (28%) and dishwashing (16%) and least likely to share laundry (9%) and house cleaning (12%). By 2006, the proportion of couples sharing house cleaning had nearly doubled, to 22 percent, and the proportion sharing the laundry had risen to 21 percent, an increase of 129 percent. The proportion who shared cooking rose from 13 percent to 21 percent while the proportion sharing dishwashing increased from 16 to 29 percent. The increase in shared shopping was less dramatic – from 28 to 30 percent—but it remains the most frequently shared task, now closely followed by dishwashing. And the percent of couples where men did the majority of cooking, cleaning, laundry, and dishes roughly doubled from 1992 to 2006.

The gender revolution can be measured not only by the way we arrange our lives, but also by the consequences of those arrangements. And that too appears to have changed. In earlier decades, couples who shared housework equally reported lower levels of marital and sexual satisfaction, and less frequent sex, than couples who adhered to a more “conventional” division of labor. But for married and cohabiting couples since the early 1990s, the reverse is true.  Although less than one-third of the couples we studied shared housework equally, these were the couples who, in contrast to couples in earlier decades, reported the highest marital and sexual satisfaction. In fact, this is the only group among which the frequency of sexual intercourse has increased since the early 90s. In our new study, we confirmed that egalitarian sharing of tasks has become more important for relationship quality. In 1992, the division of tasks mattered little for couples’ well-being. By 2006, couples who equally shared tasks demonstrated clear advantages over couples where one partner shouldered the load.

As it turns out, though, all housework isn’t created equal. Our new study reveals that some tasks are more closely associated with relationship quality than others.

For contemporary men, sharing shopping with their partner seems to be a turn on. Men who shared the shopping for their household not only reported greater sexual and relationship satisfaction than men who did the majority of this work, but also greater satisfaction than men whose partner did the majority of shopping. For cleaning and laundry, men reported lower relationship and sexual satisfaction and more discord when they did the majority of these tasks, but they were just as satisfied when these tasks were shared as when their partner did them.

For women, the shared task that mattered most for their satisfaction with their relationship was dishwashing. As of 2006, women who found themselves doing the lion’s share of dishwashing reported significantly more relationship discord, lower relationship satisfaction, and less sexual satisfaction than women who split the dishes with their partner. Sharing responsibility for dishwashing was the single biggest source of satisfaction for women among all the household tasks, and lack of sharing of this task the single biggest source of discontent.

One overarching pattern that emerged from our data is that the more common it is to share a task, the more damaging to relationship quality it is for just one partner to shoulder responsibility for it. This is why shopping and dish-washing appear to matter so much for relationship quality. It seems individuals and couples take stock of their arrangements in comparison to those around them, and those assessments of relative advantage or disadvantage come to shape their feelings about their arrangements and their relationships overall. This suggests that as the sharing of other tasks becomes more common, the benefits of sharing — and the costs of not sharing — increase. Such a pattern sounds less like a movement undergoing a stall and more like one that is continuing to build.

Jessica McCrory Calarco is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Indiana University at Bloomington and recently published the book Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School (Oxford Press). Based on 5 years of ethnographic fieldwork following a group of students from 3rd to 7th grade, she explores class differences in the ways in which students interact with teachers. She found that, coached by their parents, middle class students are more likely to ask teachers for assistance, accommodation, and attention, while working class students acted with more restraint. I was recently able to interview about her book.

AK: What were some differences by social class that you found in students’ interactions with teachers?

JMC: The middle-class and working-class students were similar in many ways. They liked their teachers and they were excited about learning new things. Where they differed, though, was in the extent to which they tried to negotiate for individual (and often unfair) advantages in school.

At the schools where I observed, teachers got a steady stream of questions and requests. The vast majority of those questions and requests came from middle-class students. And many of those requests went beyond what was fair or required. Middle-class students asked for extensions on assignments. They asked teachers to check their work on tests. They monopolized class time with their stories. They even tried to talk their way out of punishment when they got in trouble for forgetting homework or running in the hallways or being disrespectful to their peers.

Middle-class students were also incredibly pushy in making those requests. They rarely sat patiently with their hands raised, especially if that meant waiting more than a few seconds for a response. Instead, they called out, got up from their seats, and even interrupted teachers to ask questions. They also kept asking, even when well-meaning teachers tried to deny those requests. They refused to take “no” for an answer, and they were willing to waste class time (and sometimes call in their parents for reinforcement) to get the support they desired.

Teachers rarely got questions or requests from working-class students. They didn’t feel entitled to teachers’ assistance, accommodations, or intention. And they tried hard to manage on their own. Of course, working-class students did sometimes ask for assistance or accommodations or attention. But the support they requested was typically fair or required. They asked for help when they were struggling to understand concepts. They raised their hands when teachers asked for volunteers to share.

Working-class students were also more patient and more polite in making requests. They would often spend three or five or even eight minutes with their hands raised, even while teachers responded to other students who got up or called out, instead. In the process, working-class students sometimes fell off-task or even gave up, leaving assignments incomplete and questions unanswered on tests. Furthermore, when teachers denied their requests, working-class students rarely pushed back. They just accepted the “no” and moved on.

AK: What role did parents play in teaching children to interact with teachers in specific ways?

JMC: Middle-class and working-class parents all cared deeply about their children, and both groups wanted their children to succeed. But they differed in the lessons they taught children about interacting with teachers and securing advantages in school.

Middle-class parents coached their kids to treat their teachers as resources. When their children were confused or struggling in school, middle-class parents encouraged them to turn to their teachers for support. One middle-class mother recalled what she tells her kids: “It’s okay to ask questions. Your teacher is there to help you. That’s her job.” Middle-class parents also taught their children to keep asking until teachers met their needs.

Working-class parents instead coached their children to treat teachers with respect. As one working-class father recalled: “I just want my kids to be respectful and responsible. My kids are good for the teachers.” Working-class parents recognized that teachers had a lot on their plates. They also worried that teachers might get frustrated with students who asked questions. So they taught their children to deal with problems on their own and to avoid making requests.

AK: Did these differences lead to unequal outcomes for children, and what can be done to reduce these inequalities?

JMC:  Middle-class students’ negotiations with teachers gave them a number of unfair advantages in school. They persuaded teachers to help them correct their work on tests. To grant them extensions on assignments. To exempt them from punishment when they got in trouble. To give them extra time to share their thoughts and ideas. In sum, the bulk of teachers’ support went to the students who needed it the least.

That said, those advantages weren’t automatic. Middle-class students were only successful in negotiating advantages because teachers said “yes” to their requests.

Of course, teachers were well-meaning. They did not intend to privilege middle-class students over their working-class peers. But they still said “yes” to middle-class students’ requests. And they did so, in part, because they worried about the consequences of saying “no.” In particular, they worried about the possibility of pushback from middle-class students and middle-class parents.

Teachers worried because middle-class parents and children could make their lives miserable. They could waste class time with constant emails and back-and-forth negotiations. They could undermine teachers’ authority by complaining to the principal or “blacklisting” teachers they saw as “unresponsive.” They could jeopardize the school by withdrawing critical financial and political support.

Essentially, then, middle-class students’ negotiated advantage was the product of privilege. And that means we can’t level the playing field by teaching working-class students to act more like their middle-class peers. It wouldn’t work. And it isn’t fair—we shouldn’t penalize working-class students for trying to be respectful and responsible.

Instead, we need to level the playing field by preventing middle-class students and parents from using their privilege to negotiate advantages. For teachers, that means thinking carefully before granting requests from middle-class students and parents. For schools, that means protecting teachers from pushback when they say “no.”

Of course, those changes aren’t easy to make. Middle-class families have a history of hoarding opportunities, and they’re unlikely to give up their privilege without a fight.

In the short term, then, we also need to make schools and classrooms more welcoming places for working-class families. We need teachers to recognize silent signs of struggle. And we need teachers to reach out and offer support, even when students don’t ask for it themselves.

Jessica McCrory Calarco is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Indiana University. She is the author of Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School. Follow her on Twitter  @JessicaCalarco. Arielle Kuperberg is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Follow her on twitter at @ATKuperberg