In recent decades, the modern experience of work and family has been increasingly combined with education, which  has been extended over a longer period of the life course, especially for women. Instead of education being the sole responsibility prior to entering adulthood, schooling is often only one of several roles occupied by individuals across diverse backgrounds, whether continuously or as returning students with greater demands of family and work.

But how do women manage to “do it all”? What are the most common patterns that women take to navigate their education, work and family roles over the life course? The complexities that may arise from combining, ordering, or delaying the competing domains of education, work, and family call for a closer examination of how these experiences actually unfold across women’s lives.

To answer these questions, we drew upon data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent and Adult Health, in which we examined the life experiences of women between the ages 18-43 (N=8101). Specifically, we used multiple measures of women’s current academic enrollment status, highest level of education completed, employment status, marital status, and number of children, and conducted a repeated measures latent class analysis. In this way, we were able to identify subgroups of women with distinctly different combinations (i.e. pathways) of education, work and family. Furthermore, we examined how these life pathways vary across women, and the extent to which they are impacted by factors such as race and socioeconomic background.

We identified seven distinct pathways and assigned descriptive names to each of them: Early Mothers with Limited Education (about 13% of our sample), Early Mothers with High School Interrupted (about 13%), Early Mothers with Continuing Education (about 19%), College then Work Focused (about 12%), College then Family Focused (about 9%), Graduate Degree Professionals (about 13%), and Independent with Continuing Education (about 20%).

We note several similarities and differences across these life pathways among women. For instance, we find that the Early Mothers with Continuing Education and Independents with Continuing Education are both likely to continue their college education into their thirties and forties, but they differ in their timing of marriage and having children. The Early Mothers with HS Interrupted and Early Mothers with Limited Education both consist of women likely to become mothers at an earlier age, but only those in the former group are likely to return to school as adults to complete their associate’s degree. Finally, the College then Work Focused, College then Family Focused, and Graduate Degree Professionals are all likely to focus first on completing their college education without interruptions, but they differ substantially in the timing of their work and family experiences.

In terms of sociodemographic differences, we found that socioeconomically disadvantaged women such as Early Mothers with Limited Education, who are likely to have parents with less than a college education or have experienced poverty early in life, are most likely to not be working full-time or at all by their thirties and forties. In contrast, some of the most socioeconomically advantaged women such as the Graduate Degree Professionals are likely to work the longest hours per week compared to other groups throughout their thirties and forties, even after having children. These findings confirm the idea that women’s ability to work may depend largely on their available resources and social environment. Such inequalities echo broader questions about how limited women’s experiences of work-family balance may actually be, and the extent to which U.S. policies and attitudes contribute to these unequal experiences.

Overall, this study provides a thorough illustration of the diversity of pathways that women experience, particularly highlighting important differences within broader categories of life course events such as early parenthood, and distinguishing between different types of higher education. By examining how family, work, and education are configured together, instead of viewing education as an antecedent or separate process from work and family, our study highlights the fluidity of education in many women’s lives, while challenging the notion that completing one’s education and transitioning from school to a full-time job are part of a discrete set of markers defining the transition to adulthood.

Bo-Hyeong Jane Lee is a research associate at the Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research at Duke University. Her research examines inequalities in family, religion, health, and pathways across the life course.

Anna Manzoni (@theitalianna) is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at North Carolina State University. Her research focuses on the life course, labor market, family, and social inequality.

On December 29 of last year, misogynistic social media influencer, Andrew Tate, was arrested in Romania on suspicion of rape and human trafficking. Later charged, and in ways that mirror former US President Trump’s present legal woes, the “controversy” was very 2020s. First, anyone who had had the displeasure of viewing Tate’s online content would not have been in the least bit surprised by the news. Indeed, the charges were a natural extension of his oft-stated views on women, their role in society, and heterosexual relations.

Before being banned from the platform, Tate had argued on Twitter that women “bear responsibility” as victims of sexual assault, later describing in violent detail what he would do to a woman were she to accuse him of cheating (he’s OK with male infidelity, by the way). On his decision to relocate from Britain to Romania, he cited what he – ill-advisedly, it turns out – saw as being the country’s more lenient approach to rape, saying that it was “probably 40% of the reason… I like the idea of just being able to do what I want.”
Perhaps most illustrative of his broader outlook, he once bemoaned the “decline of Western civilization” after seeing an airport billboard “encouraging girls to go on holiday as opposed to… being a loving mother and a loyal wife.”

So, as far as arrests go, Tate was “hiding in plain sight” and it had always seemed more a case of “when” rather than “if” to anyone paying attention. However, reporting of the incident – and to a lesser
extent of his banning from various social media platforms in the months leading up to it – also exposed to the wider public the astonishing extent of the influencer’s popularity among the heterosexual boys and men to whom his content is geared. As part of the broader online “manosphere” – a loose network of
antifeminist and reactionary YouTube and TikTok channels, and other social media accounts – Tate remains their Kardashian. Undented by recent events, he enjoys a profile that, were it not for his seemingly beyond-the-pale views, could only be described as mainstream. His videos have garnered countless millions of views, accompanied by all but uniformly supportive comment sections. His Twitter (or “X”) account, reinstated in late-2022 by Elon Musk, now has over 6 million followers. A recent YouGov poll found that approximately one quarter of British young men agree with his positions on women. These are just a few of the many metrics we could share.

What is going on here? How could someone like Tate, so blatantly offensive to some, resonate so powerfully with others? It’s particularly vexing given the numerous studies that show young people, including boys and men, moving decidedly towards more progressive outlooks. Scholarship up to this point –most notably the work of Debbie Ging at Dublin City University – has been very good at making sense of manosphere discourses and the logics of purveyors like Tate. To quote Ging, they represent a “preoccupation with male hegemony” elicited by misdirected anxieties over “men’s position in the social
hierarchy as a result of feminism.” The predominant explanation given for the spread of this phenomenon is a gendered form of zero-sum thinking: the idea that men, while still enjoying disproportionately better socioeconomic outcomes, experience the gains made by women over recent decades as losses.
Baked into this theory of “aggrieved entitlement” – however inadvertent – is an unhelpful dismissal of contemporary hetero-masculine anxieties as a sort of over-privileged “get over yourselves!” whining. While the theory has “bigger picture” validity, it leaves little scope for acknowledging the very real, and
to some extent distinct, contemporary pressures faced by heterosexual boys and young men, and how they increasingly feel ignored by, and disenfranchised from, mainstream society.

We argue that it’s time to shift to a more empathetic investigation of what’s driving boys and men into the arms of the manosphere. For one, we need to be more cognizant of the way in which a concept like “male privilege” renders invisible the wildly complicating dimensions of class and/or race. Indeed, try
telling a young working-class man from the British Midlands or American “flyover country,” with no girlfriend and dubious job prospects, that he’s the beneficiary of undue “privilege.” The realities of male privilege remain true in an overarching systemic sense, as well as in the countless minute ways men
experience the world differently from women. However, it is important to recognize the various socioeconomic factors that prevent many men from experiencing this privilege in any sort of life enhancing way.

As a cohort, heterosexual men in countries like Britain and America are also significantly more likely to be isolated and friendless, as well as involuntarily single and celibate. Along with the rest of youth, they are also entering adulthood in the context of an economy that is offering fewer secure and meaningful jobs. All of this is exacerbated by a set of enduring traditional expectations that measure a man’s worth precisely against these increasingly unattainable sexual and financial markers of success, while also
inhibiting boys” and men’s ability to talk about their failures. Of course, the gender scholarship we’re respectfully critiquing here has long highlighted the link between unattainable masculine ideals, on the one hand, and antisocial behaviors and negative mental well-being outcomes, on the other. However, this
can often veer into an implicit victim-blaming in which boys and men are their own worst enemies and need only shed their “toxic” attitudes to live healthier, more integrated lives. In the context of the abovementioned realities, it’s easier said than done, and somewhat puts the cart before the horse.

Indeed, heterosexual boys and men seem stuck between a mainstream conversation largely (and not unjustifiably) focused on their historical privilege and toxic practices, and manosphere figures like Tate who sell misogynistic delusions of grandeur while painting the world as hostile to their interests. However self-detrimental, it’s not surprising that some choose the latter. Responding to this, a nascent body of scholarship is treading a different path by investigating the vulnerabilities on which the manosphere
feeds, as a way of better understanding its disturbing end-product. To give some examples, a recent study of the notorious manosphere breeding ground, 4chan, coauthored by the first author here, found that many boys and men yet to exhibit reactionary views are drawn into these spaces more for a sense of community and because, alarmingly, they feel safer expressing vulnerabilities here than via conventional support channels. This is presently being followed up by the same team’s study of the similarly notorious Reddit platform, with data suggesting comparable patterns. In their groundbreaking 2023 study, Daly and Reed interviewed members of the “incel” (involuntary celibate) subculture – a subset of the
manosphere motivated by abject failure in the sexual marketplace – and found that they were being driven deeper into this misogynistic community by the misunderstanding and persecution they felt emanating from mainstream society.
Echoing this work, the second author here is presently undertaking a study investigating the ways in which men’s engagement with these subcultures can be considered a form of digital self-harm. Vulnerable men actively engage in toxic online environments that pull them deeper into self-loathing and isolation, and they find curious “solace” in forums where their peers continuously belittle and insult them.

More work needs to be done to understand the causes, contexts and narratives underpinning the manosphere’s appeal, and it needs to be empathetic as well as critical. If we continue to dismiss the anxieties of heterosexual boys and men as little more than entitled special pleading, we will be guilty of exacerbating the sense of disenfranchisement on which figures like Tate successfully prey.
No one wants this. Loneliness, the psychologist, Carl Jung, observed, “does not come from having no people about one, but from being unable to communicate the things that seem important to oneself.”

Marcus Maloney, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Coventry University. Follow them on Twitter @MarcusJMaloney

Kate Babin, Doctoral Candidate, Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Coventry University

Family is a basic social institution, and it is in flux. We will need to adjust to the new realities and understand the implications on U.S. society. As each new generation of adults replace the last, the concept of “family” is replaced by new ideas of what constitutes a family. While idealizations of family life may take us back to the mid-20th century historical norm of a husband, a wife, and two biological children, current changes take on more complex, diverse, and dynamic realities of actual family life in the United States. The social changes of the past 100 years have come in waves, creating new family systems. My book, My book, Families and Aging, examines how these social changes in family affect later adult years.

One interview in my book was with a woman in mid-life, concerned about later life consequences for her younger wife. Cathy married and had three children in the late 1970s. By the 1990s, she realized she had always been attracted to women. She had an amicable divorce and shared custody of her children with her ex-husband. Fast forward to the year 2000, she had found a life partner, a woman, and married in an open Episcopalian ceremony in which the congregation technically married the couple, rather than the priest officiating the marriage directly. Cathy’s children participated in the ceremony with responsive readings. Now, she and her wife are empty nesters, concerned about many of the same issues parents are concerned about: will their emerging adults find good jobs? Will she have enough money for retirement? Who will take care of them in old age? She was especially concerned for her wife who does not have a biological bond with Cathy’s children. While they care for her as a person, she does not envision her children taking care of her wife’s health and well-being in late life after Cathy is gone. My book examines how diverse families will experience aging into later life with complicated family situations. It draws upon theories showing that there are fewer norms of obligation in diverse families, which leaves more room for interpretation and negotiation.

Those who were born after the 1950s came of age after the sweeping reforms of civil rights, the women’s movement, and the sexual revolution. They witnessed delayed first marriage, and new widespread availability of birth control. They saw increases in cohabitation, stepfamilies, and a peak in the divorce rate in the early 1980s. More than 70 years later, in the 2000s, these trends continue. New social movements are taking place and further changing our notions of family, gender, and race. Some of these include the 2015 legalization of same-sex marriage and the trans rights movement, both offering a more expansive understanding of sex and gender. The concept of cohort replacement (the process of each new successive cohort of young adults come of age during their particular time in history, and ultimately replace the older generations) is important. As older adults who were born before the middle of the 20^th century grow older, the new generations come of age with their more diverse versions of family, gender identity, and sexuality.

Societal Changes in Families

Many older Americans were used to families including a married couple with two to three children on average. Within these families there were adult children, spouses, and more siblings with whom people grew old. While divorce, sexual and gender minority partnerships, and single parenthood existed, they were less common, less public, and not broadly accepted.

Current family circumstances such as divorce, remarriage, and stepfamilies have been common for some time. Remaining single, cohabitation, single parenthood, delayed age of first birth and delayed marriage, and remaining childless are all growing trends. Remaining single is one of the fastest growing trends that is on the increase with currently about 31% of the adult population being single, with large differences by race and sexual identity. For instance, 28% of White, 29% of Hispanic and 47% of Black individuals are single. Furthermore, the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community has more single people than those who identify as straight (47% versus 29%). In 2018, about 18% of those older than age 55 remained childless, with an expected large increase in the future. All these trends show increasing individualism, fewer long marriages, fewer children, and more time alone. The ramifications are starting to show among older adults living alone. In the case of Cathy and her wife, a main concern is that her wife, who is younger than Cathy, will not have much support in later life if Cathy dies first. While there are changing social norms and understanding for same-sex couples, the reality of being single and alone with little support remains.

Implications for Family Changes on Older Adults

One major concern with the growing trends of families is that with freedom and independence comes more isolation–especially for older adults. In particular, with the growing trend of singlehood, never married individuals, women having fewer children on average, and single-parent families, the support systems that families traditionally offer will no longer be available for older adults. In addition, as those who remain single and/or do not have children enter old age, there will be fewer family members to watch over those older adults living alone. In these smaller families, the psychological and physical needs of older adults may not be met. Loneliness and social isolation in old age are a growing concern, so much so that the Surgeon General recently called it an epidemic. We as a society should consider how we will adapt to more people living alone, with an emphasis on health and safety of older individuals. There is a loosening of norms and obligations that were present in traditional kinship structures. As the deinstitutionalization of marriage continues, and cyclical marriage and cohabitation increases, family linkages, norms, and obligations must be negotiated in modern families.

Patricia Drentea is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.  She received her Ph.D. in Sociology from The Ohio State University. Her 2019 book, Families & Aging includes topics such as family diversity, later life parenthood, health in old age, work and activities in later life, and changes in family and social trends. You can follow them on Twitter @PDrentea

Why did she wait so long to come forward? She should have known better. Why would she even trust him? She was asking for it.

Phrases like these boil down to victim-blaming, or the insistence on placing the responsibility for systemic societal issues on the individuals who are affected. These phrases become a way people understand sexual violence and interact with victim-survivors within a broader rape culture. Importantly, they can worsen the mental health effects for victim-survivors and keep women from coming forward to disclose their experience. Victim-blaming online is common, but much of the research examines the discourses of posts or the impersonal aspects, where strangers over the internet share their views. But what happens when young women read these phrases from family on social media?

In my recent article, I interviewed 33 young women college students about their negative online experiences. Rather than share stories of anonymous trolls targeting women with overt sexism, the young women I talked to more often described family being a primary source of mistreatment. In fact, I heard one example repeatedly: family members’ negative comments about women and women’s issues are frequent and incredibly frustrating. High-profile events surrounding sexual violence, especially in the wake of #MeToo, means young women are seeing lots of content and commentary from strangers, but also friends and family. Respondents shared how family members repost memes and other content that minimize the depth and scope of women’s mistreatment. Notably, they recalled seeing family members, including those they thought were generally more progressive, blame victim-survivors, make fun of children who were kidnapped and assaulted, and claim women who came forward about their assault were lying or simply looking for attention.

Social media has broadened our access to our family’s mundane life events but also their politics, and some family members can feel very comfortable extending their commentary and opinions onto their relatives’ social media posts. Many young women shared stories of family members directly commenting on their posts about feminist issues, such as the pink tax, domestic violence, and sexual violence to attempt to delegitimatize the post as “fake news” or otherwise misinformation. Some family members escalated the situation further, calling and texting young women to address their “political” post or demand the woman delete their post altogether.

While blocking someone seems like a straightforward strategy to avoid this type of interaction, the fact that this involves family complicates the situation. While women of color were most likely to call-out family members for harmful views, many respondents feared defending their posts too aggressively, and were hesitant to block family, since they would have to confront these very people when they went home. The strategy they chose as most useful was silence.

Silence here involves posting less often about social issues women cared about, which has larger democratic costs. But silence also extends to not disclosing their experiences of sexual violence. Victim-blaming and aggressive backlash to their own posts about sexual violence meant young women identified who they could not trust to believe or support them. Twenty-six women in the study had experienced sexual harassment on a selfie, but shared they did not share this with family because it was their fault for posting the picture. Ten women in the study had been raped by men they met online, including four women who were targeted from as young as the age of ten. Seeing their family victim-blame was part of what motivated these respondents to keep their sexual victimization to themselves. This was even true for women who were never assaulted, but nevertheless felt as though their family’s negative reactions to others’ disclosure was enough evidence that they would not have a support system in place.

When the primary advice for navigating harmful interactions online is “don’t feed the trolls,” silence in the forms of not responding to antagonizers or no longer posting at all become not only practical strategies to avoid further abuse, but also strategies that are institutionally encouraged. As my research points out, though, this silence can also extend to not disclosing sexual violence, which has real costs for women college students across race and sexual orientation. Women in college are at an extreme risk for sexual violence; disclosure after victimization can be the first step to recovery as well as seeking recourse. Yet young women’s disclosure is made significantly more difficult when their social media is saturated with victim-blaming narratives from news media, strangers, and family, and when their universities’ continue to have control over the pathway following survivors’ reports of sexual violence. As collective efforts continue to draw awareness to sexual violence, combat rape myths, and demand accountability online, we should be aware of the ways close family members contribute to repression.

Stephanie M. Ortiz (@SmoSaidSo) is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at UMass Lowell specializing in everyday racism and sexism.

In a world that is progressively embracing diverse expressions of gender and sexuality, questions surrounding identity and relationships are becoming more intricate. Consider the following: If a man is dating a woman, what is the man’s sexuality? This question may trigger various assumptions in your mind. But let’s dive deeper into the dynamic interplay of identity, relationships, and societal norms, and challenge our conventional understanding.

The Spectrum of Identity

At first glance, it may seem obvious to assume that a man dating a woman is straight. However, as our understanding of gender and sexuality evolves, it’s essential to recognize that an individual’s sexuality cannot be neatly categorized based solely on their partner’s gender. Progressive views acknowledge that a man dating a woman could identify as bisexual, pansexual, or queer (bi+), encompassing a broader spectrum of attraction and orientation. This perspective challenges the traditional binary notions of straight and gay, and encourages us to appreciate the complexity of human identity.

Marriage and Identity

But what happens when we shift the context to marriage? Does the act of marrying someone influence how we perceive their sexuality? Despite society’s increasing acceptance of diverse relationships, marriage is often associated with a certain permanence that can overshadow an individual’s true identity. If a bisexual man marries a woman, does that automatically make him straight? Can a pansexual woman’s marriage to another woman define her as a lesbian? The answer, unequivocally, is no.

The Fallacy of Assumptions

As social beings, we tend to rely on assumptions that have been ingrained in our interactions and cultural norms. These assumptions are guided by a binary way of thinking about gender and sexuality, reinforced by a concept known as heteronormativity, which privileges and normalizes heterosexuality. This dichotomy fails to accommodate the expanding definitions of gender and sexuality, complicating our understanding of identity within the institution of marriage.

Navigating Bisexual Erasure

Coauthored with Meagan Pendleton, our recent publication “Doing Sexuality: How Married Bisexual, Queer, and Pansexual People Navigate Passing and Erasure,” delves into the experiences of bi+ individuals within marriages. By analyzing in-depth interviews with 23 bi+ married individuals, our study sheds light on the challenges faced by those who openly identify as bi+. The commitment of marriage sometimes reinforces binary perceptions of sexuality, leading to the erasure of bi+ identities. Morgan, a bisexual woman married to a man, explained:

I’ve gotten a lot of really awful questions that are like “Oh, so you’re married to Emanuel, so does that mean you’re straight?” I’ve gotten that so many times… I think that with the misconceptions about bi people not being able to make up their mind and all that, I think that when one of us ‘makes up our mind’ [laughs], or it seems like we’re making up our mind by getting married, right? I think the misconception that we’re now straight or we’re now gay depending on who you’re married to, it definitely is a little bit stronger because of marriage and commitment.

This erasure, perpetuated by misconceptions, marginalizes bi+ individuals and has detrimental effects on their mental well-being.

Marriage as a Privilege and a Challenge

Interestingly, our study also uncovers another facet of this complex narrative: the privilege of passing as straight. Many bi+ individuals in man/woman marriages shared how this arrangement grants them the choice of when to disclose their identity. Some saw this as a privilege, while others used it as a defense mechanism to protect themselves and their families from potential stigmatization. Nathan, a bisexual man married to a woman, explained:

I will tell you I am more out at work than I am where I live. Not because I personally have issues with it, but I have two high school aged boys that still have to get through a football locker room, and kids can be mean. So, I’m a little bit more protective of my orientation as it were … at least until such time as my boys graduate from high school, and then it’s all ok. Then at that point, it’s like, then I don’t care. But I’m being sensitive to how they might be treated by their friends if their friends knew. So, like I said, I’m more out here.

This dual experience of privilege and concealment highlights the intricate ways in which societal expectations and personal choices intertwine.

Challenging Perceptions and Doing Sexuality

Our study’s findings lead us to ponder the nature of sexuality as an achieved status, influenced by societal interactions and institutions like marriage. Just as West and Zimmerman’s concept of “doing gender” suggests, sexuality is intricately woven into how others perceive us, regardless of how we identify ourselves. To truly challenge the normative boundaries of marriage and the binary understanding of sexuality, bi+ individuals need visibility. This calls for outward expressions of queerness within marriages, thereby increasing awareness and understanding of diverse relationships.

Conclusion

As we strive for a more inclusive society, we must recognize the complexity of human identity and the challenges faced by bi+ individuals within the context of marriage. The intertwining of societal expectations, personal choices, and fluid identity necessitates a shift in how we perceive and interact with each other. By embracing the diverse tapestry of human experience, we move towards a future where the full spectrum of gender and sexuality can be celebrated, understood, and respected.

Daniel J. Bartholomay (he/him) (@Dr_Bartholomay) is an assistant professor of sociology and co-coordinator of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi. His research examines inequalities, health disparities, and family dynamics within the LGBT+ community. He has a book under contract with Rowman & Littlefield titled The Future of Marriage: The Changing Landscape of Gender, Sexuality, and Family. You can learn more about Daniel’s work here.

Unpacking the Romantic Histories of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults

Relationships of all types take work, but what we learned from interviews with lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) folks was how to create relationships that allow you to bring your whole self – and shedding the expectations and limits of others along the way.

Our study, Resilience through relationship experiences: A qualitative exploration of lesbian, gay, and bisexual romantic development arose from our curiosity about how lesbian, gay and bisexual people build relationships characterized by strengths in communication, intimacy, connection, and stability in spite of the negative health outcomes and discrimination they experience. We wanted to know: What happens in between those two realities? How, even when the cards stacked against you, do you find and keep meaningful, positive relationships? What do those “successful” relationships look like for LGB folks?

A Note About the Science

To answer these questions, we analyzed relationship history interviews from 10 LGB young adults. Ten may seem like small number, but our in-depth interviews provided nearly 17 hours of contact with participants. Researchers can gain a surprising amount of insight from a small number of people if we have rich data about their experiences. In this study, interviewees detailed every sexual and relationship experiences they could recall throughout their lives. This gave us enough information to analyze how romantic development might unfold for LGB folks.

In this type of research, we do not suggest that our findings generalize to the whole population, or even to all lesbian, gay, or bisexual people. However, when we find common threads across people’s lived experiences, we venture to say that what we see in the data may be meaningful. In this case, we found three themes that helped us understand romantic development for LGB people.

Concealment

We found that some LGB folks hid their early relationships from family and friends, and they did so primarily in two ways. We called the first type “concealment through silence,” which described how LGB participants avoided conversations about their same-gender partners or sexual identities. Specifically, folks paid close attention to negative messages about homosexuality that came through their religious and cultural communities. Remaining “silent” was a response to the feeling that it was risky to be openly LGB.

We defined the second type of concealment as “overemphasizing heteronormativity.” Participants hid their sexual identities and relationships by dating different-gender partners and “acting” straight to throw others off the idea that they were LGB. One participant described acting “boy crazy” as a teen when she started to suspect that she was attracted to women.

Concealment was not universal. A few folks didn’t have to hide their early relationships or identities at all. Those who had families and communities which were accepting and open-minded were able to grow up more openly in their sexual identities.

Conformity

Another strategy that LGB participants used to navigate early relationships was to try and blend in. The two ways we saw folks conforming in their relationships was through heteronormative conformity and homonormative conformity. Heteronormative conformity happened when participants followed the scripts and expectations that are common in heterosexual relationships. For example, in addition to seeking different-gender partnerships (which ultimately felt disappointing or incomplete for lesbian and gay folks), some participants felt pressure to legitimize their same-gender relationships by having big, traditional weddings.

Homonormative conformity usually happened in LGB folks’ early same-gender partnerships, as participants tried to figure out and follow expectations in the queer community. Some participants described falling into LGB stereotypes or going through the motions of a relationship according to what they thought same-gender relationships should be like. Bisexual participants recalled feeling pressure to conform to a “monosexual” identity (lesbian, gay, or straight) in order to fit in with either queer or heterosexual standards. Regardless of the kind of conformity, it typically did not lead to the most satisfying relationship experiences.

Authenticity

Even though most of our participants had experiences with concealment and/or conformity, nearly all of them managed to build relationships which were “authentic” meaning they were grounded in participants’ needs, boundaries, and hopes for the future. The people in our study were able to shed both hetero- and homonormative expectations of what relationships should look like to evoke queer resistance, confidence, and joy. For some participants, finding authentic relationships involved some growing pains: ending limited or constrained earlier relationships, engaging in self-reflection, and shifting priorities. Authentic relationships were a process, not an end goal, and were rooted in folks’ ability to self-define and direct their own relationships.

Conclusion

Being authentic in your relationships means directing the development of the relationship in line with your goals. Regardless of a person’s identities, authenticity seems worth pursuing, even if there are challenges along the way.

Mari Tarantino (she/her) is currently a Ph.D. student at Virginia Tech studying Human Development and Family Science. Her research focuses on sexually and romantically marginalized individuals in partnerships and family contexts. Prior to starting her graduate career, Mari earned her BS in Human Development and Family Studies at the University of New Hampshire and minored in Queer Studies and Interdisciplinary Health Education. Her most recent work titled, “Queering LGB+ Women’s Sexual Scripts,” addresses how heteronormativity influences LGB+ women’s sexual partnerships and STI-pregnancy prevention efforts.

Twitter: @mari_tarantino

Tyler Jamison (she/her) is an associate professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of New Hampshire. Her research focuses on romantic relationship development and dissolution during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Her most recent work explores singlehood in the context of romantic life and narratives of love in long-term relationships. She writes about love and relationships for Psychology Today on her blog page Assembly Required.

Twitter: @drtylerjamison

1.) What causes women to acquiesce in the workplace?

Of the six gender bias barriers Dr. Leanne Dzubinski and I discuss in Glass Walls, acquiescence is the last. It may be a consequence of all the other barriers—male privilege, disproportionate constraints, insufficient support, devaluation, and hostility—that women experience at work. Instead of fighting a system that is setup for them to fail, women acquiesce. And it is a very rationale choice. No individual woman can win when fighting patriarchal work environments alone.  Acquiescence consists of work-life conflict, self-blame, self-silencing and self-limited aspirations. Each of these is often framed as individual women’s choices, such when a woman must figure out how to maintain her career with a new baby or when a woman chooses not to try for that big promotion. This framing leads to pressure on the woman to accept these inequities as justified and to find her own way to manage them. But they are actually derived from workplaces that are setup to retain male control and power. The cause is not a failing of an individual woman, it is the male-normed system.

2.) What are the top strategies for men to fight against gender bias?

The place for men to start is to learn about gender bias. Learn how to identify it. Then avoid behaviors that marginalize women. The next strategy is to call it out when you see it within your own workplace. For example, if you are in a meeting, and your female colleague is being “hepeated” (when a man repeats a woman’s idea and he gets the credit), redirect the conversation back to her and note that it was her idea: “Melanie just said that. Let’s hear more about what she thinks.” Keep in mind that women are often not in the room when bias or discrimination happens. If you are part of a hiring or promotional conversation, be sure to call out if women are being overlooked or held to different standards than male candidates. Like if a woman is considered “too young” for a certain position, ask if a man of the same age would be considered too young and redirect the conversation to the candidates’ skills. In Glass Walls, we offer lots more strategies for men to fight gender bias, whether those men are leaders or colleagues.

3.) What can women do to shatter the glass walls of their workplace?

Women should know that they are not responsible for fixing a male-normed system all on their own. As mentioned, it’s not a fight individual women can win. We all—leaders, allies, men, and women— have a role to play in shattering the glass walls of gender bias. And we all must work together to advance gender equity and inclusion. That said, there are some steps women can take to improve their own situation. First, women should depersonalize any bias they experience. This can be hard because bias often feels personal. But it is not. It is happening to so many of us women. Second, women should focus on building a support network of individuals inside and outside their organization.  This quote from one of my dissertation participants is so true: “It is really important that you have a group of people that you can talk to, get advice from, believe in, understand, and who understand you.”  Third, be persistent. Recognize that there will be roadblocks. Not everything comes easily. Changes may be small and seem slow but that is often how progress is made. Perhaps you had a conversation with a male colleague who regularly talks over you, and you helped him understand how his behavior keeps you from doing your job. If your colleague was receptive to your feedback, consider that a win. Last, have alternatives. Some workplaces are just plain toxic, and the only good solution is to leave your role. Think about your options, like a new role in a different department, a job in a new organization, or even working for yourself. There are lots of jobs, lots of opportunities. Make positive change where you can in your present workplace, but don’t let one person or workplace block your personal fulfillment and advancement.

Amy Diehl is the Chief Information Officer at Wilson College, a Gender Equity Researcher, and author of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work https://amy-diehl.com Follow Amy on Twitter @amydiehl

When the parents of young children picture their elementary school experience, they likely recall their parent dropping them off inside their classroom, maybe even parents joining students for lunch or volunteering on the playground. As children, parents were unlikely to experience the kinds of security typical in elementary schools today. Stringent visitor policies, cameras, and locked doors are increasingly typical in elementary schools, as schools react to concerns about school shootings or other threats to students. One particularly striking difference is in the placement of law enforcement in school, most commonly called school resource officers or SROs. In 1997, only 3% of elementary schools had an SRO but over a third of elementary schools had an SRO by 2016. Some reports indicate SROs could be even more popular after the shooting at Robb Elementary School in 2022.

Having not experienced having an SRO in elementary school and potentially never attending a school with an SRO, parents are likely confused about what SROs are doing in their children’s elementary schools. After all, young children are unlikely to engage in the kinds of behavior that SROs manage in high schools (e.g., drug use) and some behaviors that are unlawful for adolescents are considered more age-appropriate behavior to be managed by teachers in elementary (e.g., physical fights). Even if parents assume SROs are in school to prevent school shootings, these incidents are much less common in elementary schools.

We set out to answer this question about the activities and impacts of SROs in elementary schools in a research project with two school districts that placed SROs in all elementary schools after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. In some ways, our answer to this question was simple, yet surprising: SROs are doing everything and touching seemingly all aspects of the school (published version here, accepted version here).

Keep in mind, SROs are highly trained and well-compensated members of law enforcement. While they might technically be there to focus on security, there are few security threats to address and almost no law enforcement activities to be done in elementary schools. So, SROs have time and want to be helpful. Teachers and school staff are infamously pressed for time, constantly feeling like they cannot get everything done that they need to. Most principals and assistant principals we spoke with are thrilled that the SRO has time to help.

We observed SROs taking on many activities that were seemingly innocuous like delivering messages to classrooms from the office, helping children out of cars during drop off in the morning, or reminding students to walk in the hallway. However, we also found some concerning trends in surveys we distributed to students, parents, teachers, assistant principals, principals, and SROs. First, SROs were more enthusiastic about their positive effect on students than the students themselves. SROs all reported that they made students feel much safer at school while students were more neutral on this question, and SROs were more likely than students to see themselves as students’ mentors and confidants. Second, SROs downplayed their involvement in student discipline – responding that they did not handle student behavior or disciplinary incidents. But teachers reported that they did observe SROs taking part in student discipline.

Why do we care if SROs are really involved in elementary schools while overstating their positive influence and downplaying their role in student discipline? First, high quality research that identifies the impact of SROs in secondary schools has found they increase exclusionary punishments like suspension, particularly for students who identify racially as Black. Suspensions can have tremendously negative implications for youth academically and behaviorally including lower grades and higher likelihood of incarceration. The idea that SROs can have particularly negative effects on students of color should alarm any parent committed to racial equity and having a welcoming school environment for all students.

Second, SROs are typically placed in schools to prevent shootings, but we have no evidence that SROs successfully do so. In fact, research suggests that SROs do not lower the risk of gun violence, at best, and potentially exacerbate the risk of school shootings. SROs all carry firearms, potentially leading any potential shooter to target schools with SROs (e.g., if the shooter is suicidal, which most school shooters are) or come more heavily armed, a phenomenon known as the weapons effect. Even discounting the negative evidence on SROs, they are very expensive. If schools really just need an extra set of hands, then it is more cost effective to hire another staff member to help with those tasks the SRO is picking up in their (ample) free time.

So, what are members of law enforcement doing when they are stationed at elementary schools? Potentially, a great deal, with some principals and assistant principals we talked to going as far as saying the SROs are like a “third administrator” in their school. While principals likely appreciate that SROs are helping out in a time-strapped environment, we have little reason to believe students are benefitting from this arrangement, and students of color (particularly Black students) especially stand to be disadvantaged by an SRO being at their school. Our research encourages parents and community members to be skeptical whenever an SRO or principal advocates for the continued presence of SROs in elementary schools.

Samantha Viano is an Assistant Professor of Education at George Mason University. Her research critically examines endemic challenges in PreK-12 schools and the policies schools adopt in response including research on school safety and security, teacher mobility, and online credit recovery. You can learn more about her research at her website www.samanthaviano.com and follow her on Twitter @DrSamViano or Bluesky @drsamviano.bsky.social

As a young child in the early 1990s, my family had all the markers of a middle-class lifestyle.  Even though neither of my parents had a bachelor’s degree, my father had a good job as an operator at the local power plant, we lived in the suburbs in a new development, and my mother stayed home with my sister and me.  However, that all changed when I was eight years old and my parents divorced.  As in most cases, my mother took primary custody and moved us back to her hometown in rural North Carolina.  Even with help from family members and checks from my father, we struggled.  After nearly a decade out of the labor force and technologically illiterate, good jobs were hard to come by for my mom.  Using Pell grants, she went back to school, excelling in community college while cleaning houses part-time. However, when the time came to transfer to a regional university, an hour away, the commute and technological divide became too much, and she dropped out after only a few weeks. 

My family’s experiences with single motherhood are far from unique.  It has been well documented that living in a single mother household substantially increases the likelihood of being poor.  In the United States, 46.7% of children in single mother households were poor in 2019.  Yet, this is not just an American issue.  In practically all Western democracies, children in single mother households are more likely to be poor than children living with two parents.  At the same time, this risk of poverty has changed over time and varies across countries.  In particular, I wondered what more could have been done to help women like my mother and children like me. 

This is exactly the question investigated in my recent article.  Certainly, I am not the first to consider why single mother families are so prone to poverty and what can be done to address it.  However, previous research has typically focused on only one, or maybe two, possible explanations.  These include family characteristics, such as whether single motherhood is caused by divorce, death, or never getting married, and work characteristics, including whether single mothers are working and whether she is working part- or full-time.  When it comes to macro-level factors, economic conditions have been of interest, building on the classic expectation that a rising tide lifts all boats, as well as social policy generosity, looking at the provision of maternity leave or government provided childcare.  In my research, I bring together and test all four.   

In my analyses, I do not find much support for the economic arguments; a stronger economy is not necessarily the best way to address poverty for children of single mothers.  When it comes to family characteristics, relative to having a mother who has never been married, having a divorced mother means a slightly smaller chance of poverty, while having a widowed mother means the lowest chance of poverty among the three groups. But if the goal is to find solutions, these findings do not provide much help.  Certainly, a policy that recommends your husband dying in lieu of divorce is not advisable or ethical, nor is one that encourages marrying to divorce instead of remaining unmarried. 

Work characteristics affect poverty in ways most would expect: working full-time and having a high level of education is best.  Unfortunately, this is not a practical expectation for single mothers, particularly in the United States.  As illustrated by my own anecdotal experience and as demonstrated by previous research, going back to school and/or working full-time is not possible for many single mothers.  Childcare is expensive, higher education is demanding, and the persistence of the motherhood penalty, in which mothers experience labor market discrimination, means the types of jobs available to single mothers may still not be enough to lift them out of poverty.

Policy solutions, however, are tangible and effective.  The most impactful policy solution I find is family allowances.  The more a country spends on family allowances, the bigger the effect on child poverty.  This proves true not just for children in single mother households but also for children living with two parents. If a country increases its spending one standard deviation, the chances of poverty for the typical child in a poor single mother household go down 10 percentage points.  Rather than a 50/50 chance of poverty, she would have a 40% chance.  As mentioned, children in two parent families would also benefit from this spending, but children of single mothers benefit more.   While not completely eliminating the single mother penalty, spending on child allowances can substantially reduce it, bringing the poverty gap to around 6 percentage points at the highest levels of spending.

This evidence gives substantial support for the potential of government spending on family allowances to address the high levels of poverty among children of single mothers.  Similarly, this spending would benefit not just children in single mother households, but in two parent households as well.  However, particularly in the United States, cash benefits, especially for the poor and able-bodied has not been popular.  Therefore, implementation of such policies may encounter resistance.  Yet, it is my hope that given this evidence and the fact that family allowances have the potential to benefit many children, those in positions of influence can push to improve the lives of children and families.   

Amie Bostic is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.  Her research focuses on social policy, poverty, and public opinion.  You can find her other recent publications here, here, and here.  She is on Twitter @amie_bostic.

Amidst the backdrop of the pandemic, a profound realization swept over young kids like a gentle breeze—a newfound appreciation for the invaluable presence of an older sibling. They witnessed firsthand the blessings bestowed upon them by having a constant companion, a guiding mentor, and a steadfast pillar of support. Indeed, older siblings donned a myriad of roles in their younger counterparts’ lives—playmate, confidant, friend, and even a guardian angel when times grew tough. The realm of research has delved deep into the captivating realm of sibling dynamics, particularly exploring the phenomenon known as sibling spillover effects on educational attainment. Within this vibrant tapestry of literature, a resounding chorus emerges, heralding the remarkable influence that older siblings wield in shaping the educational journey and holistic development of their younger counterparts.

In our new study, we explore the sibling spillover effects within elementary and middle school levels, as well as the disparities between socially disadvantaged and advantaged families. To conduct this analysis, we utilize administrative data encompassing all children born between 1988 and 2004, who were enrolled in public schools in North Carolina. Our focus lies in comparing younger siblings who share similar individual and family characteristics related to academic performance, with the exception of divergent academic achievements observed in their older siblings.

Here’s what we discovered: older siblings who are born just after the school-entry cutoff date tend to be the oldest students in their classes. This means they have a little extra time before starting school, giving them an advantage in terms of their development and learning. As a result, these older siblings often perform better academically.

But here’s something fascinating: When older siblings do well in school, it actually helps their younger siblings do better too, especially when they reach middle school. And this effect is even stronger in families that face challenges. For example, we found that this positive impact is greater in non-Hispanic Black families compared to non-Hispanic White families. It’s also more pronounced in single-mother families compared to families with both parents, and for students attending schools with higher levels of poverty compared to those in schools with lower poverty levels. There are a few reasons why this happens.

First, older siblings can be role models for their younger siblings. They can inspire them to work hard and take their education seriously. When younger siblings see their older siblings doing well in school, it motivates them to do the same.

Second, positive attitudes towards education can be contagious within a family. When older siblings have a positive mindset and show enthusiasm for learning, it can rub off on their younger siblings. This creates an environment where everyone values education and strives to do their best.

Lastly, parents often make investment decisions that promote equality among their children. They want all their children to have an equal chance at success. So, when they see that an older sibling is excelling academically, they may provide extra support and resources to help the younger siblings achieve similar success.

Now let’s talk about the magnitudes of these effects we found. We found that around 23% of the test score gains of older siblings born shortly after the school-entry cutoff date actually spilled over to benefit the academic performance of their younger siblings during middle school. What’s truly remarkable is that the impact of sibling spillover we observed is comparable to about 6% of the performance gap between Black and White students in the United States. When looking at the various factors that contribute to the connection between test scores among siblings, such as genetics and shared family background, our findings suggest that sibling spillover effects account for approximately one-third of these connections.

Sixth grade marks the crucial transition between elementary to middle school, and guess what? It’s during this time that the sibling spillover effects really kick into high gear! Think about it: as students move into middle school, everything changes. New classmates, new teachers, and a whole new atmosphere. And guess who’s right there by their side, making a significant impact? Their older siblings! This transition period turns out to be a goldmine for sibling influence. The effects of older siblings on their younger counterparts’ academic performance reach their peak during this time. It’s like a power surge of support and inspiration flowing from the older sibling to their younger sibling, propelling them forward.

What all these findings mean? The positive effects of older siblings on their younger counterparts during middle school can have long-term implications for their future success. Disadvantaged families, who often face economic hardships, may experience negative effects that spill over from older to younger siblings. To address this, it is crucial to provide robust support systems for disadvantaged families in the United States, ensuring they have access to necessary resources.

However, there is also a silver lining. When parents and society invest in the educational attainment of the older sibling, it can have a positive ripple effect on the academic performance of the younger sibling. This means that efforts to support and enhance the education of older siblings can indirectly benefit their younger siblings, especially in Black families, single-parent households, and low-income families. By recognizing and investing in these opportunities, we can promote educational equity and empower families to break the cycle of disadvantage.

Emma Zang, Ph.D., is assistant professor of sociology, biostatistics, and global affairs at Yale University. Her research interests lie at the intersection of health and aging, family demography, and inequality. She is also interested in developing and evaluating statistical methods to model trajectories and life transitions. Her research has been covered by major media outlets in the United States, China, South Korea, India, and Singapore, such as CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, Harvard Business Review, ThePaper.cn (China), and the Straits Times (Singapore). Twitter: @DrEmmaZang.