gender

From the proposal to the honeymoon, American weddings have remained relatively unchanged for the better part of the last century. Even unconventional brides and grooms tend to follow a traditional script in planning their weddings; this is especially observable in the ubiquitous white dress/black suit combo. Recently, this gendered pattern has been complicated by the legalization of same-sex marriage in several states. Without the obligatory gender scripts, which traditions will gay men and lesbian women follow and which will they break?

In a recently published article, Katrina Kimport (Gender & Society, August 2012) takes a close look at the marital attire chosen by gay and lesbian couples by studying photographs of same-sex weddings in San Francisco in 2004. She finds that among the formally-dressed male couples, all of them conformed to gender norms–they were all dressed in suits or tuxes–while none conformed to the wedding norm of one bride and one groom. In other words, no men were dressed as brides. On the other hand, among the female couples, seven out of ten conformed to the wedding norm of one bride (in a wedding dress or other feminine wedding attire) and one groom (wearing some type of suit or tuxedo). Of the remaining female couples, half followed gender norms (two brides) and half did not (two grooms).

What might these trends mean for the future of wedding traditions? Might gay and lesbian marriages radically alter traditional heterosexual wedding norms? Or might some of their wedding day choices work to reinforce the gendered tradition of one bride and one groom? Such questions are not easily answered, but one thing is clear: same-sex marriage sweeps both gender norms and wedding norms off their feet.

Uptalk—a rise in intonation at the end of a statement—is most commonly associated with “Valley Girls”, but is actually fairly common in all American speech. And, as Thomas Linneman argues (Gender & Society February 2013), it may also be a key way that gender is both learned and communicated in our interactions.

Analyzing the speech patterns of 300 “Jeopardy!” contestants, Linneman finds that uptalk is used in the delivery of a full third of all responses. While women use uptalk more often, men also answer with a questioning tone, and are more likely to do so when engaging with a woman contestant. By definition, uptalk occurs during statements, not questions. Although “Jeopardy!” contestants must phrase their answer as a question, Linneman argues that responses are “questions” in name only—they’re treated as statements on the show.

Uptalk is most common with incorrect answers, lending support to the idea that it is a sign of uncertainty. But even accounting for accuracy, gender differences remain. For example, as women’s success on the show increases, so too does their use of uptalk—perhaps, Linneman argues, to account for this “breach” in gender performance. On the other hand, men decrease their use of uptalk when they’re doing well, unless they are correcting a female contestant. Men seem to realize that their gender expectations demand competitiveness and certainty.

Interested readers should also check out a guest post on this research on the TSP Community Page Sociological Images.

Color-coded awareness ribbons abound these days. Even NFL football players wear pink gear during October to support breast cancer awareness. But, as Rachel Kahn Best reveals in the American Sociological Review (October 2012), this awareness has accomplished far more than selling ribbons and staging fundraising walks—it’s transformed how government funding for disease research is distributed in the United States.

Using data on federal medical research funding for 53 diseases between 1989 and 2007, Best shows that advocates for single diseases not only secured increased funding for their causes, but also changed how decisions are made to fund medical research. Because these efforts redefined the beneficiaries of medical research funding as patients rather than researchers, policymakers needed new metrics to make funding decisions.  A focus on “dollars per death” and “big killers” emerged, making mortality a primary measure for distributing research funding among diseases. This has provided a seemingly rational, fair, statistically-based—and appealing—way to make funding choices.

But the shift toward thinking of patients as the beneficiaries of medical research funding has also brought stigma and the relative “deservingness” of patients front and center. Some diseases, like muscular dystrophy, appear to have “innocent” victims, ill through no fault of their own. But because those with lung or liver cancer may suffer after making arguably poor choices, such as smoking or drinking, they (and their diseases) are seen as less deserving of research funds. Best’s analyses demonstrate that, indeed, such stigmatized diseases have generally received less research money in recent years.

Privileged moms like Victoria Beckham and Tori Spelling, with four cesareans each, have given rise to the idea that some women are “too posh to push,” scheduling their births instead.

Not so, say Louise Marie Roth and Megan Henley (Social Problems, May 2012), who examined data from 3.7 million U.S. births in 2006.  At first pass, higher levels of education appeared to be associated with greater odds of cesarean birth. But once race, age, pregnancy characteristics (pre-term birth, multiples, low birth weight, etc.), and complications of labor and delivery were taken into account, white women with greater privilege were shown to be the least likely to have surgical births. Other studies have shown that highly educated white women also choose home birth more than any other group.

Roth and Henley suggest class and race play a big role in the quality of medical care women receive. C-sections, which now make up one-third of all U.S. births, are associated with increased maternal deaths and other post-surgical complications. Minority women of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to have cesareans for less urgent reasons, suggesting that what looks like “posh” medical treatment on the surface might actually be a sign of low quality maternity care. Apparently, with privilege comes the ability to exercise more control in the delivery room and avoid, rather than choose, surgical delivery.

While the pains of eviction have been felt broadly across the U.S. in recent years, Matthew Desmond (American Journal of of Sociology, August 2012) shows that women in poor, predominantly African American neighborhoods have taken the hardest hit.

Analyzing Milwaukee County records from 2003 to 2007, Desmond found that, even before the recession, half of all evictions occurred in predominantly black, impoverished, inner-city neighborhoods. Women in these neighborhoods were disproportionately affected: they accounted for just 9.6% of Milwaukee’s total population, but 30% of all evictions.

Based on surveys and ethnographic research, Desmond argues that both structural factors (falling incomes relative to rising housing costs) and gendered responses in the face of impending eviction (for example, women may try to reach out to personal networks for help, but these personal networks may offer fewer resources) contribute to black women’s disproportionate eviction rates.

Even so, from the start, women in these neighborhoods face an unequal risk for eviction simply because they are more likely to sign rental agreements: criminal convictions increasingly bar African American men from the rental process. Eviction and conviction are, thus, intertwined forces that restrict housing options for African Americans.

School counselors take note: the effects of a breakup can be more detrimental to teens than we may think. In this recent Criminology piece, Matthew Larson and Gary Sweeten (August 2012) offer another angle on the effects of teenage broken hearts. Using National Longitudinal Study of Youth data, Larson and Sweeten find that a romantic breakup is directly related to a range of negative outcomes. Young men (aged 12-16) who experience a breakup show an increase in criminal offending and substance use, while young women go straight for the substances, particularly in the form of binge-drinking.

Digging a bit deeper, the authors believe the loss of love results in the loss of relationships, which may lead to negative behavior—ideas stemming from classical criminological strain and informal social control theories. The gender difference, speculate the authors, may derive from a tendency for young women to resort to coping strategies that are more likely to be damaging to themselves, not to others.

One final caveat? Larson and Sweeten find that the negative criminal effects of breakups can be alleviated by one thing: entering a new relationship. Oh, to be young and in (and out of and in again) love.

More and more couples are answering the question, “How did you meet?” with a single word: “online.”

Using a nationally representative survey, Michael J. Rosenfeld and Reuben J. Thomas show in the American Sociological Review (June 2012) that the odds are shrinking for U.S. singles to get fixed up by friends or meet that special someone at the water cooler. Instead, more and more adults are meeting over the Internet—especially middle-aged heterosexuals and all of those seeking a same-sex partner, two groups that traditionally face “thin” dating markets. In fact, in 2008 and 2009, more than 60% of same-sex couples met online, whether through dating websites, chatting, playing online games, or social networking sites, the authors find. And for all groups, relationships begun online were just as robust as those struck up face-to-face.

Simply having web access at home increases a person’s chance of being partnered, according to the study. To launch a relationship, the most important hookup might just be to the Internet.

This well-crafted and engaging new book looks at women involved in Direct Home Sales, selling things like Tupperware and Mary Kay cosmetics  at house parties among friends. The authors explore emotional fulfillment, work-life balance, and fun in a flexible work model and a billion-dollar industry. To learn more about other “feminist economies,” our own Cyborgology posted “Pinterest and Feminism” just yesterday!

Okay, it’s obvious but our recommendation for Valentine’s Day is Ann Swidler’s Talk of Love: How Culture Matters (2001). This SocImages post from a couple of years back provides a nice intro and an array of illustrative illustrations.