gender

Parents must decide how much “screen time” is okay for their kids and how they are going to control technology use for their families. In new research, Stefanie Mollborn and colleagues examined how higher socioeconomic status (SES) families control their children’s technology use. They were surprised to find that families with higher socioeconomic status don’t set hard limits on technology use. Instead, parents and youth collaborated on setting boundaries around technology. 

Millborn and her team conducted 77 interviews with higher SES families. One of their most basic findings is that parents believe there are good and bad ways of using technology. “Good” uses of technology included reading, information gathering, producing content, developing computer skills, and family time like watching tv or a movie together. “Bad” uses of technology included watching TV content individually and playing non-educational video games. parents believe there are good and bad ways of using technology

Although parents identified “good” and “bad” uses of technology, they didn’t want to set hard limits on technology. The reason? Because they felt this would not help their children learn how to communicate with adults, a skill that they thought would benefit their children when they speak with adults in power outside of the home. 

Instead of setting limits on “bad” technology use, these parents sought to work collaboratively with their children. For instance, when April saw her daughter texting while doing her homework, she didn’t tell her not to do but but instead said: “Use it [technology] when it’s helpful. Have fun with it … but don’t let it consume you.”She then asked her daughter,“How does it feel to be sitting there doing your homework and you ‘get the ding’? Is that distracting? Would you like me to help you with a boundary?”Instead of setting limits on “bad” technology use, parents sought to work collaboratively with their children

This study highlights that parents with high socioeconomic status want to communicate about technology with their children, rather than setting hard limits. While parents tried to work collaboratively to set media limits with their children it produced conflict when youth pushed for technology use. Many high-income parents talked about just having to give in to their children at times because of the emotional effort involved in saying “no” so many times.

Across the United States, campaigns have pushed for higher minimum wages. Many are motivated by the economic benefits of these changes. New research suggests that increasing the minimum wage can also have substantial effects on non-economic domains of life such as marriage rates, family formation, and relationships.

Benjamin Karney and colleagues examined recent data on marriage and divorce rates in cities that had a minimum wage increase of $1 an hour. Their research revealed that small increases in the minimum wage have a significant effect on relationship patterns. Karney and his coauthors uncovered surprising, and somewhat contradictory, patterns.

In cities that raised the minimum wage, for example, there was actually a 5% decrease in marriage rates for men and 4.5% for women. On the other hand, researchers found that divorce rates fell by 10% for men and 7% for women after a year in these same cities. In cities that raised the minimum wage there was a decrease in marriage rates…divorce rates fell…in these same cities

The authors suggest that these decreasing marriage rates may result from higher minimum wages. When young people are more financially independent they can prolong their search for a better partner. Since marrying later usually results in longer-lasting unions, this change may spell stability for future families. 

Conversely, the researchers speculated that lower divorce rates are also due to worker’s lessened financial stress. By relieving economic concerns, the chances of divorce for couples are lessened.

Increasing minimum wages have many economic benefits. This research show that they also have significant effects on non-economic concerns such as relationships and families. These impacts may differ from our long-held assumptions about relationships. These non-economic changes are important to consider as communities work to raise wages. 

Young men in gangs are often thought to always practice masculinity by engaging in violent behavior like fighting and shooting, which many attribute to systemic inequalities like mass incarceration, scarce jobs, and racism. New qualitative research by John Leverso and Chris Hess shows that as male gang members age, they remain committed to masculinity but they relate to their manhood differently. 

Leverso and Hess asked about important life events that changed the way respondents understood what being a good man is in 29 in-depth interviews with current and former gang members in Chicago. These interviews showed how masculinity endures and evolves into new phases of adulthood, particularly fatherhood. the ways gang members accomplish masculinity changed drastically as they became fathers, caregivers, and husbands.

From the perspective of these current and former gang members, the ideal man is “hardworking, no punk, tough, and loyal.” Their concept of the ideal man reflects a tough, hardworking, and heterosexual ideal of manhood. These foundations of masculinity were consistent among men when describing both their past and present lives, regardless of whether they remained involved in a gang. However, despite this consensus, the ways gang members accomplish these goals of masculinity changed drastically as they became fathers, caregivers, and husbands. the ways gang members accomplish masculinity changed drastically as they became fathers, caregivers, and husbands

Even current gang members still value family as an important part in accomplishing masculinity. One example is Jason, a gang member who claims that he “will always be a Pope,” or a part of his gang. However, he now valued his role as a father more and put his daughter’s needs in front of the gang. For instance, Jason claimed he would only help his fellow gang members financially if they were desperate, but would not do anything dangerous for the gang, and if anyone asked him to do something dangerous he would “smack them silly.”

This change in understanding of being a good father was also observed with those who had left gang related activity. As a gang member, Juan expressed the importance of “putting in work” (violent or non-violent actions in service of the gang) to show he was “faithful, loyal and respectful.” For Juan today, however, “putting in work”  means “spending time with his son, making money as a truck driver, and being a family man.” While no longer a gang member, loyalty and faithfulness to his family and children are still central to his ideas of manhood.

The article highlights that gang members, like non-gang members, change how they ccomplish masculinity over the course of their lives. It also challenges assumptions about gang members as having radically different understandings of manhood. Like many men who were never in gangs, they prioritize being a family man and providing for their families. [This article] challenges assumptions about gang members as having radically different understandings of manhood

Gender and work researchers have long encountered a puzzle: despite persistent gender discrimination, pay gaps, sexual harassment, and segregation within workplaces, women report approximately the same levels of job satisfaction as men. A new American Journal of Sociology article shows how “dignity” at work, measured in terms of respect and recognition, helps resolve this paradox. 

To consider whether work experiences of respect and recognition are gendered, Roscigno, Yavorsky, and Quadlin use nationally-representative survey data from 2002 to 2018. Specifically, the authors examined self-reported measures of job satisfaction, respect at work, fair pay, and fair promotional procedures. 

Although men and women in this time span report roughly equivalent job satisfaction, women are approximately 20% less likely to say that their pay is fair, and about 27% less likely to perceive fairness in promotion and experience respect at work. In addition, women who had experienced sexual harassment or gender discrimination at work were less likely to report feeling respected at work. 

Taken together, these findings indicate that women experience less dignity at work than men, despite reporting comparable levels of job satisfaction. Additionally, what the authors call power-laden, gendered interactions like sexual harassment play a strong part in undermining women’s sense of dignity and respect in the workplace.women experience less dignity at work than men, despite reporting comparable levels of job satisfaction

Young men in gangs are often thought to always practice masculinity by engaging in violent behavior like fighting and shooting, which many attribute to systemic inequalities like mass incarceration, scarce jobs, and racism. New qualitative research by John Leverso and Chris Hess shows that as male gang members age, they remain committed to masculinity but they relate to their manhood differently. 

Leverso and Hess asked about important life events that changed the way respondents understood what being a good man is in 29 in-depth interviews with current and former gang members in Chicago. These interviews showed how masculinity endures and evolves into new phases of adulthood, particularly fatherhood.

From the perspective of these current and former gang members, the ideal man is “hardworking, no punk, tough, and loyal.” Their concept of the ideal man reflects a tough, hardworking, and heterosexual ideal of manhood. These foundations of masculinity were consistent among men when describing both their past and present lives, regardless of whether they remained involved in a gang. However, despite this consensus, the ways gang members accomplish these goals of masculinity changed drastically as they became fathers, caregivers, and husbands. the ways gang members accomplish masculinity changed drastically as they became fathers, caregivers, and husbands

Even current gang members still value family as an important part in accomplishing masculinity. One example is Jason, a gang member who claims that he “will always be a Pope,” or a part of his gang. However, he now valued his role as a father more and put his daughter’s needs in front of the gang. For instance, Jason claimed he would only help his fellow gang members financially if they were desperate, but would not do anything dangerous for the gang, and if anyone asked him to do something dangerous he would “smack them silly.”

This change in understanding of being a good father was also observed with those who had left gang related activity. As a gang member, Juan expressed the importance of “putting in work” (violent or non-violent actions in service of the gang) to show he was “faithful, loyal and respectful.” For Juan today, however, “putting in work”  means “spending time with his son, making money as a truck driver, and being a family man.” While no longer a gang member, loyalty and faithfulness to his family and children are still central to his ideas of manhood.

The article highlights that gang members, like non-gang members, change how they accomplish masculinity over the course of their lives. It also challenges assumptions about gang members as having radically different understandings of manhood. Like many men who were never in gangs, they prioritize being a family man and providing for their families. [This article] challenges assumptions about gang members as having radically different understandings of manhood

In the United States there are 14 million formal child support cases, meaning that one in five children are dependent on child support payments. To ensure that these children receive financial support from noncustodial parents (that is, parents who are not the primary caretaker), child support agencies employ punitive strategies such as garnishing wages, suspending public assistance, suspending driver’s licenses, and even jail time.  

Unsurprisingly, previous research has found that noncustodial parents were dissatisfied and frustrated with child support agencies and their harsh sanctions. However, when Daniel Meyer and Yoona Kim used a larger, nationwide sample to test whether noncustodial parents actually disliked the child support system, their analysis told a different story.  

Unlike previous studies, which have generally used small interview-based methods, the researchers used surveys to assess satisfaction of 1,800 noncustodial parents in seven states who were behind on payments and had difficulty holding a job. They found that the majority of noncustodial parents were actually satisfied or indifferent about the child support agencies – the opposite finding of previous qualitative studies.  

They also discovered that one of the largest predictors of satisfaction was personalized service.  More specifically, when noncustodial parents knew the name of a child support worker that they could call for questions, they were 56% more likely to be satisfied with the child support system.When noncustodial parents knew the name of a child support worker that they could call for questions, they were 56% more likely to be satisfied with the child support system.

Statistics can tell us a story that sometimes counters our assumptions and previous understandings – and multiple methods are likely needed to address a complex question like satisfaction with the child support system.  Understanding such questions is likely essential to encouraging timely and complete payments which support children. With millions of children depending on child support to stay housed, clothed, and fed, this research shows how “putting names to systems” can help humanize government services and institutions.

Courts are expected to be unbiased. However, Vicki Lens found, in courtrooms mothers are routinely judged based on narrow expectations of motherhood that ignore their real-world situations and challenges.

Lens studied mothers’ treatment within family courts, observing approximately 100 child maltreatment cases from 2012-2013 in one U.S. urban courtroom in the Northeast. They found that judges based neglect and removal of children on gendered beliefs of “good mothers.” “Good” mothers are those that take primary care of their children and sacrifice for their children. In making decisions, judges were focused on beliefs about what it means to be a “good mother” and disregarded that motherhood also requires resources and social supports. 

For instance, one mother was accused of educational neglect by a judge for failing to quickly find a tutor for her child. This was even after the mother fought to get her daughter on a wait-list for tutoring and the mom’s caseworker explained the difficulty in finding tutors. Instead of seeing the effort that the mother put forward despite challenges, the judge saw this as inherently negative for the child. The judge felt that a good mother would have put more effort into finding a tutor for her child while working at her job. 

The norms and conventions of the court itself were another part of the problem for underprivileged mothers. Judges required that only attorneys speak for their clients in court, even though the attorneys often misunderstood the complexities of clients’ situations. This led to many underprivileged mothers having no way to communicate with the judge about the structural issues that prevented them from fulfilling this “good mother” role that was valued by the judges. 

While based on just one family courtroom, this study shows how moms can be silenced and judges can mistake inequalities in resources outside of the courtroom as neglect. The end result is that underprivileged mothers, forced to defend their parental rights, face an uphill battle in trying to keep their kids. For the courts to act fairly, all legal actors must hear and value underprivileged mothers’ complicated experiences.

Originally published November 17, 2021

Dating apps have changed how we think about dating. With options that allow users to search for partners across physical distance, it can seem like there are no boundaries to finding love with these apps. However, one sociologist highlights that race and location continue to limit dating options.

Sarah Adeyinka-Skold interviewed over 100 racially diverse, college-educated women, who live in the United States. Adeyinka-Skold asked if these dating apps lessened the boundaries of location and race for women trying to find romantic partners across the country.  The interviews revealed that local culture was actually still a major factor for all those she interviewed. Some women were frustrated about being in locations where there seemed to be a pattern of men who didn’t take dating seriously or just wanted hookups. In other locations, women found it challenging to find dates that shared their gender expectations, with many available men only wanting housewives.  Adeyinka-Skold asked if these dating apps lessened the boundaries of location and race for women trying to find romantic partners across the country. The interviews revealed that local culture was actually still a major factor

One example was Monique who described her frustrations with dating in Lubbock, Texas. Monique specifically focused on her realization that her aspiration of wanting to be more than a stay-at-home mom went against the conservative culture of Lubbock. In particular, she found that men there were, “looking for that person, that woman where she might have a career, but is willing to give it up to raise a family.” 

Latinx and Black interviewees were more likely to express additional issues with race in regards to location. This was because women of color struggled to find potential partners with the same racial and educational background as their own. There simply weren’t enough college educated men of color in their areas so they felt that their local dating pool was very limited.

This research highlights the limits of technology in mitigating the effects of deeply embedded inequalities and cultural constraints. Technology didn’t help the white college educated women because of gender norms in parts of the United States that only valued women’s contributions in house or care work. Technology also was limiting for college educated women of color because of inequalities that only allowed very few men of color to get college degrees. In other words, whatever the new digital world may bring us, it is, like everything else, still bound up with long-established constraints of culture and social inequality.

How does pain affect the well-being of an individual? What about the well-being of a society?

In a recent article, Anna Zajacova, Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk, and Zachary Zimmer argue that chronic pain is a social issue with consequences beyond medicine. 

In 2016, the CDC estimated that 20% of U.S. adults experience chronic pain. Chronic pain is a distinct phenomenon of suffering and disability that has significant mental and physical impacts. Chronic pain is different from acute pain from a temporary injury, such as a broken bone or a burn. A person who experiences chronic pain is more likely to suffer from anxiety or depression, and twice as likely to commit suicide. 

Chronic pain disproportionately impacts certain groups. Overall, women experience slightly higher levels of pain than men. People with lower socioeconomic status experience significantly more chronic pain. For instance, individuals without a high school diploma experience three times the amount of severe pain than college graduates. These findings demonstrate that pain is connected to broader social inequalities and conditions. pain is connected to broader social inequalities and conditions

The seemingly private experience of pain has wide-ranging social dimensions and implications that require further study. Our suffering may be individually felt, but it must also be collectively understood, especially if we are to make real progress in advancing the health and well-being of all.

Dating apps have changed how we think about dating. With options that allow users to search for partners across physical distance, it can seem like there are no boundaries to finding love with these apps. However, one sociologist highlights that race and location continue to limit dating options.

Sarah Adeyinka-Skold interviewed over 100 racially diverse, college-educated women, who live in the United States. Adeyinka-Skold asked if these dating apps lessened the boundaries of location and race for women trying to find romantic partners across the country.  The interviews revealed that local culture was actually still a major factor for all those she interviewed.

Some women were frustrated about being in locations where there seemed to be a pattern of men who didn’t take dating seriously or just wanted hookups. In other locations, women found it challenging to find dates that shared their gender expectations, with many available men only wanting housewives.  Adeyinka-Skold asked if these dating apps lessened the boundaries of location and race for women trying to find romantic partners across the country. The interviews revealed that local culture was actually still a major factor

One example was Monique who described her frustrations with dating in Lubbock, Texas. Monique specifically focused on her realization that her aspiration of wanting to be more than a stay-at-home mom went against the conservative culture of Lubbock. In particular, she found that men there were, “looking for that person, that woman where she might have a career, but is willing to give it up to raise a family.” 

Latinx and Black interviewees were more likely to express additional issues with race in regards to location. This was because women of color struggled to find potential partners with the same racial and educational background as their own. There simply weren’t enough college educated men of color in their areas so they felt that their local dating pool was very limited.

This research highlights the limits of technology in mitigating the effects of deeply embedded inequalities and cultural constraints. Technology didn’t help the white college educated women because of gender norms in parts of the United States that only valued women’s contributions in house or care work. Technology also was limiting for college educated women of color because of inequalities that only allowed very few men of color to get college degrees. In other words, whatever the new digital world may bring us, it is, like everything else, still bound up with long-established constraints of culture and social inequality.