Abortion, sex, and marriage. Not my topics of choice, at least not professionally or publicly. Yet with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade upon us, there’s a lot of interesting talk about them lately, especially the former. One of the most thought-provoking pieces I’ve seen was published recently on Slate. It says the rise of single motherhood–40% of children are now born to women who are not married–is a byproduct of the antiabortion movement.

The argument, which comes from law professors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone, is a bit more complicated than you might think, because it doesn’t hold for everyone all across the board. For example, it doesn’t apply for richer, older, and more educated women whose willingness to “accept abortion” has actually helped “create more stable families,” because these women delay childbearing until the right man comes along or they get comfortable with going it alone. Rather, it is focused mainly on younger, less privileged women. Basically, the argument is that the hardening of anti-abortion attitudes has led adult parents, especially Christian conservatives, to become more accepting of their daughters having children, even out of wedlock. Indeed, many of these families apparently reference their Christianity explicitly. This is what Cahn and Carbone call the “Bristol Palin Effect,” and it grabs headlines. The implication seems to be that these young women and their parents are “choosing” a principled anti-abortion stance over traditional family values.

I don’t know how good Cahn and Carbone’s numbers are (they do cite several sociologists), or even if their analysis is really borne out by the empirical data on all of the other factors that obviously contribute to the rise of the “non-marital birth rate” (the welfare state, moral decay, increasing independence of women, etc.). The implied ironies, though, are delicious: not only has the anti-abortion movement made conservatives more accepting of single motherhood, it has made liberals more likely to embrace the more traditional, two-parent family model. Cahn and Carbone, who have a book coming out from Oxford University Press, talk about it as the difference between “red” families and “blue families” (that’s the title of their forthcoming book, actually). Only in America.

This brings me back to changing attitudes about sex, sexuality, and premarital sex–are our views of sexuality more open? Is premarital sex more accepted or simply more taken for granted now? I also think of the curious new coalitions that seem to be emerging with the push for gay marriage recognition and legalization (on this score, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/in-shift-blankenhorn-forges-a-pro-marriage-coalition-for-all.html?hp&_r=0). And how does gender play into the picture? I guess it seems to me that this new “approach” lets the fathers of these soon-to-be-born babies, pretty much off the hook, and I’m not sure that’s such a good thing. I’m not really pushing for shotgun weddings, but at least they were based in a recognition of the complicity of a partner and didn’t just leave young moms on their own. Perhaps that’s a little strong, though to be honest, I’m not sure if it is because I’m being too much of a liberal or too much of a conservative in thinking such thoughts.

SocImages Reminds Us All How It’s Done

This week, SocImages saw its most popular post ever, and with good reason. “The Balancing Act of Being Female; Or, Why We Have So Many Clothes” contained a provocative image by art student Rosea Lake (one easily used in a classroom without uproar) and Lisa Wade’s thoughtful, sociological take. What was particularly interesting (I absolutely invite you to take a look and read through the comments if you haven’t already) is the way that Wade went in an unexpected direction and, in a tightly wrapped commentary—maybe 500 words or less?—used the image to help readers think not only about body policing and the ways in which women are (ahem) hemmed in when it comes to clothing choices, but how privilege dictates who can and cannot follow the “rules” of dressing appropriately. 12,000+ likes on Facebook and some 80,000 individual visitors later (not to mention readers on the Huffington Post, which has since reposted the piece), a lot more of the Internet is thinking sociologically. Take a read; it’s fantastic.

Here’s what the rest of us got up to this week: more...

Doubling Down!

Loyal readers may have noticed the absence of a roundup last week; shuffled schedules led to shuffled writing, and so this week we’ll have a double dose of goodness to share. Please enjoy what the TSP crew has been rustling up in the past couple of weeks. more...

A photo from Wing Young Huie’s University Avenue Project.

Bringing sociology to broader public visibility and influence is perhaps our biggest and most basic goal here at TSP, reflecting our overarching belief that sociological research and insight is crucial to making and maintaining a good society… and that it’s often missing from media coverage and commentary, political discourse, and public awareness. To that end, one of our chief tasks is to identify, sometimes repackage, and do everything we can to disseminate the scholarly social science that is of most interest, import, and relevance to the public. We also do our best—through our Citings & Sightings—to highlight sociologists and sociology when they appear in the mainstream media.

But we are also interested in expanding sociological knowledge and understanding wherever and whenever we find it, even if its authors don’t even call what they are doing “sociology.” This is what you might call “found” sociology. more...

Parking was the ostensible focus of a fascinating, revealing exchange on our Community Page Cyborgology last week. In it, Tim McCormick—a research consultant (at Stanford Media X) who works in scholarly communication, new media, and publishing—took one of our most regular and prolific TSP bloggers, Nate Jurgenson, to task for his critique of “smart parking.”

In his original post, Jurgenson suggests that, in stark contrast to its laudable intentions, smarter parking could actually create more parking problems by encouraging people to drive around even more, since the annoyance of parking won’t be quite the disincentive it is currently. Jurgenson bases his critique on what he calls the “Robert Moses Mistake”—the unintended consequences of creating more and better freeways. McCormick, in turn, argues that Jurgenson doesn’t really know much about the impetus and ideas behind smart parking, its realities as a social policy innovation, or the actual research on parking and driving among urban planners and policy makers.

We love Jurgenson’s sociologically-inspired, counter-intuitive critique of smart parking, as well as McCormick’s careful point-by-point, empirical rejoinder. Without taking sides or giving away the details, let’s just say it was a great exchange, typical of the best of sociological research and thought. more...

It’s been a quiet week in Lake Woebegon…

As this week, stretching out from Christmas to the New Year, generally is. But that isn’t to say that The Society Pages has gone dark; perhaps just a bit dusky, enjoying this still moment before the New Year comes on with its full force. Here’s a bit of what we were up to this week. more...

Happy New Year!

2012 is over, and as we looked back at what The Society Pages accomplished in that span, we realized there’s no way to choose a “Best Of.” Other sites might be up to the task, but here we’d be weighing so many factors that the results would be somewhere between utterly irrelevant to most readers and totally gut-wrenching for us. And since we do our best to avoid gut-wrenching anything, instead we’re offering up a list based on one very simple metric: the most popular post published in each area of our site this year. That is, what got the eyeballs. These might be controversial, weird, the beneficiaries of 12 months of results rather than 1 (if they happened to be published in December)… who knows? Let’s find out together. Thanks for your support, comments, readership, and curiosity! more...

Image by Letta Page

‘Twas the night before break and Suzy was cranking away on a TSP piece at 7:30 pm.  When the custodian chided me for “keeping Bob Cratchit working pretty late,” I was feeling my inner Scrooge. But everybody at The Society Pages seems to work hard with good cheer. Doug and I owe many thanks: to Letta Page and Jon Smajda, for making it all both possible and beautiful; to our wonderful grad board and undergrad interns (above), for wicked-good work all over the site and behind the scenes; to our friends at WW Norton and SSN, for their inspiring vision and support; to the brilliant and prolific bloggers on our community pages; to the generous scholars who review our white papers and support us in myriad ways; and to you for giving us your precious time and attention. Happy holidays to you and yours!

(R-L) Doug Hartmann, Suzy Maves McElrath, Rahsaan Mahadeo, Kia Heise, Andrew Wiebe (Fall intern), Grad Board Editor Hollie Nyseth Brehm (semi-hiding), Sarah Shannon, Erin Hoekstra, Chris Uggen, Sarah Lageson, and Kyle Green.
(not pictured) Letta Page (behind the lens), Shannon Golden, Jon Smajda, Stephen Suh, Lisa Gulya, and Evan Stewart

It’s the Fi-nal Roundup! Of the year…

And it’s going to be a short one, given travel and a luckily contained but still exciting house fire early this morning. All’s well, but such things do tend to cut into the time available for waxing poetic (or waxing anything, for that matter). A programming note: on January 1st, we will share our most-trafficked post from each section of the site as its own sort of Annual Roundup. Stay tuned! more...

Last week, the news broke that the U.S. Census Bureau is projecting that whites will no longer be the majority by the year 2043. This is at least a year earlier than previous estimates and seven years earlier than the 2050 majority/minority prediction that first got everyone’s attention a few years back.

The Associated Press release that broke the story described the news as a “historic shift” that is “reshaping the nation’s schools, workforce, and electorate.”  It attributes the trend to “higher birth rates” among American minorities, especially Hispanics who entered at the height of the immigration boom in the 1990s and early 2000s. (The story also correctly notes that immigration rates from Mexico and elsewhere have slowed dramatically with the housing bust of the previous decade and the economic recession of recent years.) The story claims these demographic shifts are “redefining long-held notions of race” in the U.S.—“easing” residential segregation, increasing intermarriage for some, “blurring” racial and ethnic lines, and “lifting the numbers of people who identify as multiracial.” more...