2014 has been a triumphant year for gay professional athletes. Earlier this year, Jason Collins was the first openly gay player to sign a contract with the NBA. More recently, Michael Sam became first openly gay player drafted into the NFL. In a team sporting culture where camaraderie and success have traditionally been tied to masculine overtones and homophobic gestures, these and other moves have undoubtedly ushered in a new era of professional sports­­–one in which a greater number of athletes, teams, and leagues are willing to take a stance against the exclusion of players based on their sexual orientation.

Collins and Sam are bringing to light a public issue that sociologists have seen coming in a wide range of sports and social settings.
These athletes’ stories are a particularly important development in a social arena which is traditionally dominated by men and masculinity.

These trends also reflect broader shifts in gender and sexuality over the past few years. For more information on shifting norms regarding sexual orientation in other institutions, check out Kathleen Hull’s recent TSP white paper on the changing public perception of same-­sex marriage in the US.

 

There have been a spate of new books lately advising women how to turn inward, change their behavior, and remake themselves to be more successful and ‘leap over’ gender barriers in the workplace. If a woman is not paid what she is worth, passed over for promotion, or even harassed, the solution, it seems, is to lean in – because eventually (soon, in fact) everyone will realize that women really should rule the world. The latest is a book by Katty Kay and Claire Shipman, The Confidence Code, in which the authors argue that the primary barrier to women’s success is not sexism but rather women’s own lack of confidence. And in one way, they are right. Confidence is gendered. Women are less confident than men (and men tend to be over- confident relative to their abilities). Of course confidence matters. But trying to solve a problem of structural sexism with a good night’s sleep, a self-help book, and a smile is a losing proposition.

In their focus on the therapeutic and their emphasis on self-help, these books foster the kind of high-cost, alienating emotional labor sociologists have been writing about since the early 1980s.
These books either completely ignore or actively downplay the structural causes of the confidence gap, including the way that primary schools teach girls that their opinions aren’t as valuable as boys’ opinions.
They also turn a blind eye to the fact that rational actors engage in behavior that is rewarded. Women who show the kind of confidence that men show, and who “negotiate like a man,” are often punished, not rewarded, in America’s workplaces.
Thus, authors like Kay and Schipman are encouraging women to fight with the weapons of the weak instead of helping us all to tackle the more difficult task of breaking down the structural barriers to women’s real and durable success.

Penny Edgell is a Professor in the Sociology department at the University of Minnesota. She studies culture, religion, gender, family, symbolic boundaries, and inequality. 

Pumpkin spice latte from Starbucks.

Recently, CollegeHumor released a video clip illustrating the symptoms of being a basic bitch, which they define as “an extra regular female.” Other references to this term within popular culture are plenty: many cite loanthony’s youtube video for popularizing the whispered insult “you’re basic,” and additional uses throughout the past several years. How can we sociologically understand this phenomenon? Is it okay for the term bitches to be used casually within popular culture? What’s the harm?

A term derogatory to all women can be difficult to “reclaim” or use ironically. Instead, when women use “bitch” to refer to themselves or their friends (as in, “what’s up my bitches”) they are experiencing false power. They may feel included by using popular terminology, but they’re actually reinforcing gender essentialism and inequality by doing so.
Categorizing women as different forms of bitches—the bad bitch, dope bitch or boss bitch—creates a typography of all women as bitches, just different kinds. Symbolic interactionists note that the language and phrasing that we use to describe things can dramatically change our ways interacting with them.

For example, scientists working on nuclear weapons use benign terminology—the “exchange” of warheads with enemy countries or the “footprint” for an area of the “delivered” explosion—which allows them to distance themselves from the reality of their work. Using terms like basic bitch to describe a regular woman may allow us to do the same.

However, not all sociological analyses of language find that contemporary use of terminology previously viewed as derogatory is problematic.

Within social movements, collective identities such as “queer” can be seen as functional in drawing a variety of communities together and uniting around a cause.

Emily M. Boyd is an Associate Professor in the Sociology and Corrections department at Minnesota State University-Mankato. She studies gender, social interaction and popular culture.

Earlier in the week we looked at the new television series Cosmos and the fervor it caused between pro-science and pro-­religion camps. Lost within this science vs. religion debate, however, is the obvious racial angle surrounding Cosmos. Neil deGrasse Tyson—the series’ host—is one of the few widely-recognizable black scientific figures today. He himself has stated that there is a distinct lack of representation of African Americans in STEM (Science Technology Engineering Math) fields. What broader trends in race and science might this show illuminate?

Research affirms deGrasse Tyson’s opinions, showing that there are indeed significant inequalities in career attainments in STEM fields for women and minority groups:
Given the limited ways in which African Americans are typically represented in the media, deGrasse Tyson’s well established media presence as an African American scientist proves doubly important:

 

The documentary series Cosmos debuted in March with as much public opposition as fanfare­­—with some groups openly criticizing the scientific viewpoints covered on the show, and others applauding its attempts to bring science back to the mainstream. A followup to the 1980 series of the same name, Cosmos provides scientific perspectives on a number of ­oft-debated topics, such as the creation of the universe, the evolution of life on Earth, and the importance of scientific knowledge and education. Not surprisingly, much of this controversy surrounding the show has been political and/or religious in its nature. Has the show hit a fault line in American culture?

Sociologists writing about the apparent political divides between supporters of science and religion often find that there isn’t a clean divide between the two. Many scientists are religious, and their findings don’t always challenge religious claims.

Also, in a recent post in Sociology Lens, Huw C. Davies uses theory from Foucault to cut through the “religion versus science” debate and show how both institutions vie for power through “discourses of truth.”

Stay tuned for Part II of our take on Cosmos later this week, where we’ll review work on science and race in the United States. 

 

This week’s Supreme Court decision to uphold Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in college and university admissions stirred up a lot of legal controversy, and will likely lead to more court cases about these policies in other states. In the wake of conversations about constitutionality, however, it is often easy to miss the problems that affirmative action is meant to be correcting.

Racial inequality, especially in the workplace, is very real. Employers regularly make decisions based on race which clash with existing civil rights law.
Most Americans tend to think of diversity in very general, open and optimistic terms, but this “happy talk” often makes it difficult to directly address underlying racial attitudes—and the inequalities they produce—with policy changes.

Picture 2

 

 

Heartbleed was a real heartbreaker for the world of online security this past week. The software vulnerability in OpenSSL—a security protocol used by a wide range of popular websites—has everyone wondering what can be done to protect their data. While tech experts (and cartoonists!) do a great job of explaining how Heartbleed happened, we can turn to the social science to ask why people take advantage of these software bugs and what we might do to change their minds.

Market forces matter for stolen data, but hackers also develop rich subcultures which offer social status when members find new and better ways to break in.
New experimental research shows hackers invest a lot of effort in their work, so it is hard to stop them once they infiltrate a system. However, putting warnings in computer systems might make them leave faster and take less with them.

Beginning on April 6, 1994, the Rwandan genocide lasted nearly 100 days leaving an estimated 500,000-1,000,000 dead.  While the campaign to exterminate the Tutsi-minority was led by Hutu extremists, it would be a mistake to hold a single group responsible for this mass atrocity.  Comparative studies of other conflicts show that it would also be a mistake to consider genocide an anomaly.

While we often see the conflict as a clash of racial or ethnic groups, the cycle of violence is often part of larger structural forces that form political identities through privileged rule.
Sexual and racialized violence are some of the most well-known parts of genocide, but conflicts over property and the political construction of difference are also elements which occur earlier and may act as warning signs.
Comparative studies of atrocities in other contexts can also show how societies remember suffering.

For further reading, check out this TSP feature on The Crime of Genocide.

The Food and Drug Administration recently proposed a slew of changes to the nutrition labels on packaged foods. The first to be made in over 20 years, these changes will include placing a bigger emphasis on total calories and added sugars as well as highlighting certain nutrients, such as Vitamin D and potassium. They are also proposing to make changes to the serving size requirements, making them more “realistic” about what portions of a product people actually consume in a single sitting. The purported goal of these changes is to help consumers “make healthy food choices”, but sociologists show that these choices are not necessarily available to everyone.

The media, as well as most consumers, see diet and eating habits as a personal choice. However, research shows that not all consumers are financially, or even geographically, able to make conscientious decisions about the calories they consume.
The choices made at the federal level about dietary guidelines and labeling are not just about making sure we all get the right amount of Vitamin D. The food industry is a profit-making business just like any other, and its influence on government nutrition policies runs deep.
The media coverage of this proposal is largely positive, framing it as a step towards curbing America’s “obesity epidemic”. This kind of media coverage furthers the intense stigmatization of obese people and reinforces norms that equate thinness with moral virtue and social worthiness.

For more on culture and obesity, check out Abigail Saguy’s “Office Hours” interview where she discusses her book What’s Wrong with Fat?

 

Picture 2

 

 

These days, if kids learn all they really need to know in kindergarten, it means they’re a year behind their preschool-educated peers. Fortunately for children in NYC, Mayor Bill de Blasio managed to secure $300 million in state funding to provide free prekindergarten citywide. Although the mayor’s pre-K proposal carried the day, the public education debates in New York echo nationwide controversy over which policies promise the best long-term outcomes. Sociologists wonder, who benefits most from programs like Head Start?

Though policy debates continue, the positive impacts of preschool have been known for a long time. These programs prevent learning difficulties, promote healthy development, and decrease the likelihood of incarceration for urban and low-income kids.
One caveat to this trend, though: a rapid expansion in pre-K access might also mean increased misdiagnoses of ADHD in young children.

For more on how children’s mental health labels change when institutions change, check out this recent TSP Reading List post on autism.