gender

As students return to school, colleges and universities across the country are increasingly concerned about their role in preventing and disciplining sexual misconduct, harassment, and assault. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently announced changes to the Obama administration’s guidelines for Title IX investigations of sexual harassment in higher education. DeVos drew criticism this past summer in hearings about Title IX for limiting the participation of student survivors and receiving testimony from advocates for accused students regarding harassment and assault. Others criticize campus investigations of sexual misconduct for a lack of transparency and due process. Social science research can help us understand the institutional and cultural forces that shape this serious problem.

The Institutional Story

Rather than focusing on sexual misconduct, U.S. law tends to categorize it as a kind of sex discrimination. The difference matters — it means that colleges, universities, and the Department of Education have taken a set of legal guidelines originally meant to fight sex discrimination in education and sport (Title IX) and use them as the basis for investigations of sexual misconduct. This improvised solution makes it easier to overlook the fact that sexual harassment happens when institutions provide power to harassers, not just when they explicitly discriminate.

• Nancy Chi Cantalupo and William C. Kidder. 2017. “A Systematic Look at a Serial Problem: Sexual Harassment of Students by University Faculty.” Utah Law Review.
• Celene Reynolds. 2016. “What We Know—And Need to Learn—About Progress against Sex Discrimination in Higher Education.” Scholars Strategy Network.
• Christopher Uggen and Amy Blackstone. 2004.”Sexual Harassment as a Gendered Expression of Power.” American Sociological Review 9(1): 64-92.
• Abigail C Saguy. 2000. “Employment Discrimination or Sexual Violence? Defining Sexual Harassment in American and French Law.” Law & Society Review 34(4): 1091-1128.

The Cultural Story

Then again, the Board of Regents isn’t in the bedroom. Hookup culture on college campuses creates an environment in which sexual activity is separated from relationships. Some students, both men and women, find this empowering and liberating. The trouble is that others find it makes for emotionally confusing and unfulfilling sexual situations where violence and coercion can arise.

• Lisa Wade. 2017. American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus. W.W. Norton.
• Elizabeth Armstrong, Paula England, and Alison Fogarty. 2012. “Accounting for Women’s Orgasm and Sexual Enjoyment in College Hookups and Relationships.” American Sociological Review. 77(3): 435-462.

Last month, a Texas law enforcement officer opened fire on a van of several Black teenage boys, killing 15-year-old Jordan Edwards. His death reminded many of the cell phone footage showing a Los Angeles off-duty white officer dragging a 13-year-old Latino boy by the collar while pointing a gun, or the McKinney, TX officer who drew his gun on multiple Black youth at a pool party in 2015. During media coverage of Edwards’ death, the media emphasized his honor roll status and the fact that he was a “good student,” and thus not deserving of this treatment. This is not always the way mistreatment of minority youth is framed, however, and sociological research on youth victimization finds that minority youth are often excluded from the category of “true” or “ideal” victimhood, which ultimately works to legitimize their victimization.

Societal notions of childhood characterize children as innocent and pure in contrast to the deviant adult world. Society employs these images of innocence to address children’s vulnerability to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. However, when children’s behaviors contradict traditional notions of innocence and purity, adults tend to exclude them from the social and legal protection that childhood often affords. 

• Suzanne Shanahan. 2007. “Lost and Found: The Sociological Ambivalence Toward Childhood.” Annual Review of Sociology 33: 407-28.
• Nick Lee. 2001. Childhood and Society: Growing up in an Age of Uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

This inclusion and exclusion of some children from social and legal protection is highly racialized. Images of childhood innocence and victimization typically feature mainstream images of white girls and boys, leaving minority children excluded. Not only that, schools and law enforcement view Black and Latino boys as dangerous and often ignore or downplay their everyday experiences of violence.

• Victor Rios. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: New York University Press.
• Jenny Kitzinger. 1997. “Who are You Kidding? Children, Power, and the Struggle Against Sexual Abuse.” Edited by James and Prout in Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood.

Despite encountering high levels of street and interpersonal violence, Black and Latina girls’ victimization remains largely neglected in comparison to their white female peers. Minority girls living in high crime environments often feel pressure from adults to adhere to notions of being “good girls.” Yet, to survive such environments, many minority girls feel they must forgo traditional feminine roles and engage in physical confrontations with other girls and/or men. In doing so, they are criminalized, depicted as bad girls and “ghetto chicks,” and excluded from societal ideals of victimhood.

• Nikki Jones. 2010. Between Good and Ghetto: African-American Girls and Inner-City Violence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Meda Chesney Lind and Michele Eliason. 2006. “From Invisible to Incorrigible: The Demonization of Marginalized Women and Girls.” Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal 2(1): 29-47.

A stage play inspired by early boxing great Barbara Buttrick recently premiered in the United Kingdom. The play, title Mighty Atoms (after one of Buttrick’s nicknames, “The Mighty Atom of the Ring”), marks a departure in the history of women in boxing, away from condemnation towards acceptance, and has important implications for how we think about gender and women in sport.

Women participating in fights goes back to at least the 1700’s, in the form of Elizabeth Wilkinson, the “European Championess,” who competed in bare-knuckle boxing matches in the streets of London. Her combination of showmanship and fighting prowess made her popular in fighting circles. Still, for many, Wilkinson represented an awful kind of brutalism that lessened the value of the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, in the United States, women boxers were seen as a side-show, forced to compete alongside snake charmers and trapeze artists in American carnivals.

• Gerald Gems and Getrud Pfister. 2014. “Women Boxers: Actresses to Athletes – The Role of Vaudeville in Early Women’s Boxing in the USA.” The International Journal of the History of Sport 31(15): 1909-1924.
• Malissa Smith. 2014. A History of Women’s Boxing. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Anne Tjønndal. 2016. “Pugilistic Pioneers: The History of Women’s Boxing in Norway.” Sport History Review 47(1): 3-25.

Sport scholars have shown that these ideas are stereotypes about women in boxing continue today. While often used to marginalize or exclude women from the sport, they can also provide a source of identity and meaning for female fighters.

• Jennifer Hargreaves. 1997. “Women’s Boxing and Related Activities: Introducing Images and Meanings.” Body & Society 3(4): 33-49.
• Travis D. Satterlund. 2012. “Real, but not Too Real: A Hierarchy of Reality for Recreational Middle-Class Boxers.” Sociological Perspectives 55(3): 529-551.
• Christine Mennesson. 2000. “‘Hard’ Women and ’Soft’ Women: The Social Construction of Identities among Female Boxers.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 35(1): 21-33.
• Carlo Rotella. 1999. “Good with Her Hands: Women, Boxing, and Work.” Critical Inquiry 25(3): 566-598.
• Yvonne Lafferty and Jim McKay. 2004. “‘Suffragettes in Satin Shorts’? Gender and Competitive Boxing.” Qualitative Sociology 27(2): 249-276.

Finally, it is worth noting then even when women’s boxing was finally included in the 2012 Olympic Games in London–the site of this week’s theatrical premier–the addition was met with opposition.

• Anne Tjønndal. 2016. “The Inclusion of Women’s Boxing in the Olympic Games: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Gender and Power in Boxing.” Qualitative Sociology Review 13(3): 84-89.
• Marianna Dortants and Annelies Knoppers. 2013. “Regulation of Diversity through Discipline: Practices of Inclusion and Exclusion in Boxing.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 48(5): 539-549.
• Katharina Lindner. 2012. “Women’s Boxing at the 2012 Olympics: Gender Trouble?” Feminist Media Studies 12(3): 464-467.

Sex education is a contentious subject in U.S. politics. Before Obama’s presidency, the federal government only funded abstinence education, but in 2009 Obama created the Office of Adolescent Health and diverted some of these funds to create an approved list of practices shown to prevent teen pregnancy (several sources show abstinence-only education does not) through research. With Trump as president, the future of sex ed is an open question, but sociologists can offer some insight regarding what we already know.

Public sex education or “social hygiene” appeared in the U.S. at the turn of the 20th century in response to concerns about increasing urbanization and growing sexual temptations. During the 1960s and 70s, sexual cultures in the U.S. underwent further shifts, influenced by feminism, youth culture, and the gay rights movement. However, anxieties about sex, especially for youth in the U.S., remained. Debates about what kind of sex education to provide for youth seemed to occur between two poles — sexual liberals who supported a comprehensive sex education in schools and sexual conservatives who supported abstinence-only education. 

• Jeffrey Moran. 2000. Teaching Sex: The Shaping of Adolescence in the 20th Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Kristin Luker. 2007. When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex–and Sex Education–Since the Sixties. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
• Janice Irvine. 2004. Talk about Sex: The Battles over Sex Education in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.

No matter which type of sex education is implemented, sex ed is ultimately about regulating youth sexuality. Political actors and popular conversations alike frame youth sex as a social problem that requires intervention. Much of this discourse focuses on sex as a danger for children and young adults. Thus, sex education in the U.S. draws on an assumption of risk, relying on prevention-based education.

• Jessica Fields. 2012. “Sexuality Education in the United States: Shared Cultural Ideas across a Political Divide.” Sociology Compass 6(1): 1–14.

However, sex educators and the curriculum they use do not assume all children are equally innocent or at risk. Scholars show that sex education often draws on racial stereotypes of youth of color as sexually deviant. Youth of color are “adultified” and thus perceived as more sexual than their white peers. For instance, teachers often characterize African American girls as sexually opportunistic and assume Latina teens are inherently at risk of teen pregnancy. Further, boys are assumed to be sexually aggressive, and girls are held responsible for dealing with boys’ desires.

• Jessica Fields. 2008. Risky Lessons Sex Education and Social Inequality. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
• Lorena García. 2009. “‘Now Why Do You Want to Know about That?’ Heteronormativity, Sexism, and Racism in the Sexual (Mis)education of Latina Youth.” Gender & Society 23(4): 520–41.

Public outrage about missing Black and Latina girls struck the nation’s capital in March, with many calling the number of missing girls of color a crisis. While the number of disappearances has not risen considerably in recent years, and there weren’t actually 14 Black girls missing in 24 hours in DC, the question is an important one for sociological analysis. Who is considered a “victim” of violent crime and whose victimization goes unnoticed?  

Whites, particularly white women, are the most likely to be framed as victims of crime. Take laws named after victims in the U.S. (e.g., Megan’s law) — while Blacks suffer far more victimization from violent crime than whites, of the 51 laws named after victims in the U.S. from 1990-2016, 86.3% are named after white victims. Only four are named after Black victims, and three after Hispanic victims. Additionally, 65% of these laws were named after female victims.

• Teresa C. Kulig and Francis T. Cullen. 2016. Where is Latisha’s Law? Black Invisibility in the Social Construction of Victimhood. Justice Quarterly: 1-36.

The construction of whites as victims and Blacks as offenders extends to the reaction of law enforcement when girls are reported as runaways. Scholars argue that running away from home is particularly gendered, pointing to the high number of girls that run away compared to boys and their reasons for running away. Of girls that were considered runaways in the U.S. from 1997-2003, Black and Hispanic girls were significantly more likely to have a runaway charge than white girls. White girls were more likely to get off with a warning.

• Kimberly Kempf-Leonard and Pernilla Johansson. 2007. Gender and Runaways: Risk Factors, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice Experiences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 5(3): 308-327.

Similarly, Black girls are more likely to be punished in schools. A recent study showed that Black girls are three times more likely than white girls to get an office referral, a higher likelihood than white boys in the same school. Black girls also got referrals for more ambiguous infractions like dress code violations or disobedience.

• Edward W. Morris and Brea L. Perry. 2017. Girls Behaving Badly? Race, Gender, and Subjective Evaluation in the Discipline of African American Girls. Sociology of Education 90(2): 127-148.

What does all of this mean in the context of missing Black girls? It means that institutions, like schools and law enforcement, are far more likely to criminalize Black girls than their white counterparts, which means that they are less likely to see them as victims.

With a group of coal miners standing behind him, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in his first 100 days reversing Obama-era climate change policies and claimed that he would be bringing back coal and putting miners to work. With this move, Trump has tapped into the concerns of rural communities with economies dominated by resource extraction. Yet, can or will coal mining jobs come back, and will this lead to economic and social development in places like Appalachia?

The loss of mining jobs in the U.S. is largely due to increasing mechanization and other labor-cutting management practices –not the result of environmental protections. Thus, placing the blame on climate change policies is an unfounded, but typical, argument used to scapegoat environmentalists rather than industry or changes in the global economy.

• Jo-Anne Everingham. 2016. “Transformation of Rural Society and Environments by Extraction of Mineral and Energy Resources.” Pp. 272–84 in Routledge International Handbook of Rural Studies, edited by M. Shucksmith and D. L. Brown. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Todd L. Matthews. 2010. “The Enduring Conflict of ‘Jobs Versus the Environment’: Local Pollution Havens as an Integrative Empirical Measure of Economy Versus Environment.” Sociological Spectrum 31(1):59–85.

Researchers have long argued that economies based solely around mining are prone to booms and busts, lacking resiliency and often becoming dependent on one industry. Contrary to common assumptions, research has found that mining does not always lead to economic growth and well-being. Thus, even if coal mines stay open, this does not necessarily mean wider economic prosperity and well-being. In Appalachia, for example, the counties with coal mines actually have some of the highest rates of poverty and unemployment compared to surrounding counties without active mines.

• William R. Freudenburg. 1992. “Addictive Economies: Extractive Industries and Vulnerable Localities in a Changing World Economy.” Rural Sociology 57(3):305–32.
• William R. Freudenburg and Lisa J. Wilson. 2002. “Mining the Data: Analyzing the Economic Implications of Mining for Nonmetropolitan Regions.” Sociological Inquiry 72(4):549–75.
• Robert Todd Perdue and Gregory Pavela. 2012. “Addictive Economies and Coal Dependency Methods of Extraction and Socioeconomic Outcomes in West Virginia, 1997-2009.” Organization & Environment 25(4):368–84.
• Linda Lobao, Minyu Zhou, Mark Partridge, and Michael Betz. 2016. “Poverty, Place, and Coal Employment across Appalachia and the United States in a New Economic Era.” Rural Sociology.

Nevertheless, the rhetoric of saving coal resonates with strong cultural connections to mining and people’s identities of coming from multiple generations of miners and living in a coal community. The identity of being a miner is interconnected with masculine ideals of hard work and providing for family, and mining companies have played off of these sentiments. Mining companies, particularly in Appalachia, have actively worked to create community support through public relations and other cultural and political tactics. These corporate strategies, such as sponsoring high school football tournaments and billboard ads, have helped to place the blame on outsiders and environmentalists, while providing a cover for the environmentally destructive and cost-cutting industry practices.

• Rebecca R. Scott. 2010. Removing Mountains: Extracting Nature and Identity in the Appalachian Coalfields. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Jessica Smith Rolston. 2014. Mining Coal and Undermining Gender: Rhythms of Work and Family in the American West. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Tamara L. Mix and Kristin G. Waldo. 2014. “Know(ing) Your Power: Risk Society, Astroturf Campaigns, and the Battle over the Red Rock Coal-Fired Plant.” The Sociological Quarterly 56(1):125–51.
• Shannon Elizabeth Bell and Richard York. 2010. “Community Economic Identity: The Coal Industry and Ideology Construction in West Virginia.” Rural Sociology 75(1):111–43.

Black men are often depicted as hypersexual, aggressive, and criminal in the media, which perpetuates long-standing racial and gender stereotypes and inequalities. Director Barry Jenkins attempts to deconstruct these stereotypes of Black masculinity in the award-winning Moonlight. The movie tells the story of Chiron, a young, Black, queer man, on a quest for self-acceptance amidst the homophobia of his peers and socioeconomic circumstances of his Atlanta neighborhood. Social science research sheds light on the origins of these stereotypes and how they influence Black men’s gender and sexual identity performances.

While virtually all men are subjected to the pressures of acting like a “real man,” Black men experience additional strain due to racialized stereotypes that depict them as inherently dangerous and hypersexual. Due to the socioeconomic disadvantages that plague many Black communities, Black men develop alternative constructions of masculinity that emphasize moral and masculine superiority over white men. For example, they may view whiteness as feminine and homosexual, and thus position themselves as the heterosexual man whose masculinity is reaffirmed through sex with women. The result is that some Black men label those who behave in traditionally feminine ways as “sissies” or “punks” and justify violence perpetuated against them.

• Patricia Hill Collins. 2004. Black Sexual Politics. New York: Routledge.
• Brittany C. Slatton and Kamesha Spates. 2014. Hyper Sexual, Hyper Masculine? Gender, Race and Sexuality in the Identities of Contemporary Black Men. New York: Routledge.

Due to the stigmas described above, many queer Black men attempt to remain “in the closet” to avoid harassment and violence. Other Black men only engage in homosexual activity on the “down low” (DL). And others navigate stigma by exploring queer experiences without distancing themselves from their straight public identity. For example, some Black men frequent gay hip hop clubs where they do not need to “come out”; they can enjoy a space where they can explore their sexuality with other men while simultaneously performing heterosexuality by acting “hard” with hip-hop music. Yet, being “in the closet” or “on the down low” may further stigmatize Black queer men as sexually deviant.

• Jeffrey McCune. 2008. “’Out’ in the Club: The Down Low, Hip-Hop, and the Architexture of Black Masculinity.” Text and Performance Quarterly 28(3): 298-314.
• Riley Snorton. 2014. Nobody is Supposed to Know: Black Sexuality on the Down Low. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Messages regarding the need to act “tough” also affect sexually abused Black male children. McGuffey interviewed 62 parents of Black and Puerto Rican sexually abused boys. He found that fathers believed male-perpetrated sexual abuse threatened their son’s masculinity. Many were afraid that the abuse made their sons act “too emotional” and that they would become homosexual. As such, they encouraged heterosexual behavior by telling them not to touch other boys, asking them if they had a girlfriend, and telling them to look at girls’ physical characteristics.

• Shawn McGuffey. 2008. “‘Saving Masculinity:’ Gender Reaffirmation, Sexuality, Race, and Parental Responses to Male Child Sexual Abuse.” Social Problems 55(2): 216-237.

According to a recent survey, Americans are having less sex — about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the 1990s. In fact, millennials are one of the groups who have sex the least often. If you’re wondering, those born in the 1930s were having sex the most. For anyone who has heard about young people engaging in “hookup culture,” this probably comes as a surprise. But, so what? Why should we care how often people are having sex or who their sexual partners are?

Studying sexual practice can reveal underlying norms and expectations, especially related to gender. For instance, a 2016 study linked egalitarian heterosexual relationships, where the couples share gendered household chores, to greater sexual frequency. In another study, researchers found that the number of women who report ever having had sex with both men and women or just women (and identifying as bisexual or gay) has increased; however, the same study reported same-sex encounters have not increased for men. The researchers speculate that this could be a result of differing norms for men and women where it is more acceptable for women to deviate from heterosexual gender norms.

• Paula England, Emma Mishel, and Mónica Caudillo. 2016. “Increases in Sex with Same-Sex Partners and Bisexual Identity Across Cohorts of Women (but Not Men).” Sociological Science 3: 951–70.
• Daniel L. Carlson et al. 2016. “The Gendered Division of Housework and Couples’ Sexual Relationships: A Reexamination.” Journal of Marriage and Family 78(4). 

Studying sexual behavior can reveal how identities are formed, as well. In recent years, research has explored why some people engage in same gender sex but still identify as straight. For some white men, sex with other men does not threaten their heterosexuality, but rather bolsters their masculinity and serves to reaffirm their identities as straight men. On the other hand, some women who had children with men felt that fact foreclosed their possibilities of claiming LGBTQ identities.

• Jane Ward. 2015. Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men. New York University Press.
• Jamie Budnick. 2016. “‘Straight Girls Kissing?’: Understanding Same-Gender Sexuality beyond the Elite College Campus.” Gender & Society, 30(5): 745–768. 

Inequalities also appear in sexual relationships. A sexual standard still exists for women in hookups, where men’s pleasure is central. While both men and women agree that women should be entitled to sexual pleasure in relationships, they do not agree that this is the case for casual hookups. Racial stereotypes also follow individuals into the bedroom. For instance, racially ambiguous individuals are often considered “exotic” by romantic interests. For some, women especially, this means they are viewed as more sexually exciting or only considered as hook ups. For some men, this means they are excluded from hook ups because they are considered “babymakers.”

• Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Paula England, and Alison Fogarty. 2012. “Accounting for Women’s Orgasm and Sexual Enjoyment in College Hookups and Relationships.” American Sociological Review 77(3): 435–462. 
• Chandra Waring. 2013. “‘They See Me as Exotic … That Intrigues Them’: Gender, Sexuality and the Racially Ambiguous Body.” Race, Gender & Class 20(3/4): 299–317.

Spring is here, and for many that means it’s time for a spring break! However, taking time off work can be a big deal, and taking a break can affect earnings and productivity. Research shows that vacation and leave time are largely shaped by a countries social and political context, but taking time off work can have serious consequences no matter where you live, especially for women.

To start, vacations take place in the context of larger structures of gender inequality and work/family policies. Mothers’ time in and out of work is shaped by institutional and cultural contexts, including paid-leave policies, state support for childcare, and cultural expectations around maternal employment. When women are supported by well-paid leave, affordable childcare, and a cultural expectation that mothers work, women with children ultimately work more weekly hours than those living in countries without these factors. Even so, time off is not without penalty. Country-specific policies also help predict the penalty women face for taking a break from employment to care for children. For instance, in a comparison between Germany, Sweden, and the U.S. — countries with distinct leave policies — researchers found that long leaves meant career penalties for all women. Unsurprisingly, in the U.S., a country known for lagging behind in parental leave, even short periods of time spent away from work can hurt womens’ careers.

• Irene Boekmann, Joya Misra, and Michelle Budig. 2015. “Cultural and Institutional Factors Shaping Mothers’ Employment and Working Hours in Postindustrial Countries.” Social Forces 93(4): 1301-1333.
• Silke Aisenbrey, Marie Evertsson, and Daniela Grunow. 2009. “Is There a Career Penalty for Mothers’ Time Out? A Comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States.” Social Forces 88(2): 573-605.

When women take vacation days, they tend to take more than men, but this doesn’t mean that women are lounging on the beach or in the ski lodge while the men toil in the office.  Part of the reason for the gender difference is men use fewer vacation days because of anxieties about job security and supervisory responsibilities. Comparisons between nurses’ unions (mostly women) and firefighters’ unions (mostly men) shows that women prioritize negotiating scheduling, including vacation time, while men emphasize the importance of fairness in access to overtime among co-workers. Women who have unused vacation days tend to be more worried about the success of their families, but research shows that family concerns don’t necessarily lead women to take more vacation days.

• David J. Maume. 2006. “Gender Differences in Taking Vacation Time.” Work and Occupations, 33(2), 161-190.
• Jillian Crocker, & Dan Clawson. 2012. “Buying Time: Gendered Patterns in Union Contracts.” Social Problems, 59(4), 459-480.

With the recent discovery of numerous Earth-like planets orbiting the same star, Elon Musk’s promise to send citizens to the moon, and increased politicization surrounding the science of climate change, many Americans are looking to the stars for potential solutions and possible new homes. And the nascent NewSpace movement — made up of entrepreneurs and advocates looking to commercialize outer space — promises to push space exploration forward at a rapid pace. While it certainly requires rocket science to get to space, social science is beginning to weigh in on what it might mean for social life.

The privatization and commodification of public spaces is now moving beyond Earth as governments struggle over control of the atmosphere and outer space. And as new entrepreneurial space companies seek to privatize the sky and profit from new resources and new planets, some worry that existing structures of class and racial inequality will be repeated or even intensified with space colonization. Others, like anthropologist David Valentine, see potential for progressive re-imaginings.

• Ian G. R. Shaw. 2017. “The Great War of Enclosure: Securing the Skies.” Antipode. Online.
• Jason Beery. 2016. “Unearthing Global Natures: Outer Space and Scalar Politics.” Political Geography 55: 92–101.
• Daniel Sage. 2008. “Framing Space: A Popular Geopolitics of American Manifest Destiny in Outer Space.” Geopolitics 13(1): 27–53.
• David Valentine. 2012. “Exit Strategy: Profit, Cosmology, and the Future of Humans in Space.” Anthropological Quarterly 85(4): 1045–1067.

Sociologists highlight how inequalities shape the way people are experiencing this increasing “humanization of the universe.” Wealthy elites relate to the universe as an object to dominate, funding new “space tourism” programs and hoping to extend the workings of capitalism to the Moon and beyond. Less wealthy and marginalized communities, however, experience the universe as a dominating and mystifying force, and many feel that space colonization will only make them more powerless.

• Peter Dickens and James S. Ormrod. 2007. “Outer Space and Internal Nature: Towards a Sociology of the Universe.” Sociology 41(4).

Since women and people of color are still less likely to pursue careers in science or technology, they are less likely to have a voice in these new projects. But this is not the only thing keeping them from the conversation. For example, women have historically had a difficult time qualifying for space travel. Fears about menstruation, pregnancy, and hormones in outer space have significantly hindered research into how women’s bodies are affected by space travel. The result is that women’s bodies are constructed as problematic and essentialized in opposition to male bodies, keeping many women from successfully joining space missions.

• Yu Xie, Michael Fang, and Kimberlee Shauman. 2015. “STEM Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 41: 331-357.
• Monica J. Casper and Lisa Jean Moore. 1995. “Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space.” Sociological Perspectives 38(2): 311-333.