Everyday Sociology Blog

Drawing Lines in the Sand for Interracial Dating

By Janis Prince Inniss

Boy and girl meet. Boy and girl decide to wed. Boy (Terence McKay) and girl (Beth Humphrey) decide to marry. Girl calls justice of the peace to arrange for them to seal the deal.

And that’s when what may be a fairy tale romance came to a screeching halt: The justice of the peace was Keith Bardwell who refused to marry the pair because McKay is black and Humphrey is white. Bardwell said his refusal to marry the pair was not due to racism, but because of his concerns for children that the union might provide According to Bardwell, neither group accepts such children.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Boy and girl did marry, but no thanks to Justice Bardwell.

What do you think of the justice of the peace’s decision? Even if we agree with Bardwell, how would we decide who should get married? I take it that this justice of the peace would not have married President Barack Obama’s parents: The president’s mother was S. Ann Dunham, a white woman from the American Midwest, while his father was a black Kenyan, Barack Obama Sr. (Click here to have a look at some of the President’s family tree in pictures.)

The president self-identifies as African American and to most of us probably “looks” black, so I take it that if President Obama showed up at this justice of the peace’s with a woman who was the same color his mother was, the justice of the peace would refuse to perform such a marriage.

But what about Malia and Sasha Obama, the daughters of the President and his wife? Only looking at their recent paternal genealogy, we know that one of their grandparents and two of their great-grandparents were white. What if one or even both of the Dunhams was really “passing” for white?

Hmm, to simplify our thinking, let’s put aside the idea that one or both was really of mixed race. So going ahead with the idea that their paternal great-grandparents were white, would a prohibition against interracial marriage mean that neither girl should marry a white person?

Now factor in their maternal ancestry. The New York Times recently published a family tree of First Lady Michelle Obama. Included among the First Lady’s ancestors are Dolphus T. Shields, Michelle Obama’s great-great grandfather whose mother was an enslaved African. Perhaps that’s not surprising given that Michelle Obama is African American. However, Mr. Shields’ father was white!

And how would the “American Indian” strands of the First Lady’s ancestry that the The York Times mentions factor in to the equation? Exactly how much ”white blood” would the younger Obamas need to have to marry someone white?

Going back to the case of boy and girl being asked to wed elsewhere by the justice of the peace in Louisiana, a look at the video of the groom being interviewed about this dust-up suggests to me that the new husband, McKay, is “mixed”. (Given our tangled ancestries, such terms really should have “recently” as a prefix.) Suppose McKay has white ancestors, how recent would they need to be for his marriage to Humphrey not to be considered interracial and therefore problematic?

President Obama once would have been considered mulatto (of one white and one black parent) —a term formerly employed by the U.S. Census Bureau. In fact, in 1890 the Census Bureau tried to be more specific by adding the terms quadroon (one-fourth black blood) and octoroon (one eight black blood) to mulatto and black.

What ”portion” black are Malia and Sasha? Are you dizzy with the amount of math this way of thinking requires? More dizzying to me is that all of these terms and prohibitions (such as those from the justice of the peace) suggest that we know who is “fully” white or black or whichever race. In the context of trading enslaved Africans, the desire and need to “measure” black blood makes sense, at least economically and politically.

But given that we often don’t have to look very far to find “race mixing” in America, how can we make even attempt to regulate such unions? (Have you heard of Strom Thurmond? Thurmond was the longest serving Senator in U.S. history at the time of his death in 2003. He vehemently opposed Civil Rights but after his death, the daughter he had with a black woman revealed he was her father.)

As you might imagine, the Louisiana case has attracted lots of attention, including a call by the state’s Governor for Bardwell’s removal. Interracial marriage has long controversial, enough so to gain a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court: In the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, the Court struck down state laws against interracial marriage. The ruling reads in part: “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state." Just as well…unless you have a bright idea of how we could, with great efficiency and clarity, actually define someone’s race. This case and others like it highlight that race is not as clear-cut of a concept as many of us might think. While we often view race as a biological construct, it is a social construct that we constantly struggle to define and make meaning of, often with serious consequences.

Baby Booms: As Seen on TV?

By Karen Sternheimer

Babies and children are everywhere in the media world these days. From news coverage of the California octuplets and TLC unscripted television shows like Jon and Kate plus Eight, Table for Twelve, and Eighteen and Counting it seems like there are more people having super-sized families. Oprah recently featured the families of the Yearning for Zion polygamist sect and their multiple children. I started to wonder why there is so much focus on large families on shows like these.

A few questions came to mind:

1. Are we experiencing a new baby boom?
2. Are large families becoming more popular?
3. Are women having more multiple births (three or more babies per pregnancy)?

Let’s look at the data available to see if we can find answers.

1. Are we experiencing a new baby boom?

Thanks to the growth of social institutions, we can be fairly certain that most babies born in the United States will be accounted for. If they are not born in a hospital they are still likely to be given a social security number, so we can get a pretty good count of how many babies are born each year. In 2007, the most recent year for which we have data, the birth rate did rise slightly from 2006-- 1 percent to be exact. This was the largest number of births registered in one year in the United States.

If you take a look at the graph below you can best see this reflected in the top line, which represents the actual number of births, which is now even higher than the number during the postwar baby boom years.

Source: National Vital Statistics Reports, 2009

But before we get too carried away, look at the line below, which represents the birth rate per 1,000 women aged 15-44. A rate is a measure that takes into account the population size; since the population has grown we would expect more babies born simply because there are more people to have them. The birth rate tells us a slightly different story from the raw number above. It is far lower than the birth rate during the mid-twentieth century baby boom years, and is actually somewhat flat by comparison.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average number of children per American woman decreased from 7.0 to 3.5 between 1800 and 1900. That rate declined until the baby boom after World War II (which you can clearly see in the middle of the graph below) and fell sharply in the years after. Since the mid-1970s that average has hovered below 2.0, down to an all-time low of 1.81 in several years (most recently 2007). In 2008 that number rose slightly to 1.86, but in no way does this change indicate another baby boom, at least not yet.

We can also look to see if women are having more children on average. Below is a graph that highlights the rise during the baby boom, which declined sharply after and has stayed relatively flat since. As you can see, women had an average of more than 3.5 children during the height of the baby boom years (yes, statisticians know there is no such thing as a half a person).

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999

2. Are large families becoming more popular?

The data above can also help us answer the second question; the size of families has not grown in recent years, and if anything, households have fewer people now than in the past. Still, in 2006, more than 18,500 women gave birth to their eighth child or beyond. While this might seem like an incredible number of people having such big families, taking the population as a whole into account this means that only 3 in 10,000 births are to these super-sized families. The 2006 data are very similar to the 2005 numbers and the rate of 3 in 10,000 is identical. It might well be that large families get their own reality shows because they are such an anomaly.

3. Are women having more multiple births?

The birth of octuplets to Nadya Suleman sparked controversy about the problems associated with having so many babies at once. Multiple births, particularly carrying three or more babies in a pregnancy, can introduce serious health risks to both the mother and children. Stories about people desperate to bear children using new fertility technologies might suggest that this is a new and growing problem.

The graph below shows the tremendous increase in multiple births between the late 1980s and mid 1990s, as fertility technologies became more available. Also, a growing number of women now have children later in life; such women are more likely to need these fertility technologies and, even if they don’t, the likelihood of having “natural” multiples increases due to changes in an older woman’s cycle.

Source: National Vital Statistics System, 2009

The rate of multiples actually peaked in the late 1990s; the graphs above and below detail how they have actually been declining: by 16 percent since the peak in 1998. While in 1990 there were just 13 quintuplet or higher births, in 2004 there were 86 children in this category, declining to 68 in 2005. This decline is echoed in the graph below, too.

Source: National Vital Statistics System, 2009

So looking at the data we can conclude that there isn’t exactly a new baby boom, but instead a large demographic group, the children of the baby boom generation, are in their childbearing years now. Average family size isn’t growing either. And yes, women are more likely to have triplets or larger pregnancies now than in 1990 and before, but this rate is on the decline.

What other sociological reasons can you think of to explain the baby boom on TV?

Are Teen "Sexters" Sex Offenders?

By Janis Prince Inniss

Eighteen-year-old Jesse Logan had talked about attending the University of Cincinnati. Logan sent nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend by cell phone. When the pair broke up, he sent the pictures to others, and Jesse’s torment began. She was called names like slut and whore by schoolmates, and some girls even threw objects at her. Eventually Jesse started skipping classes and in July 2008, she committed suicide.

Three teen girls in Greensburg, Pennsylvania sent racy pictures of themselves to three boys at their school. The six teens have been charged with child pornography and possessing or exhibiting a picture of a child in a sexual act. These are felony charges.

According to someone who worked in a Tampa high school, a male student there received video text of a girl masturbating.

In another case at the same high school, by the end of one day, the nude picture of a female student was sent to just about everyone at the school, including faculty and staff.

Results of a survey of teens indicate that most teens send suggestive images and texts to their boyfriends and girlfriends, but many others send them to people they want to “hook up” with. Referred to as sexting—sex and texting—the majority of teens believe that sending these messages can have “serious negative consequences”. Yet, some still send them. One of the obvious negative consequences of sexting is that “sexts” may be shared with many people other than the intended recipient(s). In fact almost half of teens say doing this is “common” and admit to doing this forwarding themselves.

Why are teens sexting? Of those male and female teens who have done it, most say they are being flirtatious, and half of the girls say they are giving their boyfriends a “sexy present”. Most of the teens surveyed believe that girls are more likely than boys to send sexy videos and photos. And why would girls be more likely to sext? The majority are doing so to get or keep a guy’s attention, to get noticed, to be fun/flirtatious, or to get a guy to like them, they said.

Teens are not the only people sending racy texts, pictures and videos. In a previous post, I discussed the fact that sexy text messages were evidence of “misconduct” by Detroit’s former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (having an extramarital affair and lying under oath) and a Tampa teacher (having sex with her students). But sexting by teens is what is claiming our attention, even if its prevalence is questionable. (A Google search of the term finds tons of articles on teen sexting; on the first page of results there was only one piece on a man whose wife was sexting someone else, but that’s the only non-teen related piece I saw on several pages.)

Maybe we’re more comfortable with adult sexuality, but many of us are skittish about teens as sexual beings. And of course many are concerned about the possible far reaching repercussions for teens of having sexy videos, semi-nude or nude pictures ”out there”. How will these images look to college admissions boards and potential employers?

Is the answer to block text messages? My mobile carrier, T-Mobile, does offer message blocking but I don’t see how this would help me if I was a texter but wanted to stop someone from sending me racy pictures. Message Blocking allows one to block one or all of the following types of messages: text, video, photos, IMs and emails. All of them! If I used message blocking, I couldn’t chose who to exchange texts with.

What does how we handle actual teen sex, as opposed to sexual photos and videos suggest on this issue? Although laws vary by state, in many states it is not a crime for older teens to have consensual heterosexual intercourse, unless one is older by a certain number of years. The permitted age range varies depending on the state. That means that in many cases teens could have consensual sex with no legal repercussions but could be charged with child pornography for sexting. In some states, conviction for possession of child pornography also requires that one be registered as a sex offender, for life.

How should we as a society handle sexting? What do you think of the legal approach of responding with felony child pornography charges? Presumably this response is meant to act as a deterrent to other would be teen sexters. But how well do various deterrence strategies work with adults? Many of our actions are not the most rational; this is a hallmark of teen life. For example, many teens believe their images will be shared but they still sext anyway. Consider who the victims of these sext crimes are. Or are these victimless crimes? Would you say that Jesse Logan was a victim? How about the teenagers in Pennsylvania? Are the three girls who sent the pictures perpetrators of a crime and the boys victims? How about if the person receiving the sext does not want it? Is that sexual harassment? What do you think?

Rihanna, Immigrant Status, and Domestic Violence

By Janis Prince Inniss

Al Green. Justin Timberlake. And Boyz II Men singing back-up, with nary a close-up of them. This ”group” performance at the Grammys should have signaled to me that something was gravely amiss. I couldn’t imagine anyone planning that performance. But how could I guess the next day’s headlines? Chris Brown charged with domestic violence! The woman in question? Apparently, his girlfriend Rihanna. (Both were scheduled to perform at the Grammys that night but cancelled hours before the show, hence the hastily pulled together group of Green and company.)

The 19 year-old Brown is being investigated for domestic violence and has been charged with felony criminal threats. The shattering picture of Rihanna delivered to the world by TMZ graphically illustrates and appears to confirm that Rihanna is the victim in this case. Many commentators have noted that Brown has accused his mother and former step-father of abusing him. Brown’s step-father denies this claim but if true, such a history certainly is an explanation of, but a poor excuse for Brown’s behavior.

But what explains Rihanna’s behavior? This is likely not Brown’s first abusive act; possibly the worst, but not the first. Given that the superstars were dating for about a year, Brown might have shown his true colors a long time ago. Why would Rihanna continue to date an abuser? Why does anyone remain in an abusive relationship?

I have never thought of the similarities between me and the singer who just turned 21 before now. We both came to live in the U.S. in our teens—me at 18 and Rihanna at about 16. And we both moved here from small countries in the Caribbean: me from Guyana and Antigua, and Rihanna from Barbados. (Like mine, her mother is Guyanese). Unfortunately, that is not the end of our similarities as I too was in an abusive relationship when I was Rihanna’s age. As I think of myself when I was a teenager, and new immigrant to the U.S., I can’t help but wonder how that circumstance fits into the equation. How might Rihanna’s immigrant status be related to her relationship with an abuser?

Moving—in either direction—between third world or developing nations and first world countries can create tremendous culture shock. Every now and then I try to guess the number of ”American” words and phrases that I have learned in the decades I have lived here, such as men named Richard are sometimes called Dick. There are experiences that are so truly foreign like snow, freeways, living among millions of people.

Unless you have experienced such a transition it may be difficult to understand that many basic aspects of life can become a challenge when you move to another country. For example, I was very much into exercise when I moved to New York from Antigua. In Antigua, I jogged on the beach or on the streets and lifted weights at a backyard gym. Upon my move, I bought the weight bench and weights that I could afford and quickly discovered that they were woefully inadequate. I tried running on the road in New York. In January. Once. That was enough for me to accept that my warming body enveloped in frigid cold is intolerable. Not being able to afford the cost of a gym membership and unable to navigate the transportation issues, the question of how to stay physically fit in the U.S. remained unresolved until I moved to California.

If I could not navigate something as simple as working out, can you imagine how daunting the idea of dating was to me? With major differences in speech, fashion, weather, transportation, population, and food, to name a few things, dating was beyond me. I could not decode the non-verbal cues in my new environment; I could barely fathom the verbal ones. Therefore, it was a relief to move a platonic friend into the boyfriend category. At least I could continue to focus college without having to try to figure out dating in the U.S.

Unlike other abused women I’ve read about, I never believed any of the ridiculous and clearly abusive things this man said to me. And given that like many abusers, he became out-of-control gradually, my youth and ignorance encouraged me to believe that he would change. He didn’t. And I felt too out of my depth living in New York to know how to handle this. It’s hard to imagine that I would have put up with such treatment in Antigua. I knew that world and felt confident there. Here, there were too many unknowns.

With her heavy Barbadian accent (I remember Jay-Z mocking her at the American Music Awards), Rihanna probably feels very much out of her element in the U.S.. And while superstardom must buy her lots of “friends”, I bet superstardom is just another arena in which she feels foreign. Maybe like me, she was glad to have some aspect of her life in America settled.

Obviously one does not have to be an immigrant to be abused. I don’t know if statistical evidence indicates that there is a relationship between being a recent immigrant to the U.S. and abuse, but I do wonder whether immigrant women are more likely to be victims of abuse.

How Young Can Your Grandma Be?

By Janis Prince Inniss

A few weeks ago when my husband referred to Grandma, I knew he was talking about my mother. At other times when he has said, “Go to Grandma,” it has taken some time to figure out who he’s talking about.

In the traditional life cycle of a marriage, we marry, move into our first shared space, and then have children. Then those children grow up, move out and stay moved out! Middle-aged, empty nest parents would finish up their work years and then retire.

What percentage of American relationships fit this profile today? Mine never has. When my husband and I married and moved into our first home, the union included his two children from a previous marriage. So we were never a childless couple. That is, until a few years ago when they both moved out. We had been married for almost ten years at that point, and it was a strange experience to be child free for the first time. It didn’t take us long to get the hang of stepping out of the parent role and we enjoyed being able to travel on a whim and go out on “school nights”. But a few months ago we ended the empty-nest life style we had settled into. We decided to allow my step-daughter, a college freshman, and her one year old son to move in with us.

That means that like Sarah Palin, I’m a young grandma (though unlike Sarah Palin I am not both a young grandma and an older mother of an infant). How is it possible that I’m a grandmother? A step-grandmother. By any name, it sounds as old and rather unlike me and what I think of when I hear the word grandmother. When my husband and I go out with the baby, people assume that we’re his parents. That’s because we are young enough to be his parents. It seems that if I lived in Hollywood and were his mother, I would be a spring-chicken. Do you know what Halle Berry, Brooke Shields and Susan Sarandon have in common? They all had babies in their 40s. In general, maternal age is advancing. So at what is referred to by the medical establishment as advanced maternal age—over age 35—I would be in good company if I have a baby now. And yet, I’m a grandma with a grandchild and his mother living in our home.

This lifestyle change facilitates my step-daughter’s college education by allowing us to offer hands-on assistance with her son. This move has also ended the DINK lifestyle we were cultivating and put us back into the business of active parenting; it’s quite different from offering telephone support and seeing the kids and their babies—each step-child now has one baby—on occasional visits. And since we are assisting Suzette (the fake name I’m giving my step-daughter) with childcare while she works and goes to school, our ability to galavant has been severely curtailed. My husband and I provide the stable environment in which children thrive, along with the emotional and financial support that a new mother and young woman such as Suzette requires. Mindful of the emotional, financial and other costs associated with paid childcare, we have encouraged Suzette to avoid it if she can. Her work and schooling both take place in the evening, allowing her to be with her son during the day. When she’s at work and school we mind the baby.

How does this put us at odds with our friends? Fortunately, our friends have children in a wide age-range—from about 6 to mid 20s. None of the friends in our social network are empty nesters as yet, so in our DINK days we were the ones out of step with them. Often we were the ones who could attend events that they could not because we did not have to go over homework or attend soccer practice or games. And because several of our friends still have relatively young children and are very family-oriented, their gatherings can easily include a toddler.

This turn of events puts me at a rather “mixed” age. My chronological age and social age don’t match. I’m told that, like many members of my family, I don’t even look my chronological age. Add to that the fact that women my age are having children and it’s clear why people assume that I’m the mother of the toddler; it’s not a stretch to believe that my husband and I are his parents. Grandparent is one of the most positive roles associated with aging, and although I am young for that role, I now have two grandchildren. It’s why most people upon learning that I’m a grandmother ask, “What does he call you? You’re too young to be called Grandma!” He has no name for me as he doesn’t speak yet. But once he does, what name would be hip enough? Certainly, not Grandma!

How do experiences like mine challenge what you have learned about the “life-course”?

Breaching Baby Norms

By Sally Raskoff

The more we hear about the Nadya Sulemon, the recent mother of octuplets and six other children, the more the public sentiment turns against her. Most multiple births are greeted with caring concern for the babies and parents. Mothers of multiples are typically women who, in their desperation to become mothers, seek fertility treatments after multiple failed pregnancy attempts. However, this year’s public multiple mom doesn’t match the typical demographic.

Why has the tide of public sentiment turned against Sulemon? From a sociological viewpoint, Ms. Sulemon has breached the norms of motherhood.

When the news first hit, it generated an outpouring of concern for all eight infants and the mother. We were fascinated that they thought it was seven fetuses and they were surprised at the existence of the eighth. Curiosity then turned to the mother and her circumstances. How long had she been trying to conceive? Who was her husband, the father? How would they support all those kids?

We were then told that she already had six children. Then we found out that her ex-husband wasn’t the father of any of the children. Then we discovered that she lives with her mother and supports herself through disability payments for a back injury. It also emerged that the sperm donor is someone she knows and that a fertility clinic helped her conceive the babies.

What norms are being broken here?

• Women who pursue fertility treatments and are implanted with multiple embryos typically do not already have one child, much less six.
• Mothers-to-be are usually married or have a partner with whom they will share parenting.
• Most of the time the parents have a job that will support some or all of their financial needs.
• Sperm donors are usually anonymous unless they are the woman’s partner.
• And finally fertility clinics usually follow guidelines and policies of reasonable implantations to avoid risky multiple births like this one.

In her interview with Today's Ann Curry, Ms. Sulemon mentions that she hopes the sperm-donor father of her children will want to know his children some day. This would deepen the breach of norms since sperm donors are not typically involved in knowing or raising the people their sperm may help create.

Fertility issues are relatively recent societal phenomena, thus these norms are new and contested. Yet when this case became public, the outrage it created reflects the strength of these norms. Typically, when norms are breached, society works to repair the breach through various means-- including punishing the offender.

Kaiser health care members have voiced concerns that they are in effect paying for her medical care and the millions of dollars that are supporting the preemies as they continue to grow. Californians have voiced concerns that their taxes are paying for her disability payments, and some have expressed skepticism about how someone who supposedly has a serious back injury could carry so many pregnancies. The many mental health professionals commenting in the media analyze her every statement and call into question her mental health status and question the (many) incongruities in her statements.

Most of the breaching repairs to date are aimed at discrediting Sulemon’s behavior as pathological and irresponsible. More than one story mentions the salience of her behavior “in the current economic climate”-- as if different economic times would have resulted in a different set of responses.

Many of the responses to this situation are focused on the financial burden of having fourteen children. While watching the interview, I was struck by how much this woman looked and sounded like a famous mother of many children, Angelina Jolie. Child-bearing is normative when you can support your own children, or, stated more bluntly, if you’re wealthy enough, you can have as many children as you like since you can “afford” them. The public reaction to Angelina Jolie’s non-traditional reproduction and parenting choices isn’t nearly as negative, in part because she can support her brood and has a partner with whom to share the responsibilities and the joys.

Famous, wealthy, or middle class women who become single parents by choice through adoption, fertility treatments, or handy friends, do not face the scrutiny that poor women do. In this case, society is taking part in the financial support of this family because the mother receives tax-payer subsidized disability payments, food stamps, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of health care.

These outcries are breaching repairs, geared to clarify and reinforce our norms about child-bearing. Will we reinforce these norms enough to change our laws? Will we as a society insist that fertility clinic policies are more ethical, sensible, and enforceable? However, stating in legal terms that poor women have different rights from wealthier women would clearly be problematic.

What other informational tidbits will come to us about this situation and how will we handle them? Will we use new information about Sulemon as further evidence of “irresponsible behavior” and cast ourselves as judge and jury to restore the norms of society? Or will we retain some of the caring and concern that usually accompanies news of multiple birth events?

Are we Equal, but Separate?

By Janis Prince Inniss

My best friend is white. In fact, several of my friends are from racial and ethnic backgrounds that differ from my own. As a black woman in the U.S., these may be unusual truths or may even sound like the old cliche, “Some of my best friends are black.” Now that President Barack Obama is in the White House lots of people having been saying, both publicly and privately that race relations are improving in America. And perhaps they are. However two recent incidents have caused me to think less optimistically about the role of race in our social interactions.

One recent Saturday night I attended two parties. As I was on my way out of the first—a holiday gathering— I was surprised to see a group of about four white couples at the dining table. The other guests, all of whom were black, were mingling in the kitchen, living room, or were on the lanai. This was a fairly large gathering of about fourteen or more couples eating, drinking and chatting throughout this home, while their children played in a game room. Because the sizable home’s layout, I did not realize that this group had formed at the dining table until I passed them on my way out. To be sure, the eight or so whites at that table were in the minority at that party; everyone else was black. And the fact that they were even there as invited guests of my friends the black hosts suggests that some cross race socialization was taking place .

But why was there this segregation at the party? Perhaps there was a good explanation for this group to be off by themselves—they work together and were talking shop or are neighbors discussing their homeowner’s association—I don’t know. And perhaps there was co-mingling after I left.

When I left that party, before I could finish mulling over what I had witnessed, I went to the graduation party of another friend’s son. I was very excited to be attending this graduation of a young man—a young black male—part of the demographic least likely to be among the college educated. This young man had graduated from one of the nation’s top schools. As though continuing an unwritten theme of the evening, however, this was another segregated social event. Except for one or two Latinos, every one of the graduate’s friends at this reception was black!

I was glad to see so many young black men who were in/or graduating from college but how is it possible to attend a predominately white college and make no white friends there? I would ask a similar question about a white graduate with only white friends too. How is it possible to attend even a “majority” school and make no minority friends? Friendships are not regulated and we don’t want them to be. But these incidents remind me that in many cases Americans continue to live segregated lives.

Despite decades of bussing and other integration efforts, many kids ”choose” to hang out with their own race at school. I see evidence of this weekly when I meet with a high school mentee. Everywhere I look, there are bunches of black students together, white students together, and Latino students together. When my step-daughter was in middle school, I saw students waiting for the school bus in the same fashion. I often thought it unrealistic that none of the friends on the TV show of the same name had any interactions with minorities, particularly since that show was set in the highly cosmopolitan city of New York. (Eventually black actress Aisha Tyler made a few appearances as a love interest, finally adding some ”color” to the show.)

Whether or not one has friends or acquaintances who are a different race is not an academic issue. Recent research indicates that even spending relatively short amounts of time with someone of a different race reduces bias and prejudice. The extended-contact effect even ripples out to include your friends. In these research sessions, strangers of differing races are brought together for four hour-long sessions. In these structured interactions, pairs move from simple conversations to those that address more serious matters and eventually to a trust exercise. Some of the people form relationships that move beyond the research environment. People who have been through these exercises instantly score lower on prejudice measures and are less afraid of encounters with people of another race. Research suggests that even low doses of ”exposure” to someone of a different race can impact our attitudes towards that group.

Do you live in an area that is racially and ethnically diverse? How many of your friends or people in your social circle are from a different racial background than your own? Social settings do not have the structure of these research sessions, but in some cases we can build trusting relationships even in a purely social environment. Why might this be important?

Black-White Interracial Relationships

By Janis Prince Inniss

One of the many reasons that I love staying in hotels is that I get to watch cable TV. And although I have had cable for about a year—as a side-attraction to the best telephone deal we could find--I only have the 5,000 or so basic channels. So on my recent hotel stay, I was rather excited to have access to HBO. I salivated when I saw an advertisement for comedian Chris Rock's "Kill the Messenger" special on that channel. And this treat was the impetus for getting back to the hotel by 9:30 one evening. One joke has stayed with me since then. Without giving it away, Rock tries to answer the following question: Why are more black men romantically paired with white women than black women are with white men?

It was not until the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia , that interracial marriages became legal in the U.S. There are many aspects of this case that are striking, but in the context of this post, it is remarkable that this landmark case was of a black woman and white man. This combination of race and gender is noteworthy because, although interracial marriages are relatively rare overall, those of black women to white men are rarer still. (The most recent census data put these unions at about 7% of all U.S. marriages. Although this is a marked increase from 40 years ago, it is still a very low percentage.)

In the last 27 years, despite enormous social shifts in American society, there is nothing approaching equality in terms of the ratios of black men and women who choose white spouses. Looking at the graph below, you will see that the black female/white male pairings of today are about what they were 30 years ago for black male/white female dyads. (The blue line represents black husband/white wife). In other words, today, white men and black women marry at about the same rate that black men and white men married about three decades ago.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Table 59 and Table MS-3.

Even when we look at interracial cohabitation, black men are far more likely than black women to be living with a white partner of the opposite sex. In fact, 82% of blacks cohabiting with whites are male. Why is this so?

As I contemplate this question, I can’t help but reflect on my own experiences in the world of dating. When I attended USC—which had, and still has, a majority white student body—I felt invisible to white men—completely and totally invisible. It was like I didn’t exist to them, not as a person, let alone as a woman. Of course, there were exceptions. My professors recognized me and knew my name. And a fellow first year graduate student once gave me a lift home on his motorcycle. This time at USC was notable for me because my experience there was in great contrast to some of my experiences when I lived among large populations of blacks; from an early age, I was used to men and boys noticing and admiring me. Any feminist worth her sensible shoes will disavow whistles, but it was an odd, if not unwelcome experience for me to be so ignored. How typical or not was my experience?

If it is typical, it would begin to explain why there are fewer black female/white male romances. If men are still mostly the initiators of relationships, one explanation may be that men—regardless of their own race—have been exposed to a similar beauty standard. And that beauty standard is white. Tall, thin, straight- haired white women is the image most of are bombarded with as being beautiful. All men seeking that image would be seeking white women. (This is not to suggest that these relationships remain at a superficial level.) Given this standard, who would be attracted to me? This is a question that I considered as a single woman in Los Angeles. I chose to wear my hair in braids, before cutting it to little more than peach fuzz. Neither of these hairstyles created a look reminiscent of “the average girl from the video” or those on magazine covers. Perhaps, these looks underscore why I was invisible to white males at USC.

Many sociologists have used social exchange theory to explain interracial marriage. Maybe this seems cold, especially in relation to romantic relationships, but this theory asks us to think about the costs and benefits of relationships. It posits that we keep relationships in which their benefits out weigh their costs. Unfortunately it does not provide an explanation for why there are more white female-black male pairs than the other way around? (Can you guess what social exchange theory has to say about the characteristics of whites and blacks that do intermarry?)

Sustainability and Marriage

By Sally Raskoff

In a previous blog, I discussed the concept of sustainability, focusing specifically on the environment. We can also view marriage in this context.

The fight over same-sex marriage has also used sustainability as an argument. As Governor Mike Huckabee recently stated on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, marriage exists to create babies, thus sustaining our civilization.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

He is invoking a religious argument that sees marriage in this particular way – as the societal institution that sanctions perpetuation of the species. This is, of course, only one partial function of marriage and it is not entirely correct.

Marriage is more of an institution that regulates sexual behavior, which can lead to childbearing if fertile heterosexuals are the people involved in the marriage (and if they choose to procreate). Childbearing and “family making” can also occur with people raising children that someone else has born or whose genetic origins are partially or wholly someone else’s as when fertility drugs and technologies are used.

And marriages do not always create children even if fertile heterosexuals are the people involved in the marriage. Thus childbearing does not come only from marriage between heterosexuals even as the religious organizations that are primary today hold this as the norm to which we are told we should all aspire. When you think about it sociologically, it is more accurate to state that historically a marriage license really worked as a license to have socially legitimate sex!

More importantly, marriage is the institution that controls the ownership and transmission of property and property rights – as the series finale of Boston Legal cleverly depicted with the marriage of Denny Crane and Alan Shore. While women are no longer property in this country, property and ownership rights remain central to the institution of marriage. Spousal rights of inheritance, power of attorney, health and retirement benefits, and taxation all rest with that ability to gain a marriage license.

While some of these benefits can be gained by other legal partnerships such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, those marriage ”alternatives” have no socially legitimate naming benefits. Calling one’s partner your wife or husband is very different from referring solely to one’s partner – and not only because some people assume you’re talking about your business partner.

Thus defining marriage as one for a heterosexual couple only rather than people irrespective of gender or sexual orientation is allowing homophobia to be the more “sustainable” short-term pattern as it continues to set same-sex couples apart from other-sex couples. This has the effect of continuing our patterns of inequality based on sexual orientation – thus calling into question whether or not defining marriage in this way is really sustainable!

As we saw in the 1960s, limiting marriage to people based on race was not a truly sustainable practice even as the religious institutions of the time supported those racial bans on intermarriage. Realizing that marriage is an institution for regulating sexual behavior and to create families in which people socialize children – a very sustainable entity by definition – one must realize that barring people from doing this because their race or gender combinations are not typical does not serve the society’s need to sustain itself over time.

If marriage helps serve to stabilize society, one might wonder what harm can come from encouraging more consenting adults from committing themselves to one partner, with full legal benefits and responsibilities. Then again, maybe those who oppose gay marriage should abandon the sustainability argument. After all, allowing same-sex couples to marry does nothing to preclude the ability and desire for heterosexual couples to marry and raise children.

Can Television Get You Pregnant?

By Karen Sternheimer

While science has not yet allowed electronics to impregnate us, this question circulated in the news the day before the presidential election on November 3. Lost in the frenzy of the election, it was easy to miss reports of a new study in the journal Pediatrics that found a relationship between teen pregnancy and watching sexually laden television shows. 

News organizations like Time, CNN, MSNBC, and the Washington Post and others around the world covered this study, validating its importance and suggesting that sex on television is a central cause of teen pregnancy. But is it really?

Let’s start with the study itself. The researchers studied twelve- to seventeen-year-olds over three years. They conducted a survey by phone, starting with 2,003 respondents; by the end of three years, the sample size had shrunk to 1,461. (In long-term studies it isn’t uncommon for researchers to lose track of participants who may move and/or change phone numbers.)

The authors document that those most likely to have remained in the study were younger, female, and had parents with less education. Among black teens in particular, those who remained were more likely to have been sexually active at the start of the study. By the end of the study, 91 teens, or fourteen percent of the remaining sample became pregnant or had gotten someone pregnant.

In addition to gathering information about sexual behavior, the survey asked teens how often they watched one of 23 predetermined television shows that the researchers determined had high levels of sexual content (including flirting, touching, kissing, talk about sex, implied sex, and depictions of actual intercourse).

The authors’ initial findings suggest that the most important factors associated with teen pregnancy are being black, female, exhibiting problem behavior, and stating an intention to have a child before the age of 22. Living in a two-parent family was negatively associated with teen pregnancy; in other words, these teens were significantly less likely to become pregnant or to impregnate someone. Television viewing on its own was not statistically significant. 

When the authors performed a multivariate analysis, or controlled for these other factors, television viewing became statistically significant—although the strongest predictors remained being black, female, not living in a two-parent household, and exhibiting problem behavior. Television viewing itself was actually negatively associated with pregnancy; the more television watched, the less likely a pregnancy would occur.

And yes, they found that watching the shows they deemed high in sexual content was statistically significant when controlling for the other factors, but it was less of a factor than those mentioned above. 

If you have taken statistics, you might remember the term p value, which means the probability of this finding being the result of chance or an actual relationship between the concepts we are studying.

Generally speaking, social scientists want to make sure that our findings are unlikely to be the result of chance. If we want to be 99.9 percent certain, we use a p-value of .001 or lower, 99 percent certain means our p-value must be no greater than .01, and to be 95 percent certain our p-value cannot exceed .05. If we are not at least 95 percent certain that our findings are not the result of chance, we typically will concede our results are not statistically significant.

Now back to sex and TV. According to the Pediatrics study, we can be 99 percent certain that being black and exhibiting problem behavior is linked with teen pregnancy, and 99.9 percent that being female and not living in a two-parent family is also linked with teen pregnancy. The p-value for these variables is about .01 or less.

When we look at the television p-values, they are higher, which means the strength of their significance is lower. Total television exposure, a factor that predicts lower pregnancy likelihood, has a p-value of .02, meaning we can be 98 percent certain of this relationship. Age also has a p-value of .02, indicating that getting older is also a predictor of pregnancy. 

And what of the smoking gun of sex on television, the finding that heard ‘round the world? It’s p-value is .03, the weakest of the statistically significant findings.

This does not mean these findings don’t matter, but the authors’ conclusion that the “results suggest that television may have a substantial role in the high rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States” is likely an overstatement. 

The authors do concede that they cannot make any causal conclusions here; correlation is not the same as causation. Yet their concluding suggestions focus on television: they ask industry leaders to modify content, encourage pediatricians to inquire more about their patients’ media use and suggest parents to watch television with teens more often.

While it is very possible that teens who are sexually active might be more drawn to sexual media content than their abstinent peers, there are a number of unexplored issues here. First is the racial/ethnic disparity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2006 African American teens aged fifteen to nineteen had a birthrate of 63.7 per thousand, Latina teens 83.0 per thousand, Native American teens 54.7 per thousand, Asian American teens 16.7 per thousand and white teens 26.6 per thousand. Something is going on here, and it’s not just that the white and Asian American parents are watching television with their kids.

Teen pregnancy is highest in racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of poverty. Yes, lower income people might also watch more television, but the central causal factor is not what teens see on TV. Lack of access to and information about birth control, lack of access to the educational and job opportunities that might be derailed by early pregnancy, as well as cultural factors come into play to explain teen pregnancy far better than what is on TV. For instance, a recent New Yorker article described how evangelical teens are actually more likely than other teens to be sexually active but less likely to use birth control. Sociologists have hypothesized that cultural attitudes condemning premarital sex might make these teens less likely to use birth control, which teens might interpret of proof of a plan to have sex rather than something that "just happened."

Teen birth rates are also much higher in the United States than they are in Europe, which has far more sexually explicit TV than we do here. But we have much higher poverty rates. If we truly want to reduce the number of teen pregnancies—and there are good reasons to try and do this—television is a tantalizing, but ultimately futile diversion. Studies like this make for great sound bites, but reducing teen pregnancy is far more complex than changing the channel.