Family Friendly?

In the days leading up to Father’s Day this past Sunday, one could find a number of advertisements providing helpful suggestions on what to buy for Dad.  Home Depot, for example, suggested men really wanted to be fixing things and involved in construction—a task much easier accomplished with the help of their special “Man” gift card.  Just last month, diamond and flower companies were busy spending dollars encouraging families to give Mom the gifts she deserved.

These holidays remind many of us that the media presentations of family dynamics—and the women and men that make up these families—are often distorted. Educational institutions are increasingly teaching students to be critical in their consumption of many of the gendered images they see in the media. Miss Representation (2011), is but one recent example of a documentary aimed at increasing the awareness about the impacts of current media representations of men and women.

Whether it is stereotypes of men seeking power tools and women seeking diamonds or the hyper-sexualized images of males and females in the media, we need alternatives portraying men and women differently.  In this context, the idea of a family friendly outlet sounds promising.  As someone who listens occasionally to Christian music radio stations, I hear this claim often asserted, and acknowledge they do often offer positive messages.   That said, I often end up changing the dial, or turning off the radio completely, due to a lack of a family friendly encouraging message.

I have not analyzed the songs played on most Christian radio channels or those gracing the Billboard charts for their messages about families and gender.  Nor do I listen enough to pretend to know most of the messages emitted over their airwaves.  We do know that men dominate the industry. In an article available online penned about two years ago, Christianity Today brought attention to the fact that men performed 96% of the top 50 Christian songs of the decade (even as between one-fourth to one-third of Christian artists were women).

While a quick glance at a list of popular songs reveals that a majority do not describe different lived experiences for men and women, a significant amount do.  In one song, a woman is encouraged to find meaning in cleaning up Cheerios. Women are reminded that God is there when they are waiting up anxiously for their spouse to come home.  A girl struggling with her image is fulfilled by the notion that God sees her as beautiful.  I don’t object to the message in these songs. Caring and cleaning for one’s family can be an act of love.  Christian faith should speak into angst over appearances.  But these are not uniquely female issues.

Just as troublesome as the fact that only women are struggling with certain issues is that only men are struggling with others in the songs.  It is a man who is anxious about providing for his family. Men are encouraged to show more leadership in their families. And it is a man who is struggling to connect the dull moments in his work with the larger mission to which he has been called.  Taken together, the models of men and women portrayed in Christian songs promote a restrictive view of gendered roles.

When inspirational messages or short teaching messages about families are shared on the radio, messages are more direct and more normative.  Again, not all provide different teachings for men and women, but some do. One example that stands out is the notion that girls really want to be loved, and boys are competitive and want to succeed—a message even my six-year old sees as ridiculous. Such messages are not confined to Christian radio, but often asserted from pulpits as well.

As a sociologist who teaches on the family, I often remind my students that images of “traditional families” promoted by many evangelical churches (especially those that are largely white and middle/upper class) are not historically accurate. My students read a book written almost 20 years ago, Women Caught in the Conflict: The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. In this book, she does an excellent job critiquing the notion that our evangelical models of families are in fact traditional. Some students are often surprised by what they read, and find it challenging to consider the ways culture is embedded in proclaimed Biblical models (progressive and conservative alike).

My observations on Christian radio are not a call to re-ignite mommy (or daddy) wars, or to argue against songs about God drying tears of insecurity, or comforting a lonely mother.  Central to the Christian faith is the idea that being loved by God should be core to our identity.  But I do want to argue against the implicit notion that not being pretty, or not being a good enough mother, are the central issues women care about.  As a parent of three girls, I want more for my daughters.  I want them to hear about women seeking to follow God by taking risks, women fighting injustice in the world, or women wrestling with intellectual and vocational questions.

Family friendly radio claims seem to be based in the fact that they do not air songs with profanity; lyrics are not too sexy; commentators do not make crass jokes. On all accounts, I support these aims. But it’s not enough. A claim of being family friendly should encourage all kinds of families through building them up and building up the members that make them. It should encourage both women and men to lead their families, and encourage them to explore and use their God-given gifts and talents.

At the moment, I have yet to find a station claiming a family friendly label that I would certify. For my family, turning off the station is sometimes the best way forward.

Tiger Alumni Giving – An Outsider’s View

Hep! Hep!

Rah! Rah! Rah!

Tiger! Tiger! Tiger!

Sis! Sis! Sis!

Boom! Boom! Boom!


’92! ’92! ’92!

This was the chant yawped at the recent legendary reunions of the College of New Jersey (aka Princeton). I had the privilege to witness this ritual experience recently and despite being on vacation, I often can’t help but keep the sociological analysis from intruding. Reunions are a sociological idea after all, it assumes that we identify with a group of people who shared the same experience – in the case of universities, it’s a college experience (whether or not it was about the educational content is a different matter). In sociological terms, alumni giving is a demonstration of institutional commitment. So the idea then is that a positive experience as an undergraduate might motivate some or many to give back financially once they have graduated. The problem of course is that time and distance tend to weaken the sense of connectedness to the school. Thus reunions can be an effective way of reigniting the flame of good times long past. And many will also see how older and newer generations of alumni also share in the chain of memory of their alma mater.

So I should mention that Princeton boasts the highest alumni giving rates of any institution of higher education,(notice that it’s nearest competitor, Dartmouth College is 11% lower in alumni giving) so of course many folks in the fund-raising scene are paying (pun intended) attention to this school to learn what works.

As an honorary tiger (and dare I say “I was a professor at Princeton” since I am a professor and I was at Princeton (for two days [cough])), I believe the reunion experience at Princeton is quite exceptional, and may be the key to its high alumni giving. So here are my observation and a few tips for universities seeking to emulate the reunion experience in order to increase alumni giving.

-Get graduating seniors to participate in the festivities. According to insiders, Princeton seniors basically spend the last two weeks before graduation hanging around campus and participating in the reunion weekend. That’s right, they have their first reunion before they leave campus. This leaves seniors with potentially one of the most positive experiences they have before leaving the school and entering into the real world.

-Don’t change a thing: My wife and I shared a student dorm room with the same California-King twin mattress bunk-bed since 1982. There’s nothing more effective in reliving the experience of being an undergraduate once more than trying to climb up to the top bunk with feet that are now 20 years older. This dorm retained its basement (yes basement) location for the communal bathroom. While I never attended this school, ah the how the smell of mold, sweaty clothes can bring back those memories of yesteryear. That and the lovely sound of a poor comrade kneeling before the porcelain throne two stalls down. And that’s precisely the point. In these uncomfortable conditions, one gains a sense of solidarity in the relative suffering that all Tigers faced.

Noted Alum Gordon Wu donation

-Change lots of things: In meeting up with my wife’s friends, I learned that numerous new buildings went up, a few buildings were completely razed and rebuilt, and some were remodeled on the inside while still retaining the Gothic exterior that is the main architectural theme at this school. To do so requires money, and nothing says “your alumni dollars go to improve this school” than seeing new buildings named after one rather generous donor.

That's science!

-Show off your multi-million dollar science stuff. We visited the geological sciences building and had an amazing opportunity to stand in several rooms where science took place. These devices help us understand the geologic record so that we can determine when major events like mass extinctions took place millions of years ago. Science usually conveys progress, and progress is costly, so why not let alumni know that their school is making progress, er, science?

-Sensory overload: Have food and drink everywhere but only at select hours. While alumni were asked to visit the food tents once per meal, the choices were delectable to be sure and one visit would be more than sufficient. Besides, the local haunts like Hoagie Haven and the 24-hour convenient store chain “Wawa” retained their status as the 1am pit stops for sandwich and beer runs. It has been a long time since I had seen a true line outside of a deli at 1am, but such is the case during alumni weekend.

-Invite Bon Jovi and Joan Jett. It doesn’t hurt to have connections with celebrities from your home state, even if they didn’t attend your alma mater. The highest reunion group is usually the 25th anniversary and not surprisingly “Living on a Prayer” could be heard at their reunion tent. What’s valuable about music of course is that the right kind draws listeners’ memories of their youthful spirit. Nothing makes you want to give money away than feeling young again. Notably jazz and other generation-appropriate music could be heard across the campus in tents for the class of ’52 and ’65 and so forth.

-Have kick-ass acapella singing groups in kick-ass acoustic spaces near the midnight hour because it’s edgy and you just had a hoagie and beer. Princeton has over 10 student-led acapella groups by now and these reunions help bring back alumni to enjoy singing once more with new members.

-Last but not least, have an amazing parade that’s been a tradition for over a century where each graduating class invents a theme that is usually emblazoned on a costume. We watched members of the graduating class of 1925, and shouted the motto above as they waved past in their golf carts. The class of ’92 was the Tiger Chef, and even honorary tigers got tchotchke. 

I suppose it doesn’t hurt to have incredibly bright graduates (The 200+ survey respondents of the class of ’92 revealed that 18% of them had a PhD) and very rich graduates (15% reported household income equaling or exceeding over 1 million a year), but I’m pretty sure it’s the reunion weekend that sends people for their checkbook. That and Bon Jovi.

YouTube Preview Image


Do We Do What is Important in Life?

At some point in my life, maybe last Tuesday, I realized that what I, and others, want in life is sometimes very different than what we put our time and energy into. I suppose that I have mostly assumed that people do what they want—within the boundaries of external constraints and opportunities. So, if someone spends a lot of time at work, they main value is getting ahead in their career and maybe providing for others, and if someone else spends a lot of time with their children, their main value is how they raise their children.

There are certainly people that I know whose lives are well integrated in that they know what they want and they put their life into it. But I also know of people whose actions and efforts seem, well, unrelated to what they profess as their values. This could be interpreted as their actions reflecting what they really value, but it could also be just a general sense of inefficacy in this aspect of life—that they never learned or otherwise figured out how to focus long-term on what is most important.

Still others seem to have an inverse relationship between what they want in life and what they do. The more they want something, the more they veer away from it. This could represent anxiety and fear. Important things are scary and taking them on requires self-confidence and often some level of external security.

So, since I like to make figures and tables, we can envision the relationship between effort and value as something along the lines of the following:

Now, I have spoken about it as if there are three different types of people, put really I think that each of us probably has elements of all three models in our lives. In my life, there are some areas where I’m pretty good about putting myself into what matters, but there are other areas in which I’m not and still others that I pretty much ignore because they are important. A good example of the latter is a letter that I have been wanting to write to a funding agency asking for money. I’ve been talking about it for about a year, and it will take me an hour max, and it’s potentially much more important than a lot of other things that I do, but I haven’t/ won’t make the time to do it.

In recent years, I’ve tried to pay more attention to the alignment between how I spend my day and what is really important to me, and I’ve been surprised at how much I’ve needed to change and still need to change. I’ve also realized that, as a parent, I need actively to train my children in how to pursue what is important.

How about you?

Part 2: More Info about the Study on Adult Children of Parents who have Same-Sex Relationships

Part 2 in a series on the New Family Structures Study I conducted.

Just a few links, as well as the answer to some common criticisms of the study…

The study itself is free and publicly available, beginning today, at this site, together with another study on the matter by Loren Marks (LSU professor), and three comments on the studies, including one by Paul Amato, Penn State sociologist and current president of the National Council on Family Relations.

My short summary piece on the study is up at, here, as is William Saletan’s take.

In response to a common criticism about the fact that there are few respondents who reported growing up in stably-coupled lesbian families, I had this to say:

“One of the key methodological criticisms circulating is that–basically–in a population-based sample, I haven’t really evaluated how the adult children of stably-intact coupled self-identified lesbians have fared. Right? Right. And I’m telling you that it cannot be feasibly accomplished. It is a methodological (practical) impossibility at present, for reasons I describe: they really didn’t exist in numbers that could be amply obtained *randomly*. It may well be a flaw–a limitation, I think–but it is unavoidable. We maxxed Knowledge Networks’ ability, and no firm is positioned to do better. It would have cost untold millions of dollars, and still may not generate the number of cases needed for statistical analyses. If randomness wasn’t the key priority, then we could’ve done it. And we’d have had a nonrandom sample that was no better than anything before it. So, while critics are taking potshots, they should remember that there’s a (low) ceiling to what’s possible here. My team of consultants elected to go with the screener questions (including the one about same-sex relationships) that we did, anticipating–accurately, too–that there would be no way of generating ample sample size if we narrowed the criteria (for who counts as a lesbian parent) to the sort that critics are calling for. We figured that, with the household roster/calendar offering the opportunity to identify who you lived with, we’d comfortably get enough cases wherein the respondent reported living with mom and her partner for many consecutive years. But few did.”

Q & A with Mark Regnerus about the background of his new study

Part 1 in a series on the New Family Structures Study I conducted.

Figured it was worth answering some basic background questions about the new study, me, etc., given all the hubbub it’s receiving.

Q: Why did you undertake the study about adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?

A: Two reasons. First, because I thought I could pull together a diverse group of people to figure out how best to test the “no differences” hypothesis. And second, because it’s an interesting research question, and I don’t mind navigating controversy a bit. I’m at a point in my career where I’m less concerned about making my professional peers happy and more about studying interesting things. In particular, the “no differences” hypothesis seemed quirky to me. I wondered if it was really true.

Q: You realize the Witherspoon Institute is a pretty conservative organization, politically.

A: Yes. And the Ford Foundation is a pretty liberal one. Every academic study is paid for by someone. I’ve seen excellent studies funded by all sorts of interest groups. I don’t waste too much time worrying about the sources of funding, so long as the research questions are compelling and the data collection methods solid. Funding is hard to get these days. Witherspoon had nothing to do with the study design, or with the data analyses, or interpretations, or the publication of the study. To me, I treated it the same as if the funding came from NICHD or NSF.

Q: So why didn’t you go to NICHD or NSF for funding?

A: For two reasons. First, because in informal conversation about it, Witherspoon expressed openness to funding it. I was between book projects and it sounded like
an interesting thing to pursue. I informed Witherspoon that if I were to run the study, I would report the results, whatever they may be. And honestly my bet was that it would be a far more mixed set of results, with many null findings. Second, I actually don’t think a study like this would fly at NICHD or NSF. In the wider social science community, the matter of “no differences” is considered either settled or too politicized. Of course, why it would be considered settled is beyond me. What issues get settled in a decade?

Q: Have other studies used the same methodological approach you did?

A: Most have not, as I elaborate in the literature review section of the study. That’s what’s unique about this study. Only Michael Rosenfeld’s 2010 article in Demography utilized a large population-based sample to compare one outcome among same-sex and other types of households. Others have worked with existing population-based samples, but rather small ones. But apart from Rosenfeld’s study, this is the largest nationally-representative sample of same-sex households, and I looked at 40 different outcomes, not just one or two.

Q: Why did you use Knowledge Networks as the firm to carry out the data collection?

A: I investigated several firms’ ability to collect random data from small populations, and their reputation and track record in academic research kept popping up. The fact that they actively maintain a large random panel of respondents was a big plus. Other family scholars have used them. Major data collection projects—funded by federal agencies, private entities, and even condom manufacturers—have used them. They’re very good.

Q: I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase “correlation does not equal causation.” Is that the case here?

A: For sure. This is an overview piece that explores statistical associations, and explores what happens when I control for a variety of other variables. But an assessment of causation is not possible here. I explored a likely suspect—household instability—but apart from longitudinal data, I’d be in a tough spot to claim causation.

Q: So besides the results, what makes this study any different from previous ones?

A: In a nutshell, it’s primarily the sampling strategy, the sample size, and method variance: we employed a random, population-based sample, and a large one at that, so people can generalize to the broader population of young adults in America. And we talked to independent adults, not to parents or kids still in the home. Nobody did that before.

Q: Is there a political take-home message in the study?

A: No. As I stated in the article, “this study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships…”

Q: Come on. You can’t surmise what people will make of this study politically?

A: You know, I don’t think it easily lends itself to one particular answer to any of the politicized questions that are circulating about gay marriage, or parental rights, etc. What it comprises is significant, new, high-quality information on the long reach of household structure in the lives of American young people. And more information is always a plus, I would think.

Q: Some might say this study reveals evidence that gay and lesbian parents would benefit from access to the relative security of marriage. What are your thoughts on that?

A: It’s possible. How gay marriages would function for children is an empirical question, but it’s only answerable in the future, after ample numbers of cases have accrued, after considerable time has expired, and when the respondents are old enough to speak and reflect about it, as the respondents in my study have.

Q: What did you think of President Obama’s recent endorsement of same-sex marriage?

A: I’m a researcher. It doesn’t alter how I approach the academic study of sexual behavior or family formation.

Q: From a Google search of your previous work, it appears that you’ve talked with a variety of religious groups. Are you personally religious, and if so doesn’t that compromise this study?

A: I’m Catholic, for the record, and politically haven’t yet voted for a Republican presidential candidate. Religious organizations have historically been interested in the sorts of subject matter I’ve studied. But there’s no “Christian” approach to sampling or “Catholic” way of crunching numbers. Any trained methodologist, data manager, and statistician can locate the same patterns I reported. Others may ask different questions, or follow different decision rules on measures. But that’s normal science.

Q: So are gay parents worse than traditional parents?

A: The study is not about parenting per se. There are no doubt excellent gay parents and terrible straight parents. The study is, among other things, about outcome differences between young adults raised in households in which a parent had a same-sex relationship and those raised by their own parents in intact families. It’s not about sexual orientation, at least not overtly. There are many significant differences, but the study does not ascribe any causes for the differences. This can only be assessed with additional research. What is evident in the data, however, is above-average instability among households in which mom or dad had a same-sex relationship. For example, among the former only two respondents total said they lived with their mother and her partner nonstop from birth to age 18. Two more said they did so for 15 years, and two more for 13 years. To be sure, these 10 fared better on more outcomes than did their less-stable peers. They’re just uncommon, and too small a group to detect statistically-significant differences, for sure. Future studies would ideally include more children from “planned” gay or lesbian families, but their relative scarcity in the NFSS data suggests that their appearance in even much larger probability samples may remain infrequent for the foreseeable future.

Q: Will you conduct more research on this subject?

A: There will not be additional data collection efforts with the NFSS. While I am working on several studies using the data, I intend to return to the study of heterosexual behavior soon.