My Fascination with Teen Mom

On October 28, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Popular Culture and Consumption, Relationships, Marriage and Family, Sex and Gender, Todd Schoepflin30 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin

If someone were to tell me I would watch a reality television show on MTV called Teen Mom at the age of 38, I would have called that person crazy. But it happened. I watched several episodes of the now completed season two. Why was I drawn to the world of teen moms?

First of all, I actually relate to a lot of what happens on the show because I’m a parent too. Obviously I’m neither a teenager nor a mom, but I strongly identify as a father. I consider my self to contain three major identities: college professor, father, and husband (not necessarily in that order). Sure, there’s more to me than those parts, but those are the three statuses that dominate my life. And the father part of me likes to watch how other people parent.

In sociological terms, the teen moms portrayed on the show served as a reference group for me. They provided a host of parenting behaviors to which I could compare and contrast my own style of parenting. I’m not saying they were a highly influential reference group. I’m only saying they were a group of parents that I could use to evaluate my own parenting ability—like when I make note of what parents do when I encounter them at playgrounds, grocery stores, parties, and anywhere else I see other people parenting.

I find it interesting to take a moment to think about the title of the show. The two-word title gets right to the point. Though the characters on the show have several statuses (they are females, daughters, girlfriends, friends, students, and employees), the title of the show indicates that “teen mom” is their master status. Above and beyond everything else, they are teen moms. In other words, their status as teenage mothers trumps all their other identities. We watch them in a variety of capacities—on the job, interacting with their families, socializing with friends—but ultimately we viewed them in their societal position as teenage moms.

I’m intrigued by the coverage these young women have received from the magazine industry. Lately I’ve seen them on several magazine covers, including a recent issue of Life & Style. Notice that Amber is described as an “out-of-control monster” who is prone to violent outbursts and someone who associates with a convicted felon. Such disapproval signals that Amber is deviant.

The message is clear: “normal” people don’t date convicted felons and they aren’t violent. The rest of us can distance ourselves from Amber by assuring ourselves that we would never act like her. Though I was appalled by some of her behavior on the show (especially when she repeatedly hit her daughter’s father during one episode), I was perhaps drawn to the Jerry Springer aura she brought to the show.

I find it fascinating that these women have become de facto celebrities for being teen moms—pretty amazing when you think about it. Though in Amber’s case, the fame comes with a price—harsh judgment that she’s the parent none of us would ever want to be.

I should point out that one teen on the show is a different kind of mother. Catelynn gave her baby up for adoption, and so we watched her ride an emotional roller coaster as a birth mother who keeps in touch with the adoptive family and her biological daughter. I have to say I was often impressed with the maturity exhibited by Catelynn and her boyfriend Tyler.

In the episodes I watched, they handled themselves in responsible and dignified ways (regular viewers would probably agree that Catelynn is more mature than her mother). Farrah and Maci are also presented as mature mothers, for the most part. We had a glimpse into Farrah’s life as a working teenage mother who is raising her daughter without a father to help her (as viewers know, he died). And Maci (my favorite person on the show) always impressed me as wise beyond her years, a usually composed mother who seems to take very good care of her son while being caught in a battle with her son’s father over the visitation schedule.

I also paid attention to the young men who were featured in the show. I’ve already brought up Tyler, depicted as Catelynn’s supportive boyfriend who takes great interest in their biological daughter. He seemed like an all around good guy who wants a life that’s very different from his own father’s (his father was in jail during some episodes).

Another young man featured on the show was Gary, who initially struck me as a lazy and unhelpful father but who later gained my sympathy after enduring verbal and physical abuse from Amber. Over time, he seemed to put more care and concern into being a father. And then there was Ryan, who seemed the opposite of Maci in terms of maturity and parenting ability. Whereas Maci seemed capable and engaged as a parent, Ryan usually seemed to lack passion and energy as a parent.

Part of my fascination with the show comes from the fact that I became a parent for the first time at age 35. I’ve described in a previous blog how parenting is the hardest job I’ve ever had. And so, whenever I watched the show, I was interested in how these young moms dealt with the stress and challenges that accompanies being a parent. I honestly can’t say with certainty what kind of father I would have been in my teenager years. My guess is I would have been overwhelmed and not altogether fit to be a good father. My current vantage point is that of a married man with a secure job and supportive family. I came into parenting in a stable phase of my life with a host of emotional and financial resources. It would have been a very different story in my teens or even in my twenties.

Overall, Teen Mom takes us inside the worlds of women who’ve been impacted by a life-changing circumstance. The experiences of getting pregnant and giving birth at a young age have influenced their life chances.

If you’re a high school student or college student reading this blog, and you don’t have a child, think about this: How different would your life be if a baby came into your life? Would you be able to maintain your current routine of school and work? And if you follow this show, what is your opinion of these teen moms and dads? Do you respect them? Admire them? Dislike them? Feel sorry for them? Does watching the young women influence your thoughts about being a parent? In other words, does watching the show make you more or less interested in having children? Finally, what is your ideal age for having your first child?

Online Dating Experiences

On September 30, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Relationships, Marriage and Family, Social Psychology, Todd Schoepflin55 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin

I haven’t thought about dating in a while. I guess that’s what happens when you’ve been married for six years. I met my wife in an old-fashioned way: at work. I had the type of the job that was satirized in the movie Office Space. The clock never seemed to move. I’d stare at my computer screen for eight hours waiting for my shift to end. Tina provided much-needed relief from the drudgery of my cubicle existence. These days, the word “date” means that we have a babysitter for a few hours, giving us time to grab a cheeseburger and a beer.

I have no experience with online dating, and before I watched this video interview of Dan Ariely I had never heard a scholar talk about it. Ariely, Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University, has studied online dating and makes some really interesting comments about the subject in the interview.

Ariely points out that typical online dating websites break people down into “searchable attributes” such as height, weight, income, and political views. These websites operate on the mistaken assumption that people are easy to describe on the basis of such attributes. He uses wine for an analogy. You might be able to describe the wine you drink, but that doesn’t matter very much. What matters is that you know if you like it or you don’t.

He thinks that’s kind of like dating. Being able to describe a person based on a set of characteristics isn’t very useful. It’s the full experience of spending time with someone that tells you whether you like a person or not. It’s not a simple matter of someone being the “perfect” weight and having the “right” eye color. In Ariely’s opinion, breaking people into attributes turns out not to be informative. What’s informative is what happens when you share an experience with someone.

Ariely concludes that people have unsatisfying experiences with online dating. Although websites can match people based on their preferences, they can’t predict if people will actually like each other in the real world. Sure, you can pick someone online who is tall, has brown eyes, and hair that looks great to you, but that doesn’t mean you’ll enjoy that person’s company when you’re on a date.

Something I found really fascinating in the interview was Ariely’s discussion of whether people are superficial. Consider, after all, that people do search for potential dates in terms of hair color, body type, and income. Realistically, he says, people are superficial; for example, generally speaking, women prefer tall men and men prefer skinny women. So women and men both search out partners based on features they find physically attractive.

However, in defense of online daters, Ariely makes a good point: if that’s the search criteria available to people to use, then they’re going to use it. Naturally, a lot of people will have preferences when it comes to hair color, height, and weight. So it’s not that people who use online dating are more superficial than any other group of people. Rather, he believes the typical online dating system exaggerates our tendency to be superficial.

Did you notice the comments from people who reacted to Ariely’s interview? I found a few of them to be very interesting. For instance, a man named Mark said: “I think online dating is unsatisfying for most people because dating in general is unsatisfying for most people.” Think about all of your dating experiences: have most of them been satisfying or disappointing? And, if you have online dating experience, did the outcome of those dates differ significantly from dates that came about in other ways?

A comment I found especially insightful was made by Elizabeth, who said: “Perhaps one of the best things about dating online is that one can know the deal breakers (smoking, drinking, how many kids, etc.) before falling for someone, before attempting to justify a relationship that won’t work.” That strikes me as an intelligent point. Honestly speaking, isn’t it true there are certain things about potential dating partners that you won’t accept?

I asked my friend Don about this. Don is a 38-year-old never married man who has accumulated vast dating experience. A few years ago he was in a serious relationship that soured because he doesn’t want to have kids. In essence, the fact that he doesn’t want children was a deal breaker in that relationship. He recently set a date using the free dating website called Plenty of Fish. He described his date as a “very pretty, 40-year-old Pilates instructor who doesn’t want kids.”

I asked Don if he thought there were such things as “deal makers.” In other words, if having kids (or wanting to have kids) is a deal breaker for some people, couldn’t we say that not wanting kids is a “deal maker” for other people?

Fair enough, he responded, but in his dating experience, he finds that people tend to focus on differences rather than commonalities. He wonders if this is because people are trying to find the absolutely perfect match. Because technology enables people to access an unlimited number of people, maybe they feel they should hold out for Mr. or Ms. Perfect.

When I told Don I was writing a blog about online dating, he said: “Yeah, because you know so much about that.” He was teasing me because I haven’t been on a date with someone other than my wife since 2000, when I met her. I replied: “Well, suppose I wanted to cheat. You know there are websites that cater to married people, right?” Although I have no plans to destroy my marriage, I have heard radio advertisements of a website tailored to people in relationships. The website AshleyMadison.com uses the trademarked slogan “Life is short. Have an affair.” Isn’t that lovely?

An article in Time asserts that “cheating has never been easier” now that the AshleyMadison website has applications for iPhone and Blackberry. The site has 4 million members and includes options for males seeking males and females seeking females. I guess cheating is for everyone! Watch CEO Noel Biderman get grilled by the hosts of The View (a person involved with a website that facilitates cheating makes an easy target). He downplays the influence of the website by saying “AshleyMadison.com didn’t invent infidelity.” Touché.

While reading up on the topic of online dating, I came across an article in the New York Times that refers to Cheekd.com as “the next generation of online dating.”

Members purchase cards with phrases and give them to people they encounter in everyday life. One ex
ample is “I am totally cooler than your date.” See someone in a restaurant who you think is good-looking? Walk by someone on the street that looks interesting? Simply hand them a card with an identification code that allows the person to find you on the website. Lori Cheek, the founder of the website, says: “It’s almost like you’re shopping online, but you’re shopping in real life.” Cool idea, I guess it gives new meaning to “pick up lines.” I wonder if they have a card that says “Are you from Tennessee? Because you’re the only 10 I see.” Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

I know of two couples who were definitely satisfied with their online dating experiences. Heather and Brian (pictured on their wedding day) met on eHarmony, have been married for over a year, and are expecting their first child soon. Heather explained something she and her husband liked about eHarmony: “We both agree now that many of the things that their questionnaire asked about definitely make us more compatible than some other couples that we know. They focused on values and how we viewed the roles of husband and wife.” As for Jonathan and Nhein, they met on Match.com and then married. No kids yet, but they have a cute little dog!

Do you know anyone who has tried online dating? If so, what has their experience been like? What can we infer about the sociological meanings of relationships?

Fishing as a Metaphor for Social Interaction

On September 13, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Social Psychology, Theory, Todd Schoepflin9 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin

Fishing is an art. It requires a great deal of skill and coordination. The same is true of social interaction, even if we don’t think of it that way. Interaction takes place almost every second of every day. So much interaction takes place that most people take it for granted. The student of sociology never does.

When I recently stopped for lunch at a waterfront location, I could see several people fishing. I was inspired by the view (the picture doesn’t do it justice) and reflected on the nature of social interaction.

When you fish you cast your line into a body of water. To interact you cast yourself into a sea of people. You look for somebody familiar, or interesting. You interact with someone you’ve connected with a thousand times before. Or you catch someone new with the glimpse of an eye. You smile, maybe even flirt. You shake hands. You friend them on Facebook. You hug them. You make love to them. So many interactions, so little time.

When you fish around others, sometimes your lines get crossed. The same is true in social interaction. You misread somebody. You fail to catch someone’s drift. You can’t get on the same page. You argue with text messages. You misinterpret nonverbal communication. You take them the wrong way. You incorrectly assume their intentions and motives. Sometimes you are able to clear up your misunderstanding and sustain your interaction. Other times, there’s no use. It seems like every time you talk to this person you hit a snag.

You go fishing with hopes, of course, of catching a fish. Sometimes, in the world of social interaction, you fish for information. We love to gossip. We love information (but not too much information). We love stories. We love scandal. We love drama (usually, other people’s drama). We’d like to practice what our mothers told us—“If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”—but its awfully hard to follow.

When you fish, you use bait. And sometimes you do the same in social interaction. You bend the truth to get what you want. You dangle a reward in front of somebody to get what you want. You might even threaten someone to get what you want. And you hope they take the bait–hook, line, and sinker.

And it must be said that no one is born knowing how to fish. A toddler doesn’t know how to put a worm on a hook. She must be taught. She can’t cast her line into the water. She must be instructed. And so it is with social interaction. A baby cannot talk nor understand the nuances of gestures and facial expressions. He doesn’t know the purpose of a dirty look or a wink. But over time he learns the rules of interaction, first from family, then his peers, and even from television.

Once the person is taught the tools (and rules) of interaction, she uses them for a lifetime. However, it should be said that people occasionally depart from the rules. There are norms of social interaction, but they are not always followed. We call this deviance. Deviate from the norms and you may face a consequence. We call them sanctions.

Whatever the case, we are always reminded by the people around us of the “right” way to interact. People talk of courtesy. They talk in terms of etiquette. Remember, we are told, it’s not polite to have your cell phone on at this or that moment. Don’t talk too loudly, we tell our children at the library. Don’t laugh too loud at a funeral, that’s not appropriate. Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife (That one’s a commandment!)

Sometimes, you fish alone. But a lot of times, others are around you. It reminds you that most action is social action. When others are present, you can’t fish as if no else is there. You are mindful of them, you take them into account. To avoid fishing the same space, or to avoid crossing lines, you align your actions.

And even when you are alone, your thoughts soon drift to the people in your life. Your parents. Your friends. Your co-workers. Even without recognizing it, you’re thinking of (and preparing for) your next interaction. And how long can you go without checking your cell phone for missed calls?

You are finished fishing. You didn’t catch anything. It’s time to go home. Or to work. Or to school. You would have liked to stay longer. There’s so much more fishing to do. And so it goes here. This is a tiny view of social interaction. I didn’t cover all angles. I didn’t account for all perspectives. Interactions happen in so many ways and involve so many people. There’s so much more to consider. But it sure is fun to fish for a while. And it’s a joy to think about the wonders of social interaction.

Uncommon Uses of Public Space

On August 23, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Crime and Deviance, Todd Schoepflin4 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin

In my last blog, I discussed Laud Humphreys’ research about men having sex in park bathrooms. I think one reason his research is so interesting is because having sex in public bathrooms is an unusual use of public space. Let’s face it: seeing someone comb their hair or apply makeup in a public bathroom isn’t very compelling. For that matter, a lot of things that occur in public view aren’t interesting. Not surprisingly, abnormal uses of public space often catch people’s attention.

For example, this summer the local media where I live devoted a lot of attention to a story about a couple who had sex on a picnic table in a park in the afternoon. I’m sure none of us are naïve enough to think people don’t have sex in a park. But we don’t actually hear about it on a regular basis. I suppose if we did, it wouldn’t be news. In this case, there were definitely some intriguing angles in the story.

First of all, children reportedly saw the couple having sex. Second, the woman, who was married, was actually charged with adultery. The article points out that it was the first adultery charge in New York State since 2006 and only the twelfth in the state since 1972. It was the lead story in a six o’clock news broadcast. The newscaster reported that the woman said her husband is transgender and that they hadn’t had sex in a long time. Along with these dramatic elements, I think the story is so captivating because the couple violated basic norms about the use of public space. It’s uncommon for people to have sex in a park in the daylight hours.

Lately, I’ve become interested in a very different use of public space: graffiti. It’s graffiti on a particular set of playground equipment that has really captured my interest. The playground you see pictured looks like any other playground, a perfect place to play for children. I spend a lot of time at this playground with my two-year-old son. When you get close to the equipment you notice it’s covered with graffiti. Some of it is innocent, like “Jimmy + Renee,” kind of what you expect to see at a playground. Some of it is much more edgy than I would expect, like “Worship Satan; Sniff Glue.”

Every time we go there is something new written. Recently I saw that someone wrote “Fall in love, not in line,” an interesting philosophical statement promoting love and cautioning against conformity. The rest of the graffiti is too obscene to describe in detail. Let’s just say that whoever defaced the playground is familiar with male and female anatomy.

I’m not easily offended, but it’s disgusting to me to see raunchy graffiti all over playground equipment that is designed for children. As soon as someone removes the graffiti, there’s new work to replace it. Although I can’t be sure who’s responsible, I picture young teenagers doing this at the playground. There are several questions I’d like to ask if I happened to catch them in the act: Why do you do this? For fun? To amuse your friends? Boredom? As a means to express yourself? Have you thought of using Twitter instead?

Okay, I wouldn’t ask the last question, but if you think about it, Twitter and graffiti do have one thing in common: they are both means of expression. One reason I blog is so that I can express my thoughts and ideas. Twitter, Facebook, and blogs like this one are uses of virtual public space.

While taking a walk in my neighborhood, I was thinking about the places we usually see graffiti: boarded up buildings, subway trains, and overpasses. Looking out onto the street, I wondered what’s stopping someone from directly tagging the street. I’ve never seen graffiti on roads. Have you? Assuming that people want an audience for their graffiti, a road would be as good a place as any. I found one story about someone who is using paint to vandalize public space in Minneapolis. Known as the “paint bomber,” the person splashes paint on bus shelters and highways. According to the article, the Minneapolis police department has an employee dedicated full time to investigating graffiti.

By the way, if you want to read an in-depth analysis of graffiti, check out Graffiti Lives, a book written by sociologist Gregory J. Snyder. Focusing on graffiti artists in New York City, Snyder points out many reasons why people engage in graffiti, including a need for vandalistic thrills, an urge to communicate one’s worth, and the desire to become famous. One of the many things I learned while reading this book is that Nike, Puma, and Adidas have hired prominent graffiti artists to design limited-edition sneakers. In a sense, these corporations have profited from people who are characterized by police and politicians as menaces to society.

The artist Spencer Tunick offers another example of using public space in an uncommon way. He’s been able to get hundreds (sometimes thousands) of volunteers to congregate for photographs, even though you have to be naked for the event! As you can see on the website, he has organized events in Dublin, Mexico City, Barcelona, Montreal, New York, and dozens of other places. As explained on the website, the point of assembling nude masses of people is not to emphasize sexuality, but rather to challenge conventional views of nudity and privacy.

I’ll finish with one more example of using public space. Speaker’s Corner is a place in a London park where anyone can go to talk about anything. You can just show up and start talking. I learned about it while looking for things to do in anticipation of a trip to London a few years ago. During my trip I ended up going there, thinking I might actually start speaking about something, but as it turned out I just listened to a strange fellow ramble on incoherently for about twenty minutes. Nonetheless, the idea of a public forum taking place in a park is pretty cool. In theory, we could all take turns airing our opinions in the parks in our communities, but most of us never will, perhaps because it’s not something that other people do on a regular basis.

Sex in parks during daylight, obscene graffiti on playgrounds, photographing nude groups of people, and expressing one’s views to strangers at a park are only four examples of atypical uses of public space. Can you think of some o
ther examples?

Sex, Research, and Public Spaces

On June 29, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Crime and Deviance, Statistics and Methods, Todd Schoepflin19 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin

Did you hear the one about the sociologist who watched men having sex in park bathrooms? Sounds like a setup for a joke with a bizarre punch line, doesn’t it?

Unless you’re a student of sociology, in which case it probably sounds familiar, because you know that’s what sociologist Laud Humphreys did in the course of his research. Humphreys, well known for his 1970 book Tearoom Trade, not only observed men having sex, but followed them to their cars to record their license plate information and then used a contact in a police department to obtain their home addresses.

A year later, he went to their homes (having altered his appearance so as not to be recognized) to supposedly conduct a medical survey. Basically, Humphreys used deception throughout his research to obtain information about the men’s lives and lifestyles. Although he gathered interesting information about the men he studied, he used unethical means to do so.

It’s interesting to think about whether Humphreys violated the privacy of these men when he observed them in restrooms. Humphreys watched the most private behavior that occurs between people, but the sex took place in public restrooms. So is it a violation of privacy to watch people who are having sexual relations in public space?

It’s important to remember that Humphreys was studying sex as a form of social interaction. One thing that really interested him was the role of silence in these sexual encounters. Participants rarely uttered a word in most of the encounters he observed. When words were spoken, they were few, in some cases only a greeting or an utterance of “thanks” when the sex was completed. Silence served a vital function because it guaranteed anonymity for the participants and reinforced the impersonality of the situation.

Think about it: in an intimate situation, you want to get to know someone. You talk to them and want to learn personal details about them. But these men wanted sex without obligation or commitment. For this reason, a park bathroom was the perfect place because it provided the type of environment that suited the lack of personal involvement these men desired. Furthermore, Humphreys suggested that in this type of setting, with fast and impersonal sex being the most important ingredients, great expectations weren’t in play. In other words, the men he studied didn’t have the highest standards for partners in terms of appearance, personality, age, or other characteristics that people tend to focus on when they are searching for intimacy.

Humphreys discovered that men of all types came to the tearooms for sex: married, unmarried, some with heterosexual identities, others with homosexual identities, blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, all interested in what Humphreys referred to as “kicks without commitment.” Some men were regulars, stopping at a tearoom on the way to or from work. “One physician in his late fifties was so punctual in his appearance at a particular restroom,” Humphreys wrote, “that I began to look forward to our daily chats.” Keep in mind that Humphreys earned the trust of the men by serving as a lookout, promising to alert them of unwelcome intruders. He never identified his real purposes for being there.

The restrooms where Humphreys did his research were in Forest Park in St. Louis. The busiest bathrooms, he noted, were isolated from recreational areas. Ideally, then, children weren’t likely to go to them after being at a playground. Activity in the tearooms peaked at the end of the workday, so it was especially convenient if men could park their cars close to a restroom as they drove home from work.

For comparison, I took a picture of the bathroom building and the men’s entrance at Delaware Park in Buffalo when I last took a walk in the park. The building is a stone’s throw from an expressway, but there is no parking available close to the building. And the building is just a few steps away from where people rollerblade, bike, walk, jog, and play soccer. I honestly don’t know if any homosexual activity takes place in the men’s bathroom (or heterosexual activity, for that matter) but it doesn’t seem isolated enough for sexual activity.

In all, Humphreys provided insight into many sociological issues, including the rules that govern the process of impersonal sex, the kinds of men that frequent tearooms, and how men related their behavior to the rest of their lives. What is your opinion of Humphreys? Do you think he was an innovative researcher with a sharp sociological eye? Was he a creep in desperate need of an ethics seminar? How would you describe him and his research? Finally, when it comes to studying people in public places, do you think sexual behavior is off limits?

Ascribed Status vs. Achieved Status: The Case of Homelessness

On May 27, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Class and Stratification, Social Problems, Politics, and Social Change, Todd Schoepflin25 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin

Every so often the terms we encounter in an Introduction to Sociology textbook are a little boring. Sometimes the examples are outdated, other times the discussion just lies flat on the page. As much as I love teaching an introductory course, I even tire of the material occasionally. But then a student speaks up and the concepts jump off the page.

While teaching two basic concepts in sociology this semester– ascribed status and achieved status –I gave the usual examples for each. An ascribed status is involuntary, something we cannot choose. Race, ethnicity, and the social class of our parents are examples of ascribed statuses.

On the other hand, an achieved status is something we accomplish in the course of our lives. To some extent, achieved status reflects our work and effort. College student, college dropout, CEO, and thief are examples of achieved statuses. (I made a sarcastic comment in class that some CEOs are thieves, but no one laughed. I’ll try that joke again next semester.)

Then I brought up homelessness as an interesting status to think about. Many people think homelessness is definitely an achieved status. They see homelessness as a result of a poor work ethic or irresponsible lifestyle choices. But when you think more deeply about homelessness, you gain an understanding that homelessness can be considered an ascribed status in many cases.

When I asked students about their understanding of the causes of homelessness, they were able to identify some of them, including substance abuse and mental illness. The cause of mental illness makes for an interesting debate. If we accept the premise that we don’t choose mental illness, I think we can make the argument that homelessness is an ascribed status when it’s the result of mental illness. By the way, one major reason for homelessness cited by mayors of U.S. cities is so obvious that most people wouldn’t think of it: a lack of affordable housing.

Anyway, the discussion continued when a student raised her hand and talked about how she was homeless as a child. I was stunned. Having taught college students for ten years, I thought I’d heard everything. But Ayla is my first student I know of that has experienced homelessness. In talking about her background she made an essential point: homeless children should be thought of as an example of ascribed status. Obviously, children don’t choose to be homeless, as circumstances beyond their control leave them without housing.

Throughout the semester, Ayla told me details about her childhood. Her mother, who had a drinking problem and other personal issues, could not provide for her on a consistent basis.The oldest of four children, Ayla had to take charge of family matters. She remembers paying bills as early as age nine. She would go to a check-cashing store and pay the rent (her family received SSI assistance). She would buy groceries. She’d get out of school and do a mental check (“What do I do now?”). Her first objective was to find her mom to make sure she was okay, and then she would get her brothers from school. Sometimes they would stay at a friend’s house, sometimes at a shelter.

This stretch of time in her life was roughly from age nine to thirteen in Rochester, New York. Through it all, she always attended school. Things settled in her life when she moved to Niagara Falls, New York to live with her grandmother. She graduated from high school in Niagara Falls and earned a scholarship to nearby Niagara University.

Ayla’s transition from being homeless as a child to attending college reminded me of the movie Homeless to Harvard, based on the true story of Liz Murray, who was homeless as a teenager and whose parents suffered from substance abuse. When I mentioned this movie in class, a student remarked “That’s why they don’t make movies called From Prep School to Harvard.” Now that was funny (the class laughed) but there was tremendous insight behind the humor. Making it to Harvard after prep school training is not nearly as impressive a feat compared with someone who has spent time on the streets as a child.

I remain awestruck by Ayla’s story, especially when I consider the relative advantages I enjoyed growing up in a solid middle-class household. We were well provided for. There was always plenty of food in the house and on the table. My father had a steady job my entire life. My mother stayed home to take care of my brother and me and to run the household. She didn’t return to the paid workforce until I attended middle school. I spent most of my childhood and adolescence in the house that is pictured, a very nice house my parents still live in today.

Reflecting back, the stability they provided was priceless. I took for granted not only material comfort but also consistency of care, discipline, and structure. I think I underestimate how much that consistency developed me into the person I am today. And I think of Ayla, who has come so far from so little, never knowing her father, not being able to count on her mother, having to be an adult during childhood. Ayla’s story continues to inspire me. I think it’s extraordinary that she became a college student (achieved status) after spending part of her life homeless (in her case, ascribed status). Since learning from Ayla about her life story, achieved status has taken on a new meaning for me.

Thinking About Stereotypes

On April 26, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Race and Ethnicity, Todd Schoepflin20 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin

Do you know what the following have in common?

Conan O’Brien
Camping
Bob Marley
Mad Men

Funny or ironic tattoos
80s Night
Not Having a TV

Did you know they all are things that white people like? Well, at least that’s the case according to the website stuffwhitepeoplelike.com. For the record, I am a white person. I do think Conan O’Brien is funny. I used to enjoy camping when I was in my 20s. And I like Bob Marley. (Is there anyone who doesn’t like Bob Marley?) I’ve never seen an episode of Mad Men and I don’t have any tattoos. You couldn’t pay me to go to an 80s night at a club or bar, and you couldn’t pay me to get rid of my television.

But I’m just one white person, and obviously my experiences and tastes don’t speak for all white people. There are approximately 200 million whites in the United States alone, and you couldn’t reduce them to a list of stereotypes, could you? I guess if you’re Christian Lander, you could. He created the website stuffwhitepeoplelike.com and was awarded a book deal based on the website’s popularity. One article I read estimated that his book deal was worth $300,000. Not bad for compiling a list of stereotypes.

He also is on the lecture circuit. The website lists his upcoming speaking events at colleges around the country. Lander, who is white and grew up in Canada, has talked about how he started the blog as a joke. If you listen to Lander talk about his website, it’s apparent that his purpose is not to disparage whites. Rather, he’s just satirizing them and indulging in some good-natured mockery.

This led me to wonder, when it comes to stereotyping, how much does intent matter? Is stereotyping acceptable if the purpose isn’t to insult the group being stereotyped? And does it matter who is doing the stereotyping? How would people respond if a white person blogged about things that black people supposedly like?

Oh wait, that’s happening on a website called Stuff Black People Like. The author explains that the blog is meant to be funny and satirical and that he is not a racist. He says: “But sadly where I live it is not very diverse. Many many white people. Stupid ignorant ones at that.” Some of the posts are about being good at sports, making fashion statements, and liking soul food.

There is also a website called Stuff Asian People Like. There are posts about ramen noodles, techno music, and karaoke. According to the website, the entries are “written by Asians, about Asians” and the goal “is to simply point out cultural and social truths over light-hearted humor in order to build up the Asian community and not tear it down.”

We can define stereotypes as assumptions about what people are like. They are generalizations about a group that are simplified and do not acknowledge differences between members of that group. I am torn about how I feel about the websites I have mentioned. On the one hand, I don’t like them because they promote stereotypes. Nor do I find them to be funny or insightful, but that is my subjective opinion. On the other hand, I enjoy other forms of media that use stereotypes in satirical ways (The Simpsons and Family Guy are two examples).

I don’t like when people are reduced to stereotypes, but satire can be an effective means of challenging our notions about people who belong to a particular group. Do you think that stereotyping is harmless (or at least not harmful) if the intent is not to insult, or degrade, the group being stereotyped? Or, do you think all stereotyping is harmful to some extent?

Whatever your view about stereotypes happens to be, I think it’s important that we examine our own assumptions about groups that differ from our own, and that we reflect honestly about how we stereotype in the course of our lives. I take pride in having an open-mind and resisting generalized views of groups, but upon reflection I recall a specific time in my life when I was operating with a stereotype.

Several years ago, a student was struggling in one of my courses. He rarely attended class, did poorly on exams, and wouldn’t come to office hours to discuss his performance in my class. He wasn’t the first student to earn low grades in my course and he won’t be the last. But for some reason I devoted a lot of energy trying to determine why this particular student wasn’t succeeding in my class. The course ended without him changing his habits or exhibiting more effort. All signs seemed to indicate he didn’t care about succeeding in my course.

So why was this surprising to me? Upon serious reflection, I realized the source of my bewilderment: the student was Asian-American. I had fallen prey to a stereotype that all Asian-Americans are academically gifted and earn high grades. Had it been a student of any other racial or ethnic background, I sincerely believe I wouldn’t have thought so much or so long about why he was blowing off my course. But by virtue of his membership in a specific racial group, I assumed he should do well in my class.

I didn’t see him as a student, I saw him as an Asian-American student. It’s okay to recognize differences between students, but difference shouldn’t translate to inequality. In this case, I wasn’t treating all students equally. Assuming that a particular student is “better” than the others is both unfair to the student and to the students’ peers. As a teacher I cannot and must not assume that a student should perform in a certain way because of their race. Students must be treated fairly based on their individual ability and work ethic, not based on their group membership.

Does this story leave you wondering if I carry assumptions about white students and African-American students? I can understand if it does, but I am sure that my stereotyping was limited to Asian-American students. Most of the students I have taught in my career have been white and African-American, and students from both groups have occupied the entire spectrum of academic ability and effort. Students from both groups have been spectacular, and students from both groups have been less than spectacular.

However, I haven’t taught a lot of Asian-American students because enrollment of Asian-Americans at the university where I teach is very low. My story about the young man I stereotyped is, in a sense, also a story about the first time I noticed that an Asian-American student hadn’t done well in one of my classes.

Reflecting further back in my life, my peers in elementary school, middle school and high school were, for the most part, white and African-American. So my exposure to those racial groups has always been high. In contrast, I haven’t known nearly as many Asian-Americans and Latinos as classmates and students. Perhaps my limited exposure to Asian-Americans in educational settings left me susceptible to a stereotype about their academic ability. In the case of Latinos, I can honestly say I’ve never held preconceptions about their academic ability. Maybe it’s because there’s a stereotype that “all Asians are smart” but that stereotype doesn’t seem to exist for whites, African-Americans, and Latinos.

I learned a lot from the time I stereotyped a particular Asian-American student. And since that time, my expectations have been the same for all students, with no assumption that some students will perform better than others based on which racial or ethnic group they belong. For me it was a case of “live and learn,” and a
n important reminder that all students are on par with each other, with no group expected to do better or worse than another.

Deviance 101

On March 22, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Crime and Deviance, Todd Schoepflin49 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin

When I introduce the sociological study of deviance to my students, I make sure to focus on the reactions that people encounter when they violate norms or act in unconventional ways. Think about it: if you violate a norm but there’s no reaction to that violation, is it really deviant behavior? I’m going to discuss several examples of norm violations; some involve reactions, others don’t.

My first example is a true story. A few years ago, a very outgoing student with a great sense of humor came to my social psychology class wearing a huge orange wig. The funny part is that he acted like it was no big deal, as if it were normal to attend class wearing an oversized bright-colored wig. I laughed heartily and explained to the class that his wig was a great example of deviant behavior; after all, no one else had ever come to my class with a crazy wig (and no one has since).

Looking back, though, I don’t think it’s a great example of deviant behavior, because, for whatever reason, the other students didn’t react to his behavior. They were indifferent. I actually offered the only reaction–and the way I laughed conveyed a positive reaction. And though my reaction and my comment about his wig indicated that I thought he was behaving in deviant fashion, no one else seemed to think of it that way. Basically, they didn’t care. Considering that, did an act of deviance really occur?

My next example is hypothetical. Suppose I wear sweat pants everyday to class (That’s a dream of mine, by the way. Some people dream of becoming millionaires and owning mansions. Me, I dream of wearing sweat pants 24-7-365). However, I don’t wear sweat pants for fear that my colleagues would view me as unprofessional.

But would my students care? Maybe at first. I suppose a student might say “You don’t look like a real college professor!” But I bet after just a few classes students would lose interest and find the whole enterprise unremarkable. Even my colleagues would probably get used to it. Sure, some of them might whisper “he’s strange” and my dean might suggest that I dress more professionally, but in the classroom I sincerely doubt I’d get any significant negative reaction.

Don’t get me wrong: it’s unconventional for a professor to wear sweat pants, just like it’s unconventional for a student to wear an orange wig to class. But if reactions to unconventional behavior are mild, minor, or nonexistent, there’s little at stake. In other words, without a significant negative reaction, unconventional actions don’t matter much.

When I introduced the sociological perspective of deviance to students in my introduction to sociology class this semester, one of my students gave an excellent illustration of the importance of reactions when it comes to behavior that is viewed as deviant. She talked about the negative reactions she encountered when she was pregnant. For example, one person said to her “You’re throwing your life away.” What a harsh thing to say to someone! And that’s exactly my point: a hostile reaction is a strong signal that someone’s behavior is received as deviant.

As Irena talked more about her situation she pointed out that some of the disapproval she faced was based on the fact that she wasn’t married. Then, in an e-mail message, she gave me two more examples of negative reactions. One was that some of her friends reacted with an assumption that she would have to drop out of school. Another was that some of her “friends” were initially excited at the news she was pregnant, but have since stopped talking to her and essentially disappeared from her life.

Irena’s experiences show how important it is to focus on the reaction rather than the action. No one would say that being pregnant is a norm violation for all women at all times. We have to take the context into consideration when we try to determine if behavior is deviant, and we have to keep in mind that what is deviant to some people (and to some groups and cultures) is not deviant to other people (and to other groups and cultures). Would a married woman who is 25-years-old be treated as a deviant person because she is pregnant? I doubt it. Conversely, I bet it would be celebrated and received as great news.

During that same class session I used interracial relationships as an example of something that has become more acceptable over time (and hence, less deviant) but something that is still regarded by some in society as unacceptable (and therefore, is still deviant to a degree). It seems to me that interracial relationships are more acceptable in American society than ever before, but people in interracial relationships are still sometimes subjected to negative reactions (for example, see Janis Prince Inniss's blog about a justice of the peace who refused to marry an interracial couple).

Think about this in terms of your family. If you brought your new boyfriend or girlfriend home to meet your family and they belonged to a different race, how would your parents react? And what would your grandparents say? My guess is that many of you would encounter disapproval. By the way, my student Irena told the class that some of the people in her life were more accepting of her when she was in an interracial relationship than they were when she was a pregnant, unmarried college student.

Okay, one more example. When I arrived to class that day to introduce the topic of deviance, I was excited because I love the subject. But my students seemed tired and not ready to engage in any material. So, to break the ice I intentionally told a lame joke to lighten the mood (“Why did the banana go to the doctor? Because he wasn’t peeling well.”) The silly joke served my purpose because it was a simple ice breaker.

Driving home from school that day an interesting thought occurred to me: What if I had told a dirty joke to my class? I’m not saying I wanted to tell a dirty joke or that I tell dirty jokes in my spare time. My point is that a dirty joke would have been extremely inappropriate in a classroom setting. And I think it would have been an example of deviant behavior. I say this because I assume I would have gotten a lot of disapproving reactions. Who knows, depending on the actual content of the joke, some students might have laughed. But I suspect some would have been offended and some would have left class thinking of me as “pervert” or “dirty old man.”

My examples demonstrate the critical role that reactions play when it comes to deviant behavior. You’ll notice that my examples of deviant behavior focus on negative reactions. That’s because negative reactions (like a mean stare, an insult, or an act of discrimination) are clear signals that deviant behavior has occurred. But what about positive reactions? In my example of the student who wore a wig to class, I implied that a positive reaction (my laughter) was part of the reason why his behavior wasn’t really deviant. But can you think of any examples of positive reactions to an action that is believed to be deviant? In other words, is there any deviant behavior that
generates a positive reaction? Hmmm, maybe that’s another blog topic for another time…

The Hardest Job I’ve Ever Had

On February 11, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Relationships, Marriage and Family, Sex and Gender, Todd Schoepflin28 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin, Ph.D

Assistant Professor

Department of Sociology

Niagara University

tas@niagara.edu

www.niagara.edu/sociology

I’ve had some hard jobs over the years. When I was a college student I worked at a summer camp for developmentally disabled adults. Many were low functioning, and a few were schizophrenics with violent streaks. My first job after graduating from college was as a counselor for adolescents with serious emotional problems (a few of them had violent streaks too). That job didn’t pay very well, so I had a second job teaching factory workers who were preparing for their GED exams. They were high school dropouts working the overnight shift at a textile factory (imagine having to work all night on your feet and then come to class to learn math and writing skills).

Currently I work as a college professor–although it’s not a grueling job, it’s not as easy as it looks. It’s challenging to prepare courses, it’s no fun spending weekends grading, and it’s hard to do to research (it’s even harder to get research published). But I feel very lucky to have this job because I know there are far tougher jobs.

The hardest job I’ve ever had is being a parent. My wife and I have one child, a beautiful and energetic boy who is two-years-old. And make no mistake about it–taking care of a child is work, and I can think of no other work that is more challenging.

I love my son more than anything else in the world but the phrase “terrible twos” applies to him lately. His favorite word is “no” and his typical behavior is to resist anything that we’d like him to do. He doesn’t want his diaper changed. He doesn’t want to put on socks. Or shoes. Or a jacket. Or a hat. This isn’t particularly convenient considering we’re in the middle of a cold winter in Buffalo. Try telling a two-year-old that he needs a warm coat because it’s freezing outside. It won’t work. There’s no reasoning with a two-year-old.

Recently my wife and I took our son to a restaurant at a mall. The restaurant had an exit door that connected to the mall. He ran out into the mall, walked into a store, and started pulling things off the shelves. Saying “don’t do that” had no impact. Nor did efforts to redirect him (“C’mon Troy, let’s go back to the restaurant and see Mommy.”) And least effective was grabbing him when I ran out of options. I brought him back to the restaurant as he was kicking and screaming. You think a thirty pound two-year-old isn’t strong? Guess again. Tantrums are a way of life these days. And with each tantrum I question my competency as a parent.

I say this as someone who is generally confident at his jobs. I was good at that summer camp for disabled adults, I did a good job working with emotionally troubled adolescents, and I believe I’m a good college professor. I’m not saying I’m not a good parent, I’m just saying I don’t always feel like one.

I hope this doesn’t sound like whining and complaining. That’s not my intent. My purpose is to emphasize that childcare is work. It just happens to be unpaid work. And it’s often the case that women do the bulk of this unpaid work. Childcare is often unnoticed, undervalued, under appreciated, and, as I’m suggesting, it can be overwhelming. It’s also very tiring. Take a look at the picture of my son and me–it might suggest a relaxed state of affairs, but I am exhausted most of the time. Fatigue has been a constant feeling for my wife and me because our son usually gets up at 5:30 in the morning. It makes for long and tiresome days.

All of the difficult work and challenges come with the territory. I didn’t think being a parent would be easy, I just didn’t know it would be so hard. That doesn’t mean I don’t love my son or love being a parent. Since the day he was born I’ve poured my heart and soul into being a good father. I did my fair share of overnight feedings when he was a newborn and I’ve always been very involved with diaper changes and baths. And due to my flexible schedule as a college professor I’ve been able to be home with him lots of days when it’s just him and me. It’s a privilege to have a job that allows me to spend significant time taking care of him in the early years of his life. And since he’s been in my life I can honestly say I’ve never been happier. But life as a parent is hard and knowing how demanding it is to take care of one child, I marvel at how parents appear to be so skilled at taking care of several children. And I’m amazed that so many women take great care of their children without the help of a spouse.

I find it interesting that when the topic of childcare comes up in my sociology courses, some of my male students say they would never want to be stay-at-home dads. I wonder why. Is this because childcare is still viewed primarily as women’s work? Do you think it’s accurate to say that men are reluctant (or even uninterested) in having a major role in childcare? If so, why do you think that’s the case?

It’s interesting to reflect on how society’s norms created the roles of women as caretakers and men as breadwinners. These once clearly defined roles seem to be blurring in today’s world. There are lots of men who are very involved in the day-to-day care taking of their children, and there are lots of women who earn more than their husbands and whose incomes are vital to the financial well-being of their families. Looking ahead to the future, what do you think the norms will be in terms of gender and childcare?

Living in a McDonaldized World

On January 14, 2010October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Popular Culture and Consumption, Theory, Todd Schoepflin18 Comments

By Todd Schoepflin, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Niagara University

tas@niagara.edu www.niagara.edu/sociology

I first read George Ritzer’s book The McDonaldization of Society in 1996, my first year of graduate school. I loved the book right away. It described perfectly the world I lived in, and still does. What was true in 1996 for me is even truer today. I am surrounded by fast-food establishments and other businesses that follow the McDonald’s model.

Our culture continues to value efficiency, predictability and quantity. Workers and consumers are controlled more than ever by technology. I am careful not to be hypocritical when it comes to this subject; I definitely take advantage of some conveniences that come with living in a McDonaldized world.

As I write this in Buffalo, New York, it is twenty degrees outside, so you better believe that I occasionally make use of a drive thru in order to get my morning coffee. And once in a blue moon it even comes from McDonald’s. I also go to McDonaldized places when it’s time for an oil change. Although I’d prefer to leave my car with a mechanic for a day, the convenience of stopping at Jiffy Lube or some other specialized auto service business is too easy to pass up. There’s one place I go for an oil change where you don’t even leave your car! What’s more efficient than staying in your car while you get an oil change in ten minutes? But I try to patronize Mom and Pop businesses as often as possible. I’m always on the lookout for establishments that are creative, unique and interesting. Places where size and speed are not equated with quality.

It’s getting harder to find places that don’t follow the McDonald’s way of doing business where I live. That’s why it’s so special to me to spend time at places that aren’t McDonaldized. One of my favorite examples is a restaurant near my house named Marotto’s. I don’t go often, just on special occasions, and my father is always with me when I go because it’s his favorite restaurant. Despite the fact that we aren’t regulars, we get the royal treatment whenever we go. Owner Mark Marotto always stops by our table to chat with us. Not only is he the owner but also the head chef! Aside from making time to visit every table, he brightens everyone’s experience by playing the harmonica. When my family recently dined there for my father’s birthday, he came out of the kitchen to play “Happy Birthday” on the harmonica.

Such unique treatment brings a huge smile to my face (as you can see from the picture during one of our visits to Marotto’s…I’m the one with the big nose, glasses and oversized grin). If you want to see Mark in action, look at the story that a local news station did about him that’s posted on the restaurant's website. I just love the genuine feel of Mark playing the harmonica to entertain his customers.

Compare this to what happens when you enter a place like Moe’s Southwest Grill, a McDonaldized establishment in which workers shout “Welcome to Moe’s!” in unison when you enter. It seems to me that the workers half-heartedly shout this phrase because they are merely following a corporate script. It doesn’t feel real or authentic. While writing this I looked at their website and I immediately saw a graphic that said “Welcome to Moe’s, where size matters.” This was unsurprising because in a McDonaldized world, bigger is a promise of better.

It’s important to remember that the McDonaldization theory does not only apply to restaurants. Think of Christmas trees as another example. Buying a fake tree from Home Depot is an example of McDonaldization (especially if you use the technology there to purchase the tree without any help from an employee). A fake tree is efficient because no messy pine needles fall to the floor and there’s no problem getting the box through the front door. But it sure is bland compared to buying a tree from a local family farm. I recognize that not everyone lives near a tree farm, but if you’re within reasonable driving distance of one, I highly recommend the experience.

This year my wife and I took our two-year-old son to a tree farm located forty minutes from our house. When we arrived they gave us a saw to cut down our tree. We walked a few hundred feet and found a beautiful tree. It took me a while to saw through the tree, and I almost gave up, but I persisted and was thrilled when I finally got the job done. A worker helped me get the tree on top of our car, and sort of helped me tie it down.

I say “sort of” because that’s where the adventure began. We drove off and made our way back to the highway, driving 60 miles per hour and hoping the tree was properly fastened. It wasn’t long before two young guys in a car drove past us laughing and pointing at us. Our worst fear was confirmed—the tree was sliding off the top of our car. We pulled off to the side of the road and did our best to reposition the tree and secure it with a bungee cord. As my wife and I worked on the task with cars zooming by us, our son was crying his eyes out. Maybe it was the loud sound of cars flying by or maybe he was scared of seeing his parents climbing around the car, struggling to tie down a tree. Either way, we finally got the tree where we wanted it and eventually made our way home. We shared a good laugh about our morning and I suggested we go to the tree farm every other year.

I’m not sure I can handle a day like that every year! But I think that experience embodied the spirit of doing things in a way that aren’t McDonaldized. Sure it’s easier to buy a tree from a store but it’s more fun and unpredictable to cut down your own tree. A common sight this time of year where I live is Christmas trees in a parking lot. You can park, pick out your tree, pay for it and be home in a matter of minutes. So you can even get a real tree in a McDonaldized way. I took a picture of one of these parking lots near my house, and from where I took the picture I also took a shot of a common McDonaldized scene: a Dunkin’ Donuts, Baskin-Robbins and Valvoline all situated on a corner lot.

I guess it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. In other words, I don’t think one has to totally avoid a McDonaldized way of life. I think it’s about balance. Some encounters with McDonaldized places are inevitable in many of the places people live. My advice is to enjoy those places around you that offer something different. Sameness is comforting but it’s also boring. As the saying goes, “variety is the spice of life.” I think that saying holds true when we spend time in a way that isn’t McDonaldized.