Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Soc Forces. 2022 Oct 14;101(2):546–557. doi: 10.1093/sf/soac090

100 Years of Sex and Gender in Social Forces

Katherine Weisshaar 1, Patrick Casey 1
PMCID: PMC10100580  NIHMSID: NIHMS1875582  PMID: 37063619

Introduction

The 100-year anniversary of Social Forces offers an opportunity to reflect on change and stability of sociological scholarship as featured in the pages of one of the discipline’s oldest journals. Since the first issue in 1922, much has changed in the sociological study of sex and gender in Social Forces publications. In our review of a century of publications, we find that scholarship in Social Forces has increasingly paid attention to gender as a social phenomenon, and the focus of such scholarship has evolved as gender scholars and feminist researchers developed theory moving beyond individual-level perspectives on gender and toward structural and multilevel understandings (see also Acker 1992; Ferree, Lorber, and Hess 1999; Lopata and Thorne 1978; Martin 2004; Risman 1998; Risman and Davis 2013). Nevertheless, many of the questions scholars posed nearly a century ago still resonate today.

In this essay, we first examine trends with respect to the frequency of publications on gender in Social Forces over time, before examining the terminology used within abstracts and titles, linking temporal variation in the language used to scholarly understandings of the meaning of gender as a sociological concept. We then consider how substantive subtopics within gender-related publications have changed over time. Throughout the essay, we highlight key publications that illustrate the changing understanding of sex and gender in Social Forces.

The patterns we show draw from two analytical sets of articles in Social Forces, which are derived from recent work by Moody, Edelmann, and Light, who conducted a bibliometric analysis of Social Forces articles (2022). They applied computational text analysis methods to words and phrases in abstracts, titles, and keywords of Social Forces publications from 1940–2020,1 and construct a network that links articles to one another by the extent of overlap of meaningful words in their texts (Moody et al. 2022: 40). Using a cluster algorithm on the network data, Moody et al. grouped each article into one of 39 primary clusters (2022). Our first analytical set of articles uses the two clusters were identified as primarily pertaining to gender: “Gender & Inequality” and “Gender & Household Labor,” which we collectively call the “gender cluster” (Moody et al. 2022). Because many publications fall under multiple areas of research but were assigned to only one cluster, articles may refer to sex or gender but have been assigned to another cluster as the primary topic of research2 (see Figure 1, Table A1.1, and Figure A3.2 in Moody et al. 2022). Our second analytical set of articles consists of Social Forces publications outside of the gender cluster, and we assess how gender-related terms in titles and abstracts have changed across these other subtopics (see also Moody et al. 2022). This combined approach allows us to analyze the evolution of gender scholarship, both with respect to its emergence as a major subfield in sociology as well as its linkages to other substantive topics within the discipline.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Social Forces articles categorized in gender cluster area by decade, 1940–2019.

Historical Trends in the Frequency of Articles on Gender

Figure 1 presents the frequency of Social Forces articles that were categorized as primarily belonging to the gender cluster (Moody et al. 2022) from 1940–2019, by decade. In total, 198 articles between 1940–2019 were assigned to the gender cluster: 95 articles were categorized as pertaining to gender and household labor and 103 on gender inequality. Very few articles in the gender cluster were published in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s: just three articles were published in the 1940s and five each in the 1950s and 1960s. Beginning in the 1970s, the number of articles in the gender cluster increased to 14, and has continued to increase in each subsequent decade, with the latest decade including 63 articles—36 on gender and household labor and 27 on gender inequality—or about 10% of all Social Forces articles from 2010–2019.

The trends in Figure 1 reflect sociologists’ scholarly responses to broad societal changes that have taken place over the past 60 years. Gender was not a central topic of sociological study in the first half of the twentieth century. We begin to see more publications following the U.S. women’s movement in the 1960s and 1970s, a time which also corresponded to key civil rights outcomes, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in employment, and the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion (Collins 2009). As women entered the labor force at higher rates in the 1970s through the 1990s—and more women entered sociology as a discipline (Roby 2009)—an increasing number of scholarly publications considered how gender affected the work and family interface. This time period also corresponds with an increase of women authors in Social Forces (Kalleberg and Newell 2022; see also Moody, Edelmann, and Light 2022). The most recent decades reflect the integration of gender as a prominent subfield in sociology.

Historical Trends in Gendered Language and Terminology

Social Forces publications not only indicate a growing body of scholarship on gender over time: the evolution of gender-related terminology in Social Forces articles illustrates a major shift in the understanding of gender as a sociological concept. We reviewed the prevalence of the use of terms related to “sex” compared to “gender”3 in abstracts and titles of publications in the gender cluster and outside of the gender cluster, which allows us consider the evolution of sociological thought on gender from a concept constituting biological, physiological, and psychological differences between people (“sex”) to one reflecting social and cultural processes in identities, interactions, and institutions (“gender”) (see Acker 1992; Ferree, Lorber, and Hess 1999; Lopata and Thorne 1978; Martin 2004; Risman 1998; Risman and Davis 2013).

Figure 2 displays the smoothed proportion of Social Forces articles with titles and/or abstracts containing “sex” and “gender” terms from 1940 to 2019, within the gender cluster. The relatively few articles in the gender cluster before the 1980s predominantly referred to “sex,” reflecting the prevailing understanding at the time that biological and psychological differences between individuals give rise to distinct sex roles (for additional discussion of these concepts, see Acker 1992; Lopata and Thorne 1998; Martin 2004; Risman 1998). Indeed, the term “gender” did not appear in any Social Forces abstract or title until 1973 (Gecas, Thomas, and Weigert 1973).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Gendered language in Social Forces titles and abstracts, within the gender cluster. 1940–2019. Graph is smoothed with local polynomial smoothing.

The use of the term “gender” increased rapidly throughout the 1980s and 1990s while the prevalence of the term “sex” decreased considerably. This shift in language reflects the diffusion of social understandings of differences between men and women developed by activists and social scientists during that period who rejected purely individual-level explanations for social difference (see, for example, Brewer 1989; Collins 1990; Ferree, Lorber, and Hess 1999; Risman 1998; Risman and Davis 2013). The declining use of “sex” continued into the early 2000s, after which it consistently appeared in about 20% of articles published in the gender cluster, for example appearing in articles relating to health (e.g., in Hopcroft’s 2007 article on sex differences in depression). In contrast, the increasing use of “gender” continued through the first two decades of the 21st century, occurring in about 75% of articles in the gender cluster by 2019.

Figure 3 presents smoothed trends in the proportion of Social Forces articles with abstracts and/or titles containing “sex” and “gender” terms in topic areas categorized by Moody et al. (2022) as outside of the gender cluster, from 1940 to 2019.4 The bottom right panel of Figure 3 (“Total”) displays the aggregate use of these terms in other clusters, which shows a similar trend in the decline of “sex” and increase of “gender” as we find within the gender cluster in Figure 2. In the most recent decade, about 13% of articles outside of the gender cluster use the term “gender” and about 4% use “sex” in the title or abstract. This increase in the use of “gender” is clearly illustrated across many subtopics. For instance, the use of “gender” has uniformly increased since the 1980s in the Race cluster, as has its use in the Politics and Social Movements, Religion, and Culture topic areas. About 40% of articles in the Health cluster in the latest decade contain “sex” or “gender” in their abstracts or titles; “sex” remains prevalent in this cluster in part due to research on biosocial processes and sexual behaviors. About 20% of articles in recent decades in the Family cluster contain “gender” and about 10% contain “sex,” and here “sex” is typically referenced in articles about same-sex relationships. Scholarship on China, Immigration and Migration, and in the Globalization areas have also shown sharp increases in references to gender, demonstrating that the increasing focus on gender within sociology has not been restricted to the U.S. context (see Kurzman 2022). It is evident that sociologists across a wide range of subfields have increasingly drawn on the concept of gender over the past half century.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Proportion of Social Forces titles and abstracts containing sex or gender term, by topic, 1940–2019. “Folk” and “Demography” topics are dropped because of low article numbers. Graphs are smoothed with local polynomial smoothing. Topics are derived from Moody et al. (2022) and Kalleberg (2022).

Topics in Gender Research in Social Forces, 1922-Present

As the language used in scholarship on gender in Social Forces increasingly shifted from one of viewing biological, physiological, and psychological differences between sex groups to a more flexible understanding of gender operating both within and beyond individuals—in interactions and institutions—the substantive topics within publications on gender follow a related pattern of increasing diversity and breadth. We find that in the first half-century of the journal, gender publications by-and-large focused on the U.S. context (see Kurzman 2022; Kalleberg and Newell 2022), featured primarily white, middle class women’s experiences, and did not coalesce around a clear theoretical standpoint. The 1960s through 1980s reflected a transition period following cultural, economic, and legal changes in the U.S., and the 1990s and early 2000s offered scholarship that crystallized theoretically to understand gender across multiple analytical levels and in connection to work and family domains (see also Collins 1990; Collins 2009; Ferree, Lorber, and Hess 1999; Risman 1998). Since the early 2000s, the most recent gender-related publications in the journal are marked by their breadth and connections to other subfields: recent articles increasingly consider contexts outside of the U.S. (see Kurzman 2022), more clearly address intersections of gender with race and ethnicity (see Hargrove and Malone Gonzalez 2022), and speak to topics not readily covered previously, including an increasing focus on sexuality and sexual orientation. In this section, we describe this variation in focal topics in the gender cluster over time, featuring articles that illustrate key transitions.

1920s through the 1950s: Making Sense of Social Change

The few early publications on sex or gender in Social Forces illustrate how scholars grappled with the common understanding of men and women as social groups that reflected natural differences in preferences and abilities, while also recognizing and questioning the changing social expectations and positions of men and women. Johnson, for instance, challenges the feminist goal of women’s economic independence from men (1925). She writes: “Since the ideal of a salaried job for every woman seems impossible of realization and the dream of intellectual labor as a means to economic independence is even further removed, it would appear that the feminists have not followed to a logical conclusion some of the theories they advocate” (Johnson 1925:616). A few years later, Hudnut presents an opposing view, writing that “if men consciously or unconsciously look upon their own sex as possessing the greater intelligence and brains, they will be loath to give women equal economic opportunities” (1928:115). Later in this time period, sociologists pointed to the changing economic and social conditions—such as war, labor shortages, contraception advancements, and technological changes—that worked to “soften the ‘inequalities’ between the sexes” (Chivers 1942:206). For example, in 1944 Mayo notes that women increasingly worked on farms during the war, and estimated that women’s work effort is between 20–70% of “man-equivalent” labor (Mayo 1944).

1960s through the 1980s: A Transition Period Focusing on Gendered Economic Inequality

Following major cultural and economic changes in the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S., scholarship increased attention to gender and the goal of explaining gendered economic inequality in the U.S. context as (white, married) women entered the labor force at higher rates (see, for instance, Collins 1990; Collins 2009). Smith, for example, points to the challenges women military education advisers face: “[s]he must be willing to bow graciously to the man and let him be the spokesman and the heroic leader in all public activities” (Smith 1961:178). During this transitionary time period, scholars put forth two theories to explain economic gender inequality in the U.S.: structural accounts, which recognize gender differences in position and resources as a primary driver of gender inequality (e.g., Bibb and Form 1977; Wolf and Fligstein 1979); and socialization theories, which explain inequality as a result of gender differences in preferences and skills that developed through childhood and early adulthood (e.g., Ellis and Herrman 1983; Komarovsky and Mayer 1984). The two competing perspectives are directly examined in England’s 1984 and Lorence’s 1987 articles, both of which provide evidence in support of structural theories.

1990s through the early 2000s: A Takeoff in Theoretical Development

The 1990s and early 2000s witnessed substantial growth and development of theory and scholarship on gender in Social Forces. This period transitioned away from scholarship explaining gender differences through socialization to emphasizing the multiple and interconnected levels that feature gendered processes (e.g., individual/psychological, interactional, and institutional) (see Risman 1998; Risman and Davis 2013; or Acker 1992 for related arguments). This theoretical orientation enabled influential scholarship on topics primarily relating to gender in marriage, family, and work. For example, Sanchez’s 1994 article, “Gender, Labor Allocations, and the Psychology of Entitlement Within The Home” links social-psychological processes (e.g. gender ideology and perceived fairness) to interpersonal inequalities (e.g., household labor). Scholars such as Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, and Robinson (2000), Kaufman and Uhlenberg (2000), and Sayer (2005), consider how changing gendered patterns of time use—in household labor, work, leisure, and free time—both reflect and produce interactional and structural inequalities. The multilevel approach to studying gender (Risman 1998) is crystallized in Martin’s theoretical piece, “Gender as a Social Institution” (2004).

Publications during this period more directly considered how intersections of gender with race, social class, and other social structures and identities jointly shape inequalities (e.g., Cotter, Hermsen, and Vanneman 1999; Kilbourne, England, and Beron 1994; Tomaskovic-Devey 1993). Kilbourne, England, and Beron (1994) is the first article in the gender cluster to use the term “intersections” in their study of gender and race. Drawing theoretical motivation from Black feminist scholars including Patricia Hill Collins, Bonnie Thornton Dill, and Deborah Karyn King, they write: “Most research treats race and gender stratification as two separate systems. Thus, for women of color, the disadvantage is seen as simply the sum of both systems, with little consideration to whether they experience the system of race stratification differently from men of color. Along a similar vein, scholarship examining gender stratification often fails to consider if women of color experience sexism differently from white women” (Kilbourne et al. 1994:1149). While these claims still hold true of much of the gender scholarship published in Social Forces since the mid-1990s, an increasing number of articles more deeply considered intersecting systems of gender and race.

Mid-2000s to Present: New Applications and Crossover to Other Subfields

Since the mid-2000s, scholarship on gender in Social Forces has moved beyond the U.S. context and many articles apply the multilevel gender system approach (Risman 1998) to incorporate new topics and to connect to other subfields in new ways. As a result, articles during this period not only apply novel insights to earlier focal topics on work and family in the U.S., but speak comparatively to gendered processes related to migration, globalization, political discourse and social movements; and to more directly address intersectionality and the combination of racism and sexism. A few of the many recent innovative publications include Villanueva and Lin’s 2020 study of motherhood wage penalties in Latin America; Gonsalves’s 2021 article on transnational diffusion of LGBT associations; and Conwell and Quadlin’s 2021 article on gendered and racialized returns to education. Recent publications also feature gender in new topics in our cluster, such as beauty bias (e.g., Kuwabara and Thébaud 2017); intimate partner violence (e.g., Friedemann-Sanchez and Lovaton 2012); and citizenship status (e.g., Hall, Greenman, and Yi 2019). An increasing number of articles consider the nuances of gender identity and sexual orientation, featuring LGBT+ individuals and groups (e.g., Doan, Miller, and Loehr 2015; Gardberg et al. 2022; Gonsalves 2021; Lundquist and Lin 2015; Silva 2019; Ueno, Roach, and Peña-Talamantes 2013; Velasco 2022). These recent articles have garnered considerable attention: for example, Silva’s 2019 publication on homophobia, same-sex attraction, and straight identity is currently listed as having over 70 thousand page views (Social Forces 2022). This is an exciting time for gender scholarship as new theoretical and empirical connections are made to contexts that were not previously featured in the journal.

Conclusion and Discussion

Our review of 100 years of Social Forces publications on gender has illustrated major disciplinary shifts in: attention paid toward gender as a sociological topic; conceptions of the very meaning of sex and gender; and the theoretical and empirical focus within scholarship on gender. Before the mid-1960s, very few publications directly considered sex or gender at all. Following social movements and civil rights gains in the 1960s and 1970s, an increasing number of articles studied gender from a sociological perspective, with numbers of publications increasing in every subsequent decade since the 1970s. As scholars began to conceptualize gender as distinct from biological sex—a shift that is reflected in language patterns and terminology both within the gender cluster and in other subfields—the theoretical orientation of articles transitioned from examining gender differences to a conception that gender operates across multiple interconnected levels (see Acker 1992; Collins 1990; Martin 2004; Risman 1998). This theoretical conceptualization opened the door to important substantive work on understanding gender as it intersects with other stratification systems such as race and class, in international contexts, and as it relates to not only work and family domains, but also health, immigration, politics, and more. In 2010–2019, over one in five articles in Social Forces refer to “sex” or “gender” in the publication’s title or abstract.

Even as this subfield has grown and taken a clear shape over the past several decades, it is important to recognize what is missing from this body of publications. Relatively few articles in Social Forces feature research on transgender, genderqueer, or gender nonbinary individuals, and articles on sexual orientation and heterosexism have increased only in very recent years. Gender publications increasingly incorporate race, ethnicity and intersectionality, but many publications continue to focus on privileged groups.

While we are unable to predict the shape of research on gender in Social Forces in the next 100 years, we note that many of the topics and questions posed in articles from 30, 60, and even 100 years ago continue to hold relevance today. Consider this quote from Hudnut in 1928, which could imaginably have been written today to reflect recent reversals in gender-related civil rights in the U.S.: “The idea of a superior and inferior sex is subtle and far-reaching. It is camouflaged and denied. The so-called superior sex sends out a barrage of flattery extoling motherhood, wifehood, beauty, sweetness, innocence, and declaring that no work is as sacred as the home-maker’s” (1928: 112). Although the language, theories, and specific topics have changed over time, core questions about (in)equality, power, identity, expectations, and backlash reflect a common thread over the past century and we imagine that these questions will continue to be relevant in the next century.

Footnotes

1

Abstracts were not readily available until 1940, so this year marks the beginning of Moody, Edelmann, and Light’s text analysis (2022). We review publications from before 1940 in the section on substantive topics, but we are limited to the post-1940 period for graphs that use analyses from articles’ abstract text. We thank James Moody for providing the bibliographic data from Social Forces for our analyses, from 1940 to 2019.

2

For example, Quadlin’s 2019 article, “Sibling Achievement, Sibling Gender, and Beliefs about Parental Investment” is categorized as belonging to the Education cluster (Moody et al. 2022). The article’s emphasis on achievement and education uses terms that link it more closely with education-related articles than articles categorized in the gender cluster, but the article clearly addresses gender as well.

3

We include the following words related to “sex”: sex, sexes, sexual inequality, sexual equality, and sexual stratification. We include the following words to reflect “gender”: gender, genders, gendered.

4

These topic areas are drawn from the clusters by Moody et al. (2022), and we combine clusters that were aggregated by Kalleberg for the Social Forces centennial essay collection (2022). Note that the y-axes on Figure 3 vary across panels.

References

  1. Acker Joan. 1992. “From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions.” Contemporary Sociology 21(5):565. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bianchi Suzanne M., Milkie Melissa A., Sayer Liana C., and Robinson John P. 2000. “Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor.” Social Forces 79(1):191–228. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bibb Robert, and Form William H. 1977. “The Effects of Industrial, Occupational, and Sex Stratification on Wages in Blue-Collar Markets.” Social Forces 55(4):974–96. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brewer Rose M. 1989. “Black Women and Feminist Sociology: The Emerging Perspective.” The American Sociologist 20(1):57–70. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chivers Walter R. 1942. “Effects of the Modification of the Sex Mores Upon Sex Specialization of Labor.” Social Forces 21(2):206–9. [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins Gail. 2009. America’s Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines. Harper Collins. [Google Scholar]
  7. Collins Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cotter David A., Hermsen Joan M., and Vanneman Reeve. 1999. “Systems of Gender, Race, and Class Inequality: Multilevel Analyses.” Social Forces 78(2):433–60. [Google Scholar]
  9. Doan Long, Miller Lisa R., and Loehr Annalise. 2015. “The Power of Love: The Role of Emotional Attributions and Standards in Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Lesbian and Gay Couples.” Social Forces 94(1):401–25. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellis Robert A., and Herrman Margaret S. 1983. “Three Dimensions of Occupational Choice: A Research Note on Measuring the Career Intentions of College Women.” Social Forces 61(3):893–904. [Google Scholar]
  11. England Paula. 1984. “Wage Appreciation and Depreciation: A Test of Neoclassical Economic Explanations of Occupational Sex Segregation.” Social Forces 62(3):726–49. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferree Myra Marx, Lorber Judith, and Hess Beth B. 1999. Revisioning Gender. Rowman Altamira. [Google Scholar]
  13. Friedemann-Sánchez Greta, and Lovatón Rodrígo. 2012. “Intimate Partner Violence in Colombia: Who Is at Risk?” Social Forces 91(2):663–88. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gecas Viktor, Thomas Darwin L., and Weigert Andrew J. 1973. “Social Identities in Anglo and Latin Adolescents.” Social Forces 51(4):477–84. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gonsalves Tara. 2021. “Transnational Diffusion and Regional Resistance: Domestic LGBT Association Founding, 1979–2009.” Social Forces 99(4):1601–30. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hall Matthew, Greenman Emily, and Yi Youngmin. 2019. “Job Mobility among Unauthorized Immigrant Workers.” Social Forces 97(3):999–1028. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hargrove Taylor, and Gonzalez Shannon Malone. 2022. “A Conversation on Race and Colorism in Social Forces.” Social Forces 101(1):102–10. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hopcroft Rosemary L., and Bradley Dana Burr. 2007. “The Sex Difference in Depression Across 29 Countries.” Social Forces 85(4):1483–1507. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hudnut Ruth Allison. 1928. “Sex Inferiority.” Social Forces 7(1):112. [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson Guion Griffis. 1925. “Feminism and the Economic Independence of Woman.” Social Forces 3:612–16. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kalleberg Arne L. 2022. “Social Forces at 100: Change and Continuity.” Social Forces 101(1):1–3. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kalleberg Arne L., and Newell Abigail. 2022. “100 Years of Social Forces.” Social Forces 101(1):4–37. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kaufman Gayle, and Uhlenberg Peter. 2000. “The Influence of Parenthood on the Work Effort of Married Men and Women.” Social Forces 78(3):931–47. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kilbourne Barbara, England Paula, and Beron Kurt. 1994. “Effects of Individual, Occupational, and Industrial Characteristics on Earnings: Intersections of Race and Gender.” Social Forces 72(4):1149–76. [Google Scholar]
  25. Komarovsky Mirra, and Mayer Ellen R. 1984. “Consistency of Female Gender Attitudes: A Research Note.” Social Forces 62(4):1020–25. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kurzman Charles. 2022. “The Globalization of Social Forces.” Social Forces 101(1):93–101. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuwabara Ko, and Sarah Thébaud. 2017. “When Beauty Doesn’t Pay: Gender and Beauty Biases in a Peer-to-Peer Loan Market.” Social Forces 95(4):1371–98. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lopata Helena Z., and Thorne Barrie. 1978. “On the Term ‘Sex Roles.’” Signs 3(3):718–21. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lorence Jon. 1987. “A Test of ‘Gender’ and ‘Job’ Models of Sex Differences in Job Involvement.” Social Forces 66(1):121–42. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lundquist Jennifer H., and Lin Ken-Hou. 2015. “Is Love (Color) Blind? The Economy of Race among Gay and Straight Daters.” Social Forces 93(4):1423–49. [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin Patricia Y. 2004. “Gender As Social Institution.” Social Forces 82(4):1249–73. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mayo Selz C. 1944. “Some Concepts of Farm Labor Availability.” Social Forces 23(2):170–74. [Google Scholar]
  33. Moody James, Edelmann Achim, and Light Ryan. 2022. “100 Years of Social Forces as Seen through Bibliometric Publication Patterns.” Social Forces 101(1):38–75. [Google Scholar]
  34. Quadlin Natasha. 2019. “Sibling Achievement, Sibling Gender, and Beliefs about Parental Investment: Evidence from a National Survey Experiment.” Social Forces 97(4):1603–30. [Google Scholar]
  35. Risman Barbara J. 1998. Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Risman Barbara J., and Davis Georgiann. 2013. “From Sex Roles to Gender Structure.” Current Sociology 61(5–6):733–55. [Google Scholar]
  37. Roby Pamela Ann. 2009. “The Women.” Sociologists for Women in Society. (https://socwomen.org/about/history-of-sws/the-women/). [Google Scholar]
  38. Sanchez Laura. 1994. “Gender, Labor Allocations, and the Psychology of Entitlement within the Home.” Social Forces 73(2):533–53. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sayer Liana C. 2005. “Gender, Time and Inequality: Trends in Women’s and Men’s Paid Work, Unpaid Work and Free Time.” Social Forces 84(1):285–303. [Google Scholar]
  40. Silva Tony J. 2019. “Straight Identity and Same-Sex Desire: Conservatism, Homophobia, and Straight Culture.” Social Forces 97(3):1067–94. [Google Scholar]
  41. Smith Verlie I. 1961. “Role Conflicts in the Position of a Military Education Adviser.” Social Forces 40(2):176–78. [Google Scholar]
  42. Social Forces Website. 2022. https://academic.oup.com/sf. Accessed August 1, 2022.
  43. Stone Amy L. 2019. “Frame Variation in Child Protectionist Claims: Constructions of Gay Men and Transgender Women as Strangers.” Social Forces 97(3):1155–76. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tomaskovic-Devey Donald. 1993. “The Gender and Race Composition of Jobs and the Male/Female, White/Black Pay Gaps.” Social Forces 72(1):45–76. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ueno Koji, Roach Teresa, and Peña-Talamantes Abráham E. 2013. “Sexual Orientation and Gender Typicality of the Occupation in Young Adulthood.” Social Forces 92(1):81–108. [Google Scholar]
  46. Velasco Kristopher. 2022. “Opposition Avoidance or Mutual Engagement? The Interdependent Dynamics between Opposing Transnational LGBT+ Networks.” Social Forces soac068. [Google Scholar]
  47. Villanueva Aida, and Lin Ken-Hou. 2020. “Motherhood Wage Penalties in Latin America: The Significance of Labor Informality.” Social Forces 99(1):59–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wolf Wendy C., and Fligstein Neil D. 1979. “Sexual Stratification: Differences in Power in the Work Setting.” Social Forces 58(1):94–107. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES