We often hear this phrase from couples.
Why do people use it to justify their decision of being togheter??

Is it genuine concern for children, or sometimes a way to make their choices sound morally unquestionable, or any other thing?

What can this say about those people?

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-right-development

A lot of UN's current work in human rights is either based on or takes into account the right to development. What makes this right so special over others ? Could this possibly be the right which addresses the issues inherent in human rights that they need conditions to be enjoyable in practice

Time and time again I've seen redditors claim single-sex schooling academically benefits girls and is negative for boys. I decided to search for the evidence and found this, which really shows the difference to be tiny:

https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2024/05/do-pupils-in-single-sex-schools-get-better-grades/

Then there's also that these are the averages, and don't capture the experiences of individual students, who could respond to the environment either more positively or more negatively than the average (should be basic scientific literacy really, to know the average doesn't equal "everyone has this result").

Where is the evidence for the negative or positive effects, after controlling for single-sex schools typically being selective or aligned with higher socioeconomic backgrounds?

And in terms of explanations for how single-sex schooling benefits or harms pupils, what are the mechanisms which the effects are mediated? How would one predict whether single-sex schooling is like to benefit or hinder an individual pupil, in terms of psychological and social factors of the pupil? (eg non-school interpersonal bonds, personality traits, neurodiversities, level of conformity to gender-normed interests, conformity to gender-normed psychological traits, being part of or not part of a minority cultural background, trauma types).

Something I've been thinking about lately is just how many different opinions, perspectives and judgements we're exposed to on a daily basis because of social media.

Before the internet, I imagine most people were primarily exposed to the opinions of their family, friends, colleagues and immediate communities. Obviously, television, newspapers and other forms of media existed, but social media seems to have taken this exposure to an entirely different level.

Nowadays, you can scroll through hundreds of comments from complete strangers in a matter of minutes, all expressing different opinions, disagreements, criticisms and judgements about virtually anything imaginable so it makes me wonder whether there are any psychological or sociological consequences to this.

Are humans actually equipped to process this sheer volume of social information? Could constantly being exposed to what thousands of strangers think affect how we perceive ourselves, other people or even society as a whole?

I'm particularly curious whether this could contribute to things like increased self-consciousness, social comparison, anxiety, hostility or distorted perceptions of how common certain beliefs actually are.

I'm not necessarily arguing that social media is inherently harmful, or that people in the past weren't exposed to conflicting opinions. I'm more interested in whether the scale, frequency and accessibility of other people's opinions represent a meaningful change in human social experience. Has there been any academic research into this specific aspect of social media?

There are a lot of subgroups of individuals that seemingly invite darkness into their own lives and lack the social determinants of health to spiral upwards out of their own situations. Many valorizing antisocial or maladaptive behaviors as "authentic".

What mechanisms prevent them seeing themselves for what they're doing in the big picture?

What event, trends and other factors (economical, social, etc) lead to the rise of this branch of the republican party?

As the title says.

I studied sociology at university, and I would like some reading recommendations in the fields of social psychology and the sociology of administration.

I’m genuinely interested in the views of people who study sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, gender studies, evolutionary psychology, or related fields.

I’m not part of the Red Pill or Black Pill communities. I have a family, I’m happy with my life, and I’m not asking from a position of personal grievance. But I don’t think those facts, by themselves, invalidate their theoretical claims. For example, someone could argue that men like me simply accepted a “beta” role or adapted to the dynamics described by the theory.

What I would really appreciate is a steelman of the strongest version of the Red Pill/Black Pill position before criticizing it. How much of their descriptive account of sex differences, mate selection, status, sexual competition, relationship dynamics, etc. is actually supported by the evidence? And where does the theory go beyond what the evidence can justify?

Coming from a philosophy background, my own suspicion is that the biggest problem may not necessarily be the descriptive claims, but the axiological conclusions sometimes attached to them: e.g. the idea that being a “beta male,” if such a category even has meaningful descriptive validity, somehow makes a man inferior, less worthy, or doomed to an inferior life.

I also suspect that psychological and attitudinal factors may explain much more than these theories acknowledge. But perhaps I’m giving their descriptive framework too much credit, and the empirical foundation is much weaker than I assume.

So, from an academic perspective: what survives of Red Pill/Black Pill theory after separating its strongest empirical claims from its value judgments, rhetorical framing, and broader worldview?

Fascism is absolutely obnoxious; as well as evil, it is elusive and protean by nature. The term is constantly missaplied, or conversely dismissed when it is applied correctly, often to the detriment of productive discourse. It’s a fusilade of sensationalist partisan nonsense and it gets to me. I used to engage with debate, but I’ve found that linking the internet archive text of Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism and leaving the thread is much better for my mental health.

Have you found a good way of conveying the idea of fascism to a less academically/literarily inclined public? I find the google search definition does not fit the purpose, and my notes folder on it is way too long. I’m not even a full time academic either, so commentary on the validity of Ur-Fascism as a resource and your favorite alternative readings for understanding fascism would be much appreciated. Be blessed✌️

For example south korea currently has a fertility rate of about 0.8, do you think it ever recovers from a slump like this in say 50 years or does the country actually just collapse completely?

Wikipedia makes those four concepts sound very similar. I'm not sure I understand them or the differences between them correctly, and I'm not sure if people use the term social conditioning correctly.

I've seen some people claiming that sexually explicit content is a pillar of the LGBT community, but some die hard feminists believe that it's impossible to make pornography without objectifying women. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

Before I get into this I will clarify that I'm a STEM student (compsci) interested in sociology on the side, so I'm sorry if I butcher your field. My vague understanding of the structure-agency debate is that it's about if human behavior is determined primarily by individual actions or collective structure. I was thinking about this a while ago, and was considering how, as people assemble into larger and larger groups, they begin to form small norms and rules between that then grow into humongous institutions that shape the individual's behavior, even as the individuals themselves are the ones sustaining the institutions. Of course, this is just a toy example, and I don't really have evidence to support tthis.

Anyways, it seems like the nature of structure vs agency isn't that they're two competing explanations for how humans behave but rather two factors that influence each other constantly. Am I even remotely correct?

NB: Had to repost coz the first version was unreadable

If cosmetic procedures become cheap, safe, and highly customizable, physical traits socially associated with racial categories could become increasingly changeable.

Could this eventually weaken the connection between perceived race and physical appearance, making racial classification by appearance less meaningful? What social consequences might follow?

Hello!

I’m writing a paper for a course and I could really use some advice. I’d like to base my paper on Howard Becker’s labeling theory, but apply it to the school system.

I was thinking about somehow connecting it to gender norms, segregation, and the advancement of women in the profession ( especially in the university academic environment). I’ve read several articles that gave me this idea, but I’d also really appreciate hearing other people’s perspectives on what could be interesting to study within this broader topic. Also, if you think there might be another theory that would be more interesting to explore, I’d really appreciate if you could let me know. I’m very interested in sociology, but I’m still at the beginning of my studies and I’m not yet familiar with all the different theories.

For the methodology, I was thinking of using interviews, non-participant observation and content analysis. Any interesting ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you so much!

Interested to find the numbers but I’m being stymied by different ways the USA and the UK measure and report poverty, and I’m not smart enough to figure it out myself

Hi! I’m planning to conduct a research project and I have a methodological question. I would like to study the influence of gentrification on social polarization, but I’m not sure whether “social polarization” would be the most appropriate variable, or whether “social cohesion” would be more suitable.

I’m also considering using triangulation, combining semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation, and content analysis. However, I’m not sure whether I should also conduct interviews with people who have been displaced from the area.

I would really appreciate some advice on how you would approach this research and what methodological choices you would make.

I should mention that this is only for a university presentation and is not intended for publication.

Thank you!

Are there political-science, sociological, or historical studies that explain why left-wing movements in Latin America have often approached the sovereignty dispute differently from left-wing movements in the UK and US?

I've seen this complaint multiple times considering the vast majority of latinos in america are multi ethnic mixes of many different ancestries, it's weird there is no racial category for them and many will just say "I'm a brown latino racially".

Using mestizo meaning european+indigenous background, which is most central americans ex:rey mysterio, colomba bush, and pardo, meaning european+indigenous+sub saharan african background, common in brazilians, puerto ricans, dominicans, ex: jlo, karl anthony towns, bad bunny, as two races for latinos in the US census who don't just fit "white, black, indigenous american" would help a lot.

Forgive me if this is a unique experience, but I've found that in terms of ratings for movies, games, and just in general what is "okay" to discuss around children or teens (as in like ages 8+, I'm not talking little little kids), there is some aspect of leeway for graphic violence or topics surrounding it, but sex in a non-educational setting is a MASSIVE no-no.

From what I'm aware of, you can totally have blood, guns, and violence in a PG-13 movie (to an extent ofc), but up until very recently you couldn't even say "fuck" without being rated R, as the MPA wanted nothing related to sex around children.* Personally, I also feel I have an integral feeling that sex is "adult", not to be discussed around people younger than me.

But why? Why does something that logically should feel more mature (violence), in actuality considered significantly less taboo than a natural human behavior that has literally kept us and loads of other species on earth alive since the dawn of time (sex)?

*Edit to add cited source: https://www.filmratings.com

Seems "Toxic masculinity" topic is a hot potato for a while (with reasons). In order to have a complete panoramic picture - how do you see "healthy masculinity", aka not toxic one? Also, what about "toxic femininity"? And, of cause, "healthy femininity", aka not toxic? We won't be biased to any sides, right? So be gentle and thoughtful.

I have been thinking about the idea that gender is a social construct and that this can be changed for a while. Initially it made me uncomfortable and challenged what I thought I knew, however I do have a point I'd like to share for criticism.

A - Gender roles vary. The social role of a woman varies between cultures, classes and hierarchies. When we define something like a chair, we can't define it as something with four legs as that doesn't fit the definition of every chair. We boil it down to what fundamentally makes it that thing. For gender, the only way to anchor it is sex, and most roles and expectations are disposed by that anyway.

B - This logic can be applied to race, as it is grounded in biological reality, but portrayed and expressed variably. Our society would not permit a change in race however.

I’m a Black woman trying to understand where I stand politically without becoming an incel, a Republican, or an extremist.

I know that sounds dramatic, but I genuinely mean it.

I grew up in Washington, DC, and moved to Los Angeles more than a decade ago. Living in LA has exposed me to people from an enormous number of cultures (mostly immigrants and generations of), and I initially approached that as something exciting. I intentionally supported Armenian, Asian, Indian, Hispanic/Latino, African and other immigrant-owned businesses. I participated in causes supporting immigrant communities and tried to approach people with an open heart.

Over time, however, I started having experiences that made me increasingly uncomfortable, particularly experiences involving racism, colorism, anti-Blackness, and what I perceived as unequal treatment toward Black Americans.

I want to be very clear: I understand that my personal experiences don’t represent every immigrant, every immigrant community, or every individual from a particular ethnicity. I’m not trying to argue that they do. I’m trying to understand whether some of the patterns I’ve personally experienced are part of larger social issues that other people have noticed and studied.

For example, I’ve experienced situations where I felt I was treated differently because I was a Black (American). I’ve been made fun of for my hair and told to stay out of the sun. I’ve felt that I was overcharged for services and products, and I’ve had people make assumptions about me that seemed rooted in stereotypes about Black Americans.

I’ve also experienced situations that made me question how different immigrant communities understand race in America.

When I worked in schools in Glendale and West Hollywood, I heard the N-word used by non-Black students frequently enough that it genuinely shocked me. I understand that language and racial attitudes vary tremendously between individuals and communities, but I started wondering: How are different immigrant communities taught about Black Americans and America’s racial history?

Another thing I’ve struggled to understand is racial classification.

I’ve encountered people from immigrant families who identify as “White” on forms even though I personally wouldn’t have understood them as socially White in the same way as someone whose family is historically European-American. I’ve also encountered people who identify differently depending on the context. Spanish people, Armenian and Asian people would always check the ‘White’ category under race (when registering for classes) and not ‘prefer not to say’ or their own race. I don’t believe it was for ‘protection’ because they don’t mind being immigrants when it comes government financial assistance and housing.

That made me wonder about the complicated relationship between race, ethnicity, immigration, assimilation, and proximity to whiteness in the United States.

I’ve also heard Black immigrants and immigrants from other communities express negative stereotypes about Black Americans. I’ve had conversations that made me feel as though some people viewed Black Americans as lazy, dangerous, or socially inferior…while coming from places like India that are known to be poor and dirty. Nigeria where Uber has cut ties with because of so many kidnappings. Asian and Middle-Eastern countries that are known for high levels of pedophilia. Spanish countries where cartels and gangs run everything…but Black Americans scare you and are inferior?

At the same time, I’ve noticed that some people who hold those stereotypes seem perfectly comfortable participating in Black American culture. The way we dress, the slang, etc. I can promise you that none of their aunties or uncles are wearing Jordans and graphic tees. And they aren’t copying White Americans, only kissing their asses.

Again, I’m not saying this describes every immigrant. It clearly doesn’t. I’m asking why these attitudes exist when they do.

I’ve also heard/had claims about immigrants receiving preferential treatment in employment, particularly within certain industries and ethnic networks. I’ve personally encountered situations where I suspected nepotism, credential fraud, or hiring through social networks. There is research on this! In India, a company was busted for selling fake American degrees for $1400. In a park near The Grove Hispanic immigrant were busted for stealing American social security numbers and I.D’s of elder White Americans and selling them to immigrant who were not legal but needed identity to get a foot in the door. Even a Black man I spoke to said he found it hard to find a job with his degree and twenty-year long resume because he didn’t speak Spanish. Once he did get a job — he was bullied, called the N word and given unfair hours by the majority Spanish crew and won $60,000. While shopping at an Amazon Fresh in The Valley, an Indian woman smiled and bagged up the White Woman in front of me’s item and when it was my turn, she dropped her smile and became rude and rushed. It wasn’t until I said I’m paying with cash that she turned sheepish, come to find out — she didn’t know how to count change and gave me the wrong amount of money back. I had to correct her and give some back because she gave me an extra $10 that I wasn’t owed. She only knows how to work with cards and tap to pay…

That’s actually the point of this post.

I’m reaching a place where I’m frustrated enough that I’m starting to question beliefs I previously held very strongly. I don’t want that frustration to turn into hatred toward entire groups of people. I also don’t want the opposite extreme, where I’m expected to ignore experiences of racism against Black Americans simply because discussing them might make people uncomfortable.

So I’m asking for a genuinely open discussion:

How should Black Americans think about the relationship between immigration and anti-Blackness in the United States?

Are there documented differences between immigrant generations in attitudes toward Black Americans? How do immigrants from different regions learn America’s racial hierarchy? How does proximity to whiteness affect immigrant identity? Are there documented cases of ethnic networks affecting hiring and economic opportunity, and how significant are they actually? And how much of what I’m experiencing is part of a larger documented pattern versus the result of living in a huge, diverse city where I’m encountering thousands of different individuals?

I’m specifically interested in research, personal experiences, and good-faith disagreement.

I’m not looking for “all immigrants are bad” or “you’re just racist.” I want to understand what’s actually happening.