No abstract

This study considers how online dating preferences reflect gendered racial inequality among same-sex daters. Research shows that heterosexuals reproduce gendered racial hierarchies through partner preferences, yet little work examines the preferences of sexual minorities, especially lesbians. Moreover, few studies examine racial heterophily (a preference for racial groups other than one's own), which may influence interracial pairings. Using data from 4,266 Match.com dating profiles, we find that Asian, Latino, and Black lesbians and gays exhibit higher rates of racial heterophily than do Whites. Lesbians of color are less likely to self-exclude or to prefer Whites, and are more likely to not state a race preference than are minority gays. Self-exclusionary minority daters often discuss ideal masculinities and femininities in their profiles, suggesting that such exclusions are motivated by both racialized and gendered ideals for partners. Drawing on theories of homonormativity, we conclude that gays conform more to racialized, gendered ideals than do lesbians. This paper focuses on patterns of racial heterophily-a preference for racial groups other than one's own-among lesbian and gay i daters, a phenomenon obscured by most research on romantic inequality that examines the demographics of partner outcomes rather than the preferences ii that shape these outcomes. Scholars find that lesbians and gays are more likely to be in interracial unions than are heterosexuals (Rosenfeld and Kim 2005). Further, gays are more likely to interracially cohabitate or marry than are lesbians (Lin and Lundquist 2015; Schwartz and Graf 2009), but studies cannot explain this pattern, which may stem from opportunity constraints or differing racial preferences. Existing studies also do not consider the possibility that signs of increased openness mask patterns of racial self-exclusion. iii Some minority daters may not be open to dating members of their own racial-ethnic group. Varying racial heterophily patterns provide insight into how racial hierarchies differ by gender among same-sex daters, and may explain why gays are more likely to interracially couple than lesbians. For minorities, racial heterophily is theoretically important because it suggests internalized racial oppression (Pyke 2010a) via rejection of one's own group in favor of Whites. For example, Pyke (2010b) finds that second-generation heterosexual Asian women's exclusion of Asian men and preference for White romantic partners indicates internalization of negative Asian stereotypes and not just superiority of White masculinity. However, studies have not examined how racial self-exclusion varies for lesbians as compared with gays. Literature on racial pairings among heterosexuals suggests homophily, or preferring one's own group, is the dominant pattern, even among minorities (Lin and Lundquist 2013). However, recent work finds differences in heterosexual daters' same-race preferences by race and gender (Lin and Lundquist 2013; Robnett and Feliciano 2011), and gender dif...

No abstract

Adults may still be catching up to digital age, but digital youth bring to school digital skills they learn from each other. Comparative ethnographic analysis of three middle schools that vary by student class and race reveals that students’ similar digital skills are differently transformed by teachers into cultural capital for achievement. Teachers effectively discipline students’ digital play but in different ways. At a school serving working-class Latino youth, students are told their digital expressions are irrelevant to learning; at a school with mostly middle-class Asian American youth, students’ digital expressions are seen as threats to their ability to succeed academically; and at a private school with mainly wealthy white youth, students’ digital skills are positioned as essential to school success. Insofar as digital competency represents a kind of cultural capital, the minority and working-class students also have that capital. But theirs is not translated into teacher-supported opportunities for achievement.

No abstract