Commitment in same-sex love relationships

This study sought to desribe and compare commitment structures among lesbian and gay male living-together relationships, and to develop an instrument which would measure different dimensions of commitment among gay dyads without some heterosexual biases inherent in traditional measures of interpersonal commitment. Questionnaire data collected from 32 lesbians and 50 gay males who had lived together for at least six months were factor analyzed, yielding three factors: (1) intradyadic commitment, (2) extradyadic commitment, and (3) commitment-as-trust. On all three of these indices the lesbians scored somewhat higher than did the gay males, but in fact there were surprisingly few significant differences between the gay men and the lesbians. Suggestions in the data that lesbians report somewhat less social supports and are more concerned with couple boundary maintenance, whereas gay males report somewhat more jealousy and dependency, are discussed in terms of their implications for such relationships.     

Temporality and Social Change: The Case of 19th Century China and Japan

Manifold factors have been identified as causal mechanisms in social change, but an important one–temporality–has been neglected. Temporality is the social time that characterizes any society, and that social time is consequential for the rate and direction of change. The three dimensions of temporality are temporal pattern, temporal orientation, and temporal perspective. The differences between the Japanese and Chinese along these three dimensions help explain their differential responses to the 19th century Western challenge. Specifically, two propositions are examined in the light of the historical data: a society's temporality limits the range of adaptive responses to new circumstances, and the symbols of social time act as a mechanism of social control.     

Homecoming: the relevance of radical feminism for gay men

Sexual politics in the gay male world would be enhanced by a serious engagement with radical feminist politics, particularly critiques of pornography and the sex industry. As the domination/subordination dynamic at the heart of patriarchy damages homosexual men, such engagement is crucial to the future of a gay movement.     

Improving access to health care for foster children: the Illinois model

Children in foster care have lower health status than do their peers and limited access to health care. The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services developed HealthWorks, a separate primary care preferred provider system for children in foster care. This study compared claims data for children in HealthWorks with children not enrolled in HealthWorks and with children in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) who had never entered foster care. Children enrolled in HealthWorks were more likely than were other children to receive all of the services except general inpatient hospitalizations. They had greater odds of receiving general exams and physicians' services and were more likely to visit the emergency room than children who were not enrolled. They were more likely to receive all of the measured services when compared with children receiving Medicaid through AFDC.     

Living with unfairness: The limits of equal opportunity in a market economy

Equality of opportunity is often presented as a criterion which reconciles egalitarianism with principles of freedom and responsibility. This paper distinguishes between the principle of starting-line equality, which requires that everyones initial opportunities, assessed in relation to what is publicly known ex ante, are equal, and the principle that equal efforts should yield equal ex post rewards. It argues that the first principle is compatible with allocation of resources through markets but, because of the division of knowledge, the second is not. If we want the opportunities which markets give us, we have to accept ex post unfairness. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a workshop on the measurement of freedom at the London School of Economics, and at a conference on non-welfarist issues in normative economics at the University of Caen. I thank participants at those meetings, and particularly Tania Burchardt, Marco Mariotti and Franz Prettenthaler, for comments. My work on this paper was supported by the Leverhulme Trust.