#their history shows what they can achieve when their views are aligned and balanced | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

samwisethewitch · 3 years

Text

Pagan Paths: Wicca

Wicca is the big granddaddy of neopagan religions. Most people who are familiar with modern paganism are specifically familiar with Wicca, and will probably assume that you are Wiccan if you tell them you identify as pagan. Thanks to pop culture and a handful of influential authors, Wicca has become the public face of modern paganism, for better or for worse.

Wicca is also one of the most accessible pagan religions, which is why I chose to begin our exploration of individual paths here. Known for its flexibility and openness, Wicca is about as beginner-friendly as it gets. While it definitely isn’t for everyone, it can be an excellent place to begin your pagan journey if you resonate with core Wiccan beliefs.

This post is not meant to be a complete introduction to Wicca. Instead, my goal here is to give you a taste of what Wiccans believe and do, so you can decide for yourself if further research would be worth your time. In that spirit, I provide book recommendations at the end of this post.

History and Background

Wicca was founded by Gerald Gardner, a British civil servant who developed an interest in the esoteric while living and working in Asia. Gardner claimed that, after returning to England, he was initiated into a coven of witches who taught him their craft. Eventually, he would leave this coven and start his own, at which point he began the work of bringing Wicca to the general public. In 1954, Garner published his book Witchcraft Today, which would have a great impact on the formation of Wicca, as would his 1959 book The Meaning of Witchcraft.

Gardner claimed that the rituals and teachings he received from his coven were incomplete — he attempted to fill in the gaps, which resulted in the creation of Wicca. Author Thea Sabin calls Wicca “a New Old Religion,” which is a good way to think about it. When Gardner wrote the first Wiccan Book of Shadows, he combined ancient and medieval folk practices from the British Isles with ceremonial magic dating back to the Renaissance and with Victorian occultism. These influences combined to create a thoroughly modern religion.

Wicca spread to the United States in the 1960s, at which time several new and completely American traditions were born. Some of these traditions are simply variations on Wicca, while others (like Feri and Reclaiming, which we’ll discuss in future posts) became unique, full-fledged spiritual systems in their own right. In America, Wicca collided with the counter-culture movement, and several activist groups began to combine the two. Wicca has continued to evolve through the decades, and is still changing and growing today.

There are two main “types” of Wicca which take very different approaches to the same deities and core concepts.

Traditional Wicca is Wicca that looks more or less like the practices of Gerald Gardner, Doreen Valiente, Alex Sanders, and other early Wiccan pioneers. Traditional Wiccans practice in ritual groups called covens. Rituals are typically highly formal and borrow heavily from ceremonial magic. Traditional Wicca is an initiatory tradition, which means that new members must be trained and formally inducted into the coven by existing members. This means that if you are interested in Traditional Wicca, you must find a coven or a mentor to train and initiate you. However, most covens do not place any limitations on who can join and be initiated, aside from being willing to learn.

Most Traditional Wiccan covens require initiates to swear an oath of secrecy, which keeps the coven’s central practices from being revealed to outsiders. However, there are traditional Wiccans who have gone public with their practice, such as the authors Janet and Stewart Farrar.

Eclectic Wicca is a solitary, non-initiatory form of Wicca, as made popular by author Scott Cunningham in his book Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner. Eclectic Wiccans are self-initiated and may practice alone or with a coven, though coven work will likely be less central in their practice. There are very few rules in Eclectic Wicca, and Wiccans who follow this path often incorporate elements from other spiritual traditions, such as historical pagan religions or modern energy healing. Because of this, there are a wide range of practices that fall under the “Eclectic Wicca” umbrella. Really, this label refers to anyone who considers themselves Wiccan, follows the Wiccan Rede (see below), and does not belong to a Traditional Wiccan coven. The majority of people who self-identify as Wiccan fall into this group.

Core Beliefs and Values

Thea Sabin says in her book Wicca For Beginners that Wicca is a religion with a lot of theology (study and discussion of the nature of the divine) and no dogma (rules imposed by religious structures). As a religion, it offers a lot of room for independence and exploration. This can be incredibly empowering to Wiccans, but it does mean that it’s kind of hard to make a list of things all Wiccans believe or do. However, we can look at some basic concepts that show up in some form in most Wiccan practices.

Virtually all Wiccans live by the Wiccan Rede. This moral statement, originally coined by Doreen Valiente, is often summarized with the phrase, “An’ it harm none, do what ye will.”

Different Wiccans interpret the Rede in slightly different ways. Most can agree on the “harm none” part. Wiccans strive not to cause unnecessary harm or discomfort to any living thing, including themselves. Some Wiccans also interpet the word “will” to be connected to our spiritual drive, the part of us that is constantly reaching for our higher purpose. When interpreted this way, the Rede not only encourages us not to cause harm, but also to live in alignment with our own divine Will.

Wiccans experience the divine as polarity. Wiccans believe that the all-encompassing divinity splits itself (or humans split it into) smaller aspects that we can relate to. The first division of deity is into complimentary opposites: positive and negative, light and dark, life and death, etc. These forces are not antagonistic, but are two halves of a harmonious whole. In Wicca, this polarity is usually embodied by the pairing of the God and Goddess (see below).

Wiccans experience the divine as immanent in daily life. In the words of author Deborah Lipp, “the sacredness of the human being is essential to Wicca.” Wiccans see the divine present in all people and all things. The idea that sacred energy infuses everything in existence is a fundamental part of the Wiccan worldview.

Wiccans believe nature is sacred. In the Wiccan worldview, the earth is a physical manifestation of the divine, particularly the Goddess. By attuning with nature and living in harmony with its cycles, Wiccans attune themselves with the divine. This means that taking care of nature is an important spiritual task for many Wiccans.

Wiccans accept that magic is real and can be used as a ritual tool. Not all Wiccans do magic, but all Wiccans accept that magic exists. For many covens and solitary practitioners, magic is an essential part of religious ritual. For others, magic is a practice that can be used not only to connect with the gods, but also to improve our lives and achieve our goals.

Many Wiccans believe in reincarnation, and some may incorporate past life recall into their spiritual practice. Some Wiccans believe that our souls are made of cosmic energy, which is recycled into a new soul after our deaths. Others believe that our soul survives intact from one lifetime to the next. Many famous Wiccan authors have written about their past lives and how reconnecting with those lives informed their practice.

Important Deities and Spirits

The central deities of Wicca are the Goddess and the God. They are two halves of a greater whole, and are only two of countless possible manifestations of the all-encompassing divine. The God and Goddess are lovers, and all things are born from their union.

Though some Wiccan traditions place a greater emphasis on the Goddess than on the God, the balance between these two expressions of the divine plays an important role in all Wiccan practices (remember, polarity is one of the core values of this religion).

The Goddess is the Divine Mother. She is the source of all life and fertility. She gives birth to all things, yet she is also the one who receives us when we die. Although she forms a duality in her relationship with the God, she also contains the duality of life and death within herself. While the God’s nature is ever-changing, the Goddess is constant and eternal.

The Goddess is strongly associated with both the moon and the earth. As the Earth Mother, she is especially associated with fertility, abundance, and nurturing. As the Moon Goddess, she is associated with wisdom, secret knowledge, and the cycle of life and death.

Some Wiccans see the goddess as having three main aspects: the Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone. The Maiden is associated with youth, innocence, and new beginnings; she is the embodiment of both the springtime and the waxing moon. The Mother is associated with parenthood and birth (duh), abundance, and fertility; she is the embodiment of the summer (and sometimes fall) and of the full moon. The Crone is associated with death, endings, and wisdom; she is the embodiment of winter and of the waning moon. Some Wiccans believe this Triple Goddess model is an oversimplification, or complain that it is based on outdated views on womanhood, but for others it is the backbone of their practice.

Symbols that are traditionally used to represent the Goddess include a crescent moon or an image of the triple moon (a full moon situated between a waxing and a waning crescent), a cup or chalice, a cauldron, the color silver, and fresh flowers.

The God is the Goddess’s son, lover, and consort. He is equal parts wise and feral, gentle and fierce. He is associated with sex and by extension with potential (it could be said that while the Goddess rules birth, the God rules conception), as well as with the abundance of the harvest. He is the spark of life, which is shaped by the Goddess into all that is.

The God is strongly associated with animals, and he is often depicted with horns to show his association with all things wild. As the Horned God he is especially wild and fierce.

The God is also strongly associated with the sun. As a solar god he is associated with the agricultural year, from the planting and germination to the harvest. While the Goddess is constant, the God’s nature changes with the seasons.

In some Wiccan traditions, the God is associated with plant growth. He may be honored as the Green Man, a being which represents the growth of spring and summer. This vegetation deity walks the forests and fields, with vines and leaves sprouting from his body.

Symbols that are traditionally used to represent the God include phalluses and phallic objects, knives and swords, the color gold, horns and antlers, and ripened grain.

Many covens, both Traditional and Eclectic, have their own unique lore around the God and the Goddess. Usually, this lore is oathbound, meaning it cannot be shared with those outside the group.

Many Wiccans worship other deities besides the God and Goddess. These deities may come from historical pantheons, such as the Greek or Irish pantheon. A Wiccan may work with the God and Goddess with their coven or on special holy days (see below), but work with other deities that are more closely connected to their life and experiences on a daily basis. Wiccans view all deities from all religions and cultures as extensions of the same all-encompassing divine force.

Wiccan Practice

Most Wiccans use the circle as the basis for their rituals. This ritual structure forms a liminal space between the physical and spiritual worlds, and the Wiccan who created the circle can choose what beings or energies are allowed to enter it. The circle also serves the purpose of keeping the energy raised in ritual contained until the Wiccan is ready to release it. Casting a circle is fairly easy and can be done by anyone — simply walk in a clockwise circle around your ritual space, laying down an energetic barrier. Some Wiccans use the circle in every magical or spiritual working, while others only use it when honoring the gods or performing sacred rites.

While it is on one level a practical ritual tool, the circle is also a representation of the Wiccan worldview. Circles are typically cast by calling the four quarters (the four compass points of the cardinal directions), which are associated with the four classical elements: water, earth, fire, and air. Some (but not all) Wiccans also work with a fifth element, called spirit or aether. The combined presence of the elements makes the circle a microcosm of the universe.

Casting a circle requires the Wiccan to attune themselves to these elements and to honor them in a ritual setting. This is referred to as calling the quarters. When a Wiccan calls the quarters, they will move from one cardinal point to the next (usually starting with east or north), greet the spirits associated with that direction/element, and invite them to participate in the ritual. (If spirit/aether is being called, the direction it is associated with is directly up, towards the heavens.) This is done after casting the circle, but before beginning the ritual.

What happens within a Wiccan ritual varies a lot — it depends on the Wiccan, their preferences, and their goals for that ritual. However, nearly all Wiccan religious rites begin with the casting of the circle and calling of the quarters. (Some would argue that a ritual that doesn’t include these elements cannot be called Wiccan.)

When the ritual is completed, the quarters must be dismissed and the circle taken down. Wiccans typically dismiss the quarters by moving from one cardinal point to the next (often in the reverse of the order used to call the quarters), thanking the spirits of that quarter, and politely letting them know that the ritual is over. The circle is taken down (or “taken up,” as it is called in some traditions) in a similar way, with the person who cast the circle moving around it counterclockwise and removing the energetic barrier they created. This effectively ends the ritual.

There are eight main holy days in Wicca, called the sabbats. These celebrations, based on Germanic and Celtic pagan festivals, mark the turning points on the Wheel of the Year, i.e., the cycle of the seasons. By honoring the sabbats, Wiccans attune themselves with the natural rhythms of the earth and actively participate in the turning of the wheel.

The sabbats include:

Samhain (October 31): Considered by many to be the “witch’s new year,” this Celtic fire festival has historic ties to Halloween. Samhain is primarily dedicated to the dead. During this time of year, the otherworld is close at hand, and Wiccans can easily connect with their loved ones who have passed on. Wiccans might celebrate Samhain by building an ancestor altar or holding a feast with an extra plate for the dead. Samhain is the third of the three Wiccan harvest festivals, and it is a joyous occasion despite its association with death. (By the way, this sabbat’s name is pronounced “SOW-en,” not “Sam-HANE” as it appears in many movies and TV shows.)

Yule/Winter Solstice (December 21): Yule is a celebration of the return of light and life on the longest night of the year. Many Wiccans recognize Yule as the symbolic rebirth of the God, heralding the new plant and animal life soon to follow. Yule celebrations are based on Germanic traditions and have a lot in common with modern Christmas celebrations. Wiccans might celebrate Yule by decorating a Yule tree, lighting lots of candles or a Yule log, or exchanging gifts.

Imbolc (February 1): This sabbat, based on an Irish festival, is a celebration of the first stirrings of life beneath the blanket of winter. The spark of light that returned to the world at Yule is beginning to grow. Imcolc is a fire festival, and is often celebrated with the lighting of candles and lanterns. Wiccans may also perform ritual cleansings at this time of year, as purification is another theme of this festival.

Ostara/Spring Equinox (March 21): Ostara is a joyful celebration of the new life of spring, with ties to the Christian celebration of Easter. Plants are beginning to bloom, baby animals are being born, and the God is growing in power. Wiccans might celebrate Ostara by dying eggs or decorating their homes and altars with fresh flowers. In some covens, Ostara celebrations have a special focus on children, and so may be less solemn than other sabbats.

Beltane (May 1): Beltane is a fertility festival, pure and simple. Many Wiccans celebrate the sexual union of the God and Goddess, and the resulting abundance, at this sabbat. This is also one of the Celtic fire festivals, and is often celebrated with bonfires if the weather permits. The fae are said to be especially active at Beltane. Wiccans might celebrate Beltane by making and dancing around a Maypole, honoring the fae, or celebrating a night of R-rated fun with friends and lovers.

Litha/Midsummer/Summer Solstice (June 21): At the Summer Solstice, the God is at the height of his power and the Goddess is said to be pregnant with the harvest. Like Beltane, Midsummer is sometimes celebrated with bonfires and is said to be a time when the fae are especially active. Many Wiccans celebrate Litha as a solar festival, with a special focus on the God as the Sun.

Lughnasadh/Lammas (August 1): Lughnasadh (pronounced “loo-NAW-suh”) is an Irish harvest festival, named after the god Lugh. In Wicca, Lughnasadh/Lammas is a time to give thanks for the bounty of the earth. Lammas comes from “loaf mass,” and hints at this festival’s association with grain and bread. Wiccans might celebrate Lughnasadh by baking bread or by playing games or competitive sports (activities associated with Lugh).

Mabon/Fall Equinox (September 21): Mabon is the second Wiccan harvest festival, sometimes called “Wiccan Thanksgiving,” which should give you a good idea of what Mabon celebrations look like. This is a celebration of the abundance of the harvest, but tinged with the knowledge that winter is coming. Some Wiccans honor the symbolic death of the God at Mabon (others believe this takes place at Samhain or Lughnasadh). Wiccan Mabon celebrations often include a lot of food, and have a focus on giving thanks for the previous year.

Aside from the sabbats, some Wiccans also celebrate esbats, rituals honoring the full moons. Wiccan authors Janet and Stewart Farrar wrote that, while sabbats are public festivals to be celebrated with the coven, esbats are more private and personal. Because of this, esbat celebrations are typically solitary and vary a lot from one Wiccan to the next.

Further Reading

If you want to investigate Wicca further, there are a few books I recommend depending on which approach to Wicca you feel most drawn to. No matter which approach you are most attracted to, I recommend starting with Wicca For Beginners by Thea Sabin. This is an excellent introduction to Wiccan theology and practice, whether you want to practice alone or with a coven.

If you are interested in Traditional Wicca, I recommend checking out A Witches’ Bible by Janet and Stewart Farrar after you finish Sabin’s book. Full disclosure: I have a lot of issues with this book. Parts of it were written as far back as the 1970s, and it really hasn’t aged well in terms of politics or social issues. However, it is the most detailed guide to Traditional Wicca I have found, so I recommend it for that reason. Afterwards, I recommend reading Casting a Queer Circle by Thista Minai, which presents a system similar to Traditional Wicca with less emphasis on binary gender. After you learn the basics from the Farrars, Minai’s book can help you figure out how to adjust the Traditional Wiccan system to work for you.

If you are interested in Eclectic Wicca, I recommend Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner and Living Wicca by Scott Cunningham. Cunningham is the author who popularized Eclectic Wicca, and his work remains some of the best on the subject. Wicca is an introduction to solitary Eclectic Wicca, while Living Wicca is a guide for creating your own personalized Wiccan practice.

Resources:

Wicca For Beginners by Thea Sabin

Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham

Living Wicca by Scott Cunningham

A Witches’ Bible by Janet and Stewart Farrar

The Study of Witchcraft by Deborah Lipp

#paganism 101 #pagan #paganism #baby pagan #wicca #wiccan #traditional wicca #eclectic wicca #scott cunningham #thea sabin #janet and stewart farrar #witch #witchcraft #witchblr #baby witch #long post #mine #my writing #witches of tumblr

727 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 4 years

Text

Katherine Weisshaar, From Opt Out to Blocked Out: The Challenges for Labor Market Re-entry after Family-Related Employment Lapses, 83 Am Sociol Rev 34 (2018)

Abstract

In today’s labor market, the majority of individuals experience a lapse in employment at some point in their careers, most commonly due to unemployment from job loss or leaving work to care for family or children. Existing scholarship has studied how unemployment affects subsequent career outcomes, but the consequences of temporarily “opting out” of work to care for family are relatively unknown. In this article, I ask: how do “opt out” parents fare when they re-enter the labor market? I argue that opting out signals a violation of ideal worker norms to employers—norms that expect employees to be highly dedicated to work—and that this signal is distinct from two other types of résumé signals: signals produced by unemployment due to job loss and the signal of motherhood or fatherhood. Using an original survey experiment and a large-scale audit study, I test the relative strength of these three résumé signals. I find that mothers and fathers who temporarily opted out of work to care for family fared significantly worse in terms of hiring prospects, relative to applicants who experienced unemployment due to job loss and compared to continuously employed mothers and fathers. I examine variation in these signals’ effects across local labor markets, and I find that within competitive markets, penalties emerged for continuously employed mothers and became even greater for opt out fathers. This research provides a causal test of the micro- and macro-level demand-side processes that disadvantage parents who leave work to care for family. This is important because when opt out applicants are prevented from re-entering the labor market, employers reinforce standards that exclude parents from full participation in work.

The decision to become a stay-at-home parent tends to be a constrained one. Today, it is rare for women and men to aspire to become stay-at-home parents; most people hold ideals of balanced work and family arrangements (Stone 2008; Williams, Manvell, and Bornstein 2006). However, balance is difficult to achieve within the modern labor market, in which employers seek candidates who can fulfill “ideal worker norms” of intense time commitment and perpetual availability for work-related tasks (Davies and Frink 2014; Kelly et al. 2010; Turco 2010). Overwork is increasingly common (Cha and Weeden 2014), as is spillover of job-related work into home life (Reid 2011; Turco 2010). These expectations for employees conflict with similarly intensive parenting standards for middle- and upper-class parents (Blair-Loy 2003; Jacobs and Gerson 2001), contributing to parents’ decisions to “opt out” of work to care for children full-time (Stone 2008).1 Opting out is a gendered process: over the past two decades, 18 to 20 percent of mothers did not work for pay in order to care for children for one or more years, compared to a peak rate of only about 1.2 percent among fathers (Flood et al. 2015). These departures from the labor force are usually temporary; for example, the median lapse in employment among mothers is about two years (Reimers and Stone 2008; Stone 2008).

Do parents face penalties when they seek to return to work after opting out? In this article, I examine how demand-side processes, in the form of employer preferences, influence hiring prospects for both mothers and fathers who have previously opted out. I argue that opting out signals to employers that potential employees prioritize family over work, and that the act of opting out violates the ideal worker expectations that are ubiquitous in modern workplaces. This violation of ideal worker norms leads to fewer job opportunities for job applicants who have opted out.

Despite fairly high rates of individuals leaving work for caretaking responsibilities, we know relatively little about the demand-side processes faced by these job-seekers after they decide to resume working (see Lovejoy and Stone 2012). Sociological research has examined historical trends in the rate of opting out (e.g., Boushey 2008); demographic characteristics of mothers who leave work (e.g., Percheski 2008); and supply-side decisions and preferences—for example, why caretakers leave work, and how they conceive of their employment decisions (Stone 2008; Williams et al. 2006). In contrast to the dearth of demand-side studies of opt out applicants, a substantial line of related research examines how another type of employment lapse—unemployment from job loss—affects job prospects (e.g., Eriksson and Rooth 2014; Nunley et al. 2017; Pedulla 2016; Winefield, Tiggemann, and Winefield 1992). Existing research also documents the “motherhood penalty” in the labor market—establishing that mothers face penalties in hiring and wages relative to fathers and childless women—but these studies typically examine mothers with continuous employment records (e.g., Budig and England 2001; Budig, Misra, and Boeckmann 2012; Correll, Benard, and Paik 2007).

What are the mechanisms through which a gap in employment leads to lower callback rates during the job application process? A theory of skill deterioration, derived from human capital theory, suggests that time out of work leads to skills becoming rusty and obsolete; employers prefer to hire applicants with continuous employment records to avoid high training costs (Mincer and Ofek 1982; Nunley et al. 2017). In contrast to skill deterioration theories, signaling theories posit that employment history signals information about the job applicant to the employer beyond skill decline; employers rely on assumptions or stereotypes based on employee characteristics or job history to make hiring decisions (Spence 1973; Stiglitz 2002). Signaling theories have been tested with respect to unemployment: a bout of unemployment “scars” the job applicant by signaling lower applicant competence, and it leads to reduced job opportunities for unemployed individuals (Eriksson and Rooth 2014; Pedulla 2016).

I propose a résumé signaling theory in which opting out for family reasons produces negative perceptions about applicants’ commitment and dedication to work. In this theory, opting out signals a violation of ideal worker norms, which is distinct from the unemployment scarring signal of perceived competence. Given that employers have rigid expectations for employees to dedicate themselves fully to work, violating these ideal worker norms by demonstrating a prioritization of family evokes a moral evaluation of applicants’ work-family choices. Potential employers thus perceive opting out as indicating lower dedication to work and, as a result, view opt out applicants as less worthy of a job.

To test that opting out signals a violation of ideal worker norms—and whether these signals are distinct from perceptions of unemployed and employed applicants—this article presents three empirical studies. In Study 1, I use an original national survey experiment of 1,000 U.S. respondents to test social-psychological perceptions of opt out, unemployed, and employed applicants—all parents. Respondents rated résumés on dimensions that align with ideal worker norm violation as well as unemployment scarring theories. The findings from Study 1 establish that opting out signals a violation of ideal worker norms: opt out applicants are perceived as less committed to work, less reliable, and less deserving of a job than are unemployed applicants. I further find that opt out fathers experience an even greater penalty on ideal worker norm violation measures compared to opt out mothers.

In Study 2, I test how these perceptions play out in the real labor market. I conducted a large-scale audit study in which 3,407 job applications were submitted to professional and managerial job openings across 50 metropolitan areas in the United States, recording callbacks for each application. The audit study tests how each type of résumé signal—unemployment scarring, ideal worker norm violation, and signals of motherhood or fatherhood—lead to differences in employers’ hiring preferences. The audit study findings show that, overall, opting out leads to fewer callbacks than does unemployment, and unemployment, in turn, produces fewer callbacks compared to the continuously employed. In the aggregate, I find no significant gender differences in the effects of employment history.

In Study 3, I exploit variation across the audit study cities to examine how these signals vary in strength as local labor market contexts vary. In labor markets in which job competition is relatively higher, there are longer job queues for each job opening. I predict that in these competitive settings, employers more readily enact preferences to distinguish between negative signals. Weaker negative signals that have less of an effect in low-competition environments will be more apparent in competitive contexts. I find that in competitive job markets, gendered signals become apparent: when there are longer job queues, the motherhood penalty emerges among employed applicants and opt out fathers fare worse than in less competitive cities.

The results of these studies collectively demonstrate that ideal worker norm violations convey stronger negative signals than does unemployment scarring. The effects of motherhood/fatherhood signals are variable across labor markets, with stronger consequences in competitive labor market contexts, and relatively muted effects in less competitive contexts.

This article contributes to scholarship in two key ways. First, I add to scholarship on family, gender, and work by testing to what extent signaling a commitment to family over work influences subsequent career opportunities. Second, scholars have long recognized the importance of both micro-level decisions on hiring processes (e.g., Correll et al. 2007) and macro-level contextual factors (e.g., Fallick 1996; Haurin and Sridhar 2003). To understand how opting out affects job prospects, this study draws on micro-level processes of résumé signals and macro-level labor market contextual variation to develop an integrated theory of signaling and queuing.

Theoretical Influences: Skill Deterioration and Résumé Signaling Processes

How do gender and labor market history influence the hiring process? Two broad theoretical perspectives propose possible mechanisms: human capital theories and signaling theories. Theories of skill deterioration suggest that applicants who have a decline in skills or human capital are less desirable employees and will be hired less frequently. Signaling theories claim that information on a résumé sends a signal to employers based on stereotypes or assumptions. In this study, I examine signals produced from three pieces of information: unemployment, opting out, and motherhood/fatherhood, each of which have the possibility to produce distinct signals for employers.

Skill Deterioration Theories

Skill deterioration theory draws on human capital theories to argue that differences in skills or abilities explain why applicants with employment lapses are less desirable than the steadily employed (Acemoglu 1995; Becker 1964). Human capital theories generally explain variations in job-related outcomes in terms of workers’ differing skills and competencies (Becker 1964). The logic behind this argument is that when individuals have gaps in employment, their skills and human capital deteriorate from lack of use and their skills may become obsolete. By hiring applicants with more recent work experience, employers avoid training costs (Becker 1964).

Skill deterioration incurred during an employment lapse is ostensibly gender neutral and invariant across the type of lapse. Human capital theories have proposed gender differences in the accumulation of skills, but there is no reason why skills, once attained, should decline at varying rates for men and women (Acemoglu 1995; Becker 1964). Skill obsolescence during a lapse should also occur similarly for unemployed and opt out individuals—the reason for a lapse ought not to matter, only the lapse’s duration. Holding constant the amount of time out of the labor force, skill deterioration theory predicts the following hypotheses:

Skill deterioration: Both unemployed and opt out applicants will fare more negatively than continuously employed applicants, but there will be no differences in the effects of opting out compared to unemployment, nor differences between mothers and fathers.

Signaling Theories

In contrast to skill deterioration theory, signaling theories predict varying negative effects for unemployment compared to opting out and for motherhood compared to fatherhood. Developed by economists who recognized an information asymmetry between job applicants and employers, signaling theories propose that résumés provide employers with various pieces of information that “signal” the quality of potential employees (Connelly et al. 2011; Spence 1973, 1981; Stiglitz 2002). Originally applied to theorize how high-quality applicants could signal their ability to potential employers, recent research has extended this theory to establish that résumé information can signal negative qualities as well (Pedulla 2016; Stiglitz 2002). Because employers have limited time and resources to devote to screening and interviewing job candidates, they use résumé information to make decisions about whether to move forward with a candidate. Employment history on a résumé can signal assumptions about the applicant’s quality, ability, and value (Spence 1981; Stiglitz 2002). Résumés can also provide information on applicant characteristics (e.g., education, gender, race, age, parental status), which lead to assumptions and biases about a job applicant based on widely held beliefs about said identity/characteristic (Ridgeway and Correll 2004).

One of the most heavily studied negative résumé signals is current unemployment. Whereas skill deterioration theory argues that unemployed candidates fare worse on the job market due to employers’ fears of reduced skill levels, studies based on signaling find that unemployment incurs penalties beyond what would be expected from skill deterioration. Unemployment scarring studies argue that employers are drawing from limited information on a job applicant, and a lapse in employment is perceived as a signal that the applicant is an inferior worker and less desirable as an employee (Kroft, Lange, and Notowidigdo 2013). Unemployment due to job loss is interpreted as a sign of an unstated negative characteristic and is said to “scar” the job applicant: employers may assume applicants lost a previous job and were unable to regain a job because they are lower-quality employees (Eriksson and Rooth 2014; Gangl 2004). This proposition has been tested empirically by using experimental designs to account for human capital (Pedulla 2016), and by assessing unemployment’s effect net of job tenure, specific skills, and lapse length (e.g., Arulampalam, Gregg, and Gregory 2001; Eriksson and Rooth 2014; Gangl 2004; Ghayad 2015; Kroft et al. 2013).

The reduced-quality signal produced by unemployment has not been operationalized consistently, and scholars tend to use it as an umbrella concept (e.g., Arulampalam et al. 2001). Employers may make any number of assumptions about quality for applicants with longer-term unemployment lapses. For example, these applicants could be perceieved as lower quality at the time of job loss—that is, there could be an unobserved negative trait that led to them becoming unemployed (Stiglitz 2002). This negative trait might be skill levels or on-the-job behavior, such as reliability or interpersonal skills (Clark, Georgellis, and Sanfey 2001). Furthermore, long-term unemployment itself could raise doubts about an employee’s quality, suggesting there is a reason that prevented the applicant from regaining a job over a number of months (Stiglitz 2002). In a recent audit study and survey experiment, Pedulla (2016) takes an important step toward theorizing how quality is perceived for unemployed applicants. Pedulla (2016) compared job applicants with one year of unemployment to applicants with other types of employment histories. This study found that overall, unemployed applicants—particularly unemployed men—received callbacks at substantially lower rates than did the continuously employed (5.9 percent compared to 10.4 percent, respectively). Pedulla theorizes that the scarring unemployment signal could operate through notions of either competence or commitment. Pedulla’s study finds that perceptions of competence mediate the lower callback rate among unemployed men, but he finds no significant effects of perceived commitment for unemployed compared to employed applicants.

How strong is the negative signal of unemployment in the context of other résumé signals? Unemployment scholars would suggest that unemployment scarring occurs largely because of assumptions made about the involuntary nature of unemployment (Kroft et al. 2013; Pedulla 2016). Applicants who have been unemployed for several months or longer not only provoke questions about why they lost their previous position, but why they have not found a new job (Arulampalam et al. 2001; Eriksson and Rooth 2014; Ghayad 2015). Opt out applicants, in contrast, could be perceived as voluntarily having a lapse in employment, and they might avoid the negative competence signals incurred by an involuntary lapse and lengthy job search. Unemployment scarring theories thus predict the following hypothesis:

Unemployment scarring: Unemployed applicants will fare worse than both opt out and employed applicants because of reduced perceived worker quality.

Alternatively, opting out may incur greater penalties than unemployment by signaling a violation of ideal worker norms, a signal that has yet to be considered in demand-side employment research. Ideal worker norms include the expectation that employees prioritize work over all other parts of their lives (Blair-Loy 2003; Davies and Frink 2014; Turco 2010). Professional and managerial jobs today demand intense time commitments, and employers expect employees to always be available (Davies and Frink 2014; Kelly et al. 2010; Rivera and Tilcsik 2016). Employees are increasingly likely to work longer hours (Cha and Weeden 2014), and technological changes have led to greater spillover of work-related tasks at home—such as checking email and responding to phone calls after leaving the office (Reid 2011; Turco 2010). Mothers and fathers alike report high levels of work-family conflict, finding it difficult to fulfill all expectations associated with work and with intensive parenting (Blair-Loy 2009; Davies and Frink 2014; Kelly et al. 2010). Opting out of work to care for children is a direct violation of these pervasive expectations for employees to prioritize work above all. By signaling their lower dedication to work, periods of opting out could undermine applicants’ efforts to re-enter the work force.

This prediction finds support in the caretaker bias literature. Studies have found that prioritizing caretaking tasks over work can result in a host of negative outcomes for employees in their workplaces. For instance, parents who use flexibility policies to try to reconcile work and family demands experience lower wages on average (Blair-Loy and Wharton 2002; Glass 2004), increased harassment (Berdahl and Moon 2013), fewer promotions (Cohen and Single 2001), and lower performance evaluations (Albiston et al. 2012). Scholars of cultural moral schemas argue that gender, work, and family (and their intersection) are areas of life rife with moral conceptions of how individuals ought to behave, and who is a worthy fulfiller of moral standards (Blair-Loy 2003, 2009; Blair-Loy and Williams 2013; Steiner 2007). Because ideal worker standards are proscriptive ideas about how employees should behave, violating these standards invokes moralistic judgments about the worth of the employee—judgments that go beyond strategic estimations of employee productivity, skill level, or availability (Blair-Loy 2009; Davies and Frink 2014; Townsend 2002).

Caretaker and flexibility bias studies focus on penalties for prioritizing family within workplace contexts, but it is reasonable to expect that such censuring would also be evident during the hiring process. Given that ideal worker norms are so pervasive in the professional and managerial occupations that are the focus of this study, I propose that violating these norms will produce large negative effects—potentially larger than the quality signal of unemployment. Ideal worker norm violation theories posit the following hypothesis:

Ideal worker violation: Opt out job applicants will experience worse job application outcomes than will unemployed and employed applicants.

Gender Heterogeneity in Signal Strength

The above theories describe hypothesized variation in signals sent by differing employment histories. Employers are also expected to respond to résumé signals of gender and parenthood. Research on the motherhood penalty in hiring has found that résumé information about motherhood produces reduced hiring chances for mothers relative to childless women and fathers (Correll et al. 2007). The motherhood penalty theory argues that motherhood is a status characteristic, that is, an identity that elicits a host of assumptions and stereotypes about an individual (Correll et al. 2007; Ridgeway and Correll 2004). Bias against mothers is rooted in perceptions of lower competence and commitment to work: mothers are viewed as more distracted, and employers assume that children’s demands will reduce mothers’ availability for work and their dedication to work-related tasks (Correll and Benard 2006; Correll et al. 2007; Ridgeway and Correll 2004). To date, the motherhood penalty literature has focused on the effect of motherhood among currently employed applicants (e.g., Correll and Benard 2006; Correll et al. 2007; Gangl and Ziefle 2009); it would yield the following prediction about motherhood as a résumé signal across other employment statuses:

Motherhood penalty: Within employed, unemployed, and opt out groups, mothers will face penalties compared to fathers.

Because the motherhood penalty involves perceptions of mothers’ lower commitment to work, and ideal worker norm violation theory also predicts lower perceived commitment for opt out applicants, opt out mothers signal lower commitment in two ways (Dumas and Sanchez-Burks 2015; Sallee 2012). This interaction suggests that the motherhood penalty will be amplified among opt out applicants:

Motherhood penalty for opting out: The motherhood penalty will be larger for opt out applicants than among unemployed or employed applicants.

An alternative prediction is that penalties for opting out are worse for fathers than for mothers. This potential “fatherhood penalty” finds support in literature on norm violation, which demonstrates that those who are most expected to hold a norm are more severely punished when they violate the norm. In an audit study of gay men, for example, Tilcsik (2011) found that the hiring penalty for gay applicants was largest when the job advertisements used highly masculine language. With respect to ideal worker norm violations, because fathers are expected to prioritize work and be breadwinners for their families (Rudman and Mescher 2013; Townsend 2002), fathers who opt out could face harsh penalties. Indeed, prior studies have found that evaluators are more willing to criticize and stigmatize parents in nontraditional positions, such as stay-at-home fathers, questioning whether they were making appropriate work/family decisions (Brescoll and Uhlmann 2005; Brescoll et al. 2012; Coltrane et al. 2013). Put another way, because fathers face greater pressure to work hard and commit to work compared to mothers, fathers who opt out could be perceived as highly uncommitted to work, because they violated more rigid ideal worker norms through their decision to leave work for family reasons (for a related discussion of men who request family leave, see Rudman and Mescher 2013). This fatherhood penalty leads to the following hypothesis:

Fatherhood penalty for opting out: Fathers who opt out will be viewed more negatively than mothers who opt out.

Because this study focuses on mothers and fathers, I can test for gender heterogeneity among parents in the effects of opting out.2

Theoretical predictions for how gender may interact with unemployment scarring are less clear. Pedulla (2016) found that unemployed men received lower callback rates than unemployed women; this gender difference was marginally significant in the audit study, but the gender gap was not reproduced in a follow-up survey experiment of mechanisms. Studies on time use document that upon unemployment, mothers increase housework and childcare time to a greater degree than do unemployed fathers (Berik and Kongar 2013). It is thus possible that employers interpret unemployment differently for mothers and fathers, and perhaps believe that mothers become more committed to family (and less committed to work) during their lapse. In this case, unemployed mothers would experience similar processes as opt out mothers. The theoretical processes concerning the gendered effects of unemployment are less clear, however, so I do not produce a priori predictions on this interaction.

The above signaling theories imply a two-step process for how signaling affects employment outcomes. First, a piece of information on the résumé triggers employers’ assumptions about the job applicant. Second, if employers think these (perceived) qualities are relevant to hiring, then in the aggregate, applicants with negative résumé signals will experience reduced callback rates when applying for jobs. The survey experiment presented in Study 1 tests the first part of the process: whether the signal itself produces different assumptions about job applicants. The audit study, presented in Studies 2 and 3, examines the second step—how employers in an actual labor market respond to each signal in their callback decisions.

Study 1: Perceptions of Applicants

Theory

In Study 1, I used an original survey experiment to test whether skill deterioration or signaling theories best predict how perceptions of opt out job applicants compare to perceptions of unemployed and employed applicants.

Skill deterioration theory proposes that perceptions of skills lost are the predominant reason why a gap in employment could produce negative outcomes. I asked survey respondents to rate applicants’ capability as a primary measure of skill level. If skill deterioration were the only process occurring and there were no additional signaling processes, this theory would predict that unemployed and opt out applicants will both experience negative capability ratings, relative to employed applicants, and capability will be the only perceived difference between intermittently employed and continuously employed applicants.

Unemployment scarring theories suggest that unemployment operates as a negative signal through perceived employee quality. The theoretical argument is that evaluators assume that applicants with a bout of unemployment are weaker employees overall—whether in their ability and skills or their day-to-day work output. Perceived quality can be operationalized in a number of ways. Capability (a measure of perceived competence) and reliability (measuring dependability and consistency in work) have been demonstrated to affect perceptions of unemployed individuals (Clark et al. 2001; Pedulla 2016). In the context of the survey experiment, the unemployment scarring theory thus predicts that unemployment will lead to reduced perceptions of capability and reliability, relative to both employed and opt out applicants.

Violating ideal worker norms by prioritizing family over work—as is the case with opt out applicants—signals reduced commitment to work and less reliability at work (Brumley 2014; Davies and Frink 2014; Dumas and Sanchez-Burks 2015; Sallee 2012). In other words, evaluators may be concerned that applicants will leave work again in the future, or that they will be less present on a daily basis—because of competing family demands—and thus will be less reliable (Fuegen et al. 2004; Rivera and Tilcsik 2016). To capture the moral assessment associated with violating ideal worker norms, respondents were asked how deserving of the job they perceived applicants to be. In contrast to opt out applicants, unemployed applicants are not predicted to be perceived as less deserving—all else being equal, unemployed applicants may garner sympathy and be thought of as more deserving of a job, because they did not voluntarily stop working and have expressed continued interest in working. Thus, if opting out corresponds to a violation of ideal worker norms, then opt out applicants should be rated as less committed, deserving, and reliable than unemployed and employed applicants.

Finally, Study 1 allows for a test of competing predictions for gender heterogeneity in the effects of opting out. On the one hand, opting out could be worse for mothers than for fathers. Because the motherhood penalty operates in part through perceived commitment (Correll et al. 2007; Fuegen et al. 2004), opt out mothers may be perceived as even less committed than working mothers. On the other hand, ideal worker norms apply more strictly to fathers (Townsend 2002), so opt out fathers who violate these norms may be penalized to a greater extent than opt out mothers. Thus, either opt out mothers or opt out fathers may be rated lower on ideal worker measures (commitment, deservingness, and reliability).

Survey Experiment Design and Methods

The survey experiment was designed to test the effects of unemployment and opting out, relative to same-gender continuously employed applicants. The experiment was fielded by YouGov to a sample of 1,000 U.S. respondents3 in January 2014. YouGov samples from a panel of approximately 1.8 million individuals in the United States and uses a matching algorithm to create a sample representative of the same population targeted by the American Community Survey (i.e., the noninstitutionalized adult population).

Survey respondents were told they were helping a large U.S. accounting firm evaluate job applicants for a midlevel accounting position, and they would be presented with applications for two of the final applicants for the position. I chose accounting because it is an occupation most Americans are familiar with, is a large and growing profession (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016), and has been used in existing experimental studies (e.g., Pedulla 2016). All respondents viewed one continuously employed applicant and a second applicant who was either unemployed or had opted out. Within respondents, applicant gender was held constant, such that both résumés belonged to either two mothers or two fathers.

This experimental design allows for a strong causal test of the effects of opting out and unemployment. When considering two applicants who vary only on employment history, does the same decision-maker respond differently to intermittent employment compared to continuous employment? Within-subject estimates of the effect of unemployment and opting out, compared to continuous employment, allow for a test of how each type of intermittency leads to different perceptions about job applicants.

Respondents rated each fictitious applicant on several dimensions: commitment, reliability, capability, and deservingness. For example, respondents were asked: “How committed do you consider Name?” Response options ranged from 1 (not at all committed) to 7 (extremely committed).4 These measures were developed based on social psychological literature and existing findings about unemployment, motherhood, and ideal worker norms (e.g., Correll et al. 2007; Davies and Frink 2014; Pedulla 2016). Because applicant gender was held constant within respondents, the design of Study 1 tests signaling of employment history more precisely than motherhood or fatherhood signals.5 However, between-subject estimates of gender can give clues as to whether there are amplifying or muting effects of motherhood and fatherhood.

Study 1 Results: Micro-Level Perceptions

Table 1 presents findings from OLS linear regressions for each of the résumé ratings, with fixed effects for respondent. The treatment effects in these models can be interpreted as the within-respondent difference between intermittent employment (unemployed or opt out) applicant ratings, compared to a same-gender continuously employed applicant.

Table 1. OLS Regression Estimates of Experimental Condition on Résumé Rating Measures

With respect to the unemployment signaling theories, unemployed applicants were rated significantly lower than employed applicants on measures of commitment, capability, and reliability. These are all measures of quality, confirming theories of how unemployment scarring signals operate through perceived quality.

Opt out applicants were rated lower than employed applicants on measures of commitment, capability, deservingness, and reliability. Commitment and reliability directly correspond to the violation of ideal worker norm theories. Opt out applicants, but not unemployed applicants, were rated as less deserving of the job than employed applicants. This suggests that the act of opting out contributes to ideas that these applicants are less in need of a job. The deservingness penalty suggests a moral violation—individuals who work hard and are dedicated to work are perceived as deserving and worthy (Blair-Loy 2009), but opting out violates these ideals and thus these applicants are viewed as less worthy of a job.

Figure 1 displays the average predicted levels of each standardized rating measure, with 95 percent confidence intervals. Figure 1 is from the fixed-effects model (see Table 1, Model 1), with dependent variables standardized to allow for interpretation across measures. Opting out yields a predicted penalty of about .2 standard deviations from the mean across measures of capability, reliability, and deservingness (–.187, –.158, –.203, respectively). The largest penalty for opting out is produced through perceptions of commitment (–.459 standard deviation units). When testing for significance in the ratings for unemployed compared to opt out applicants, the opt out effect is significantly more negative than the unemployed effect on measures of commitment, deservingness, and reliability (p < .05). Compared to employed applicants, both the unemployed and opt out applicants incur penalties on capability ratings and are not viewed as significantly different on this measure.

Figure 1. Survey Experiment Ratings by Employment Condition. Note: Estimates are from a fixed-effects model (see Table 1, Model 1) with standardized dependent variables.

Gender Differences in Ratings

Because respondents viewed two résumés from applicants of the same gender, it is not possible analytically to use respondent fixed effects and test for main effects of mother/fatherhood in rating outcomes. In the bottom panel of Table 1, I present between-subject estimates of the effects of employment, gender, and employment × gender interactions. Standard errors are clustered by respondent.6

Overall, I find no significant gender differences in the effects of employment or unemployment. In contrast, opting out does produce some gendered effects. On measures of commitment and reliability, opting out is significantly less negative for mothers than for fathers. This finding provides support for the fatherhood penalty hypothesis for opting out, which predicted that opt out fathers will experience greater penalties for violating ideal worker norms than will opt out mothers.

Discussion of Study 1 Findings

Study 1 demonstrates three important findings. First, comparing unemployed to employed applicants, I find partial support for the unemployment scarring hypothesis: unemployed applicants were rated lower than employed applicants on capability, reliability, and commitment.7 However, opt out applicants were rated lower than unemployed applicants on perceptions of commitment, deservingness, and reliability. Because these measures correspond to ideal worker norm standards, Study 1 establishes that opting out signals a violation of ideal worker norms, and that ideal worker norm violations are stronger negative signals than is unemployment scarring, supporting the ideal worker norm violation hypothesis.

A second important finding is that both unemployed and opt out applicants incur similar penalties on perceived capability, which is a measure of perceived skill decline and competence. This finding suggests that skill deterioration is at play, and it provides partial support for the skill deterioration hypothesis: both types of lapses produce assumptions about potential skill decline. However, in contrast to a pure skill deterioration explanation, unemployed and opt out applicants are not rated lower solely based on capability; they additionally incur penalties on other dimensions.

These two findings suggest that if employers care most about skills and ability in sorting job applicants, then unemployment and opting out should have similar effects in real job application settings. If, however, employers prefer that employees uphold ideal worker norms, then opt out applicants will fare worse than unemployed applicants when attempting to gain a job. The audit study will test these processes.

The third key finding from Study 1 is that unemployment produced no gender differences in effects, but opting out was somewhat worse for fathers than for mothers. Because of the survey experiment design—in which respondents viewed two applicants of the same gender—it is possible that gender effects could emerge differently in a context with both men and women applicants. The audit study will test to what extent this fatherhood penalty among opt out applicants appears in real labor market settings.

Study 2: Audit Study Main Effects

Theory and Hypotheses

To examine how signals of unemployment scarring and ideal worker norm violation affect demand-side employer preferences in hiring, I conducted a large-scale audit study with the same six experimental conditions as used in the survey experiment. Audit studies, a type of field experiment, have been considered the “gold standard” for establishing employer preferences or discrimination in hiring (e.g., Pager, Bonikowski, and Western 2009). The audit study methodology combines the benefits of experimental research to assess causality with the benefits of observational studies that assess real-life effects outside the laboratory.8 By sending fictitious résumés and job applications in response to real job openings, experimentally manipulating particular qualities on the résumés, and recording callback rates across the experimental conditions, audit studies allow researchers to measure employer preferences in ways that are not observable in most types of survey data.

Based on the employment results from the survey experiment in Study 1, I argue that opting out signals a violation of ideal worker norms. If employers value ideal worker norms, they will view this violation as a meaningful negative signal. Opt out applicants will thus receive fewer callbacks than both unemployed and employed applicants. In Study 1, I found that unemployment signals lower quality relative to continuous employment, and unemployment scarring theories predict that unemployed applicants will receive fewer callbacks than employed applicants. In addition, I found that both unemployed and opt out applicants were rated similarly on measures of capability. If employers view capability signals as more important than ideal worker norm violation signals, then opt out and unemployed applicants should receive similar callback rates in the audit study.

The survey experiment found that opt out fathers were rated lower than opt out mothers on ideal worker norm violation measures. This suggests that in the audit study, opt out fathers will receive fewer callbacks than opt out mothers. Although I found no evidence of the motherhood penalty in the survey experiment, the experimental design was not well-suited to observe overall gender effects. It is thus possible that in a competitive environment with mixed-gender applicants (as is the case in the audit study), a motherhood penalty will emerge, either in the main effect or in amplifying the effect of opting out.

Audit Study Design

In this study, one job application was submitted to each of 3,407 job openings that were posted on a large job-listing website between August 2015 and January 2016. The job listings were sampled from 50 major metropolitan areas in the United States, allowing for a range of labor market contexts. This sample yielded about 600 jobs per experimental condition.

In the applications, experimental manipulations (gender and employment status) were signaled in two places: on the cover letter and on the résumé itself. Gender was signaled through the applicants’ names, which are common names and easily identifiable by gender. The names (Elizabeth/Joseph Anderson, Emily/Sam Harris) were pretested on Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online platform, and respondents rated names as similar in terms of gender recognition, assumptions about applicants’ race/ethnicity, and commonness.

All of the fictitious applicants are parents. To signal parenthood, the cover letters state that applicants are moving to a new city with their family, which is why they are seeking a new job. Applicant résumés also include a line stating that the applicant was a parent volunteer at the local elementary school. Opting out is signaled on the résumé by stating next to the most recent job that the applicant “left to take care of my children.” This is restated in a similar manner on the cover letter.9 Unemployed applicants’ résumés state that they were laid off due to downsizing from their most recent job.10 Résumés for both unemployed and opting out applicants state they were out of work for a period of 18 months, which holds constant the length of employment lapse across lapse type.

All applicants are college-educated and have held two jobs since college for a total of about 9.5 years of work experience. Across each employment condition (continuously employed, unemployed, and opt out), applicants have the same number of years of work experience, but the timeline shifts for those with employment lapses. For example, the unemployed applicant has experienced a contemporary bout of unemployment but has the same number of years of employment as the continuously employed applicant. This timeline implies that applicants are approximately 32 to 34 years of age, making it reasonable that they could be parents.

Job applications were sent to five types of positions, each of which requires a college degree but no additional licenses or degrees: human resources managers, marketing directors, accountants, financial analysts, and software engineers.11 Skills and language describing past work experience were tailored to the job type, but details of the cover letter and résumé were constant across condition. All the fictitious applicants had real emails, phone numbers, and addresses. The separate phone numbers for each name had a recorded voicemail with a male or female voice.

To sample across cities, I used a major job-posting website that accumulates job postings from multiple smaller websites. To determine which jobs to send applications to, I created a Python script that enabled web scraping of all relevant job openings within 25 miles of each of the 50 cities in the study. Each day that I sent out applications, I scraped all jobs that were listed since the previous application date (typically every weekday) for each city and job category. For instance, the script collected all jobs listed in each of the 50 metropolitan areas that matched search criteria for the five job types (e.g., software engineering in New York City). The information scraped included the full job description, the company, salary, job title, and application website. From this complete list of jobs, I randomly subsampled to select which job openings to send applications to. For example, in one day there might be more than 7,000 jobs posted across the five job categories and 50 cities, and I might sample 200 from this list to send applications to in that day. Because I collected information on both the sample and the full list, I was able to verify that the sampled jobs did not differ from the full population on characteristics such as salary, description key words, and length of time listed on the website. Some audit studies do not use computer-generated random samples and rely on researchers choosing relevant jobs. This yields the potential for researchers to unconsciously bias the selection process, a possibility that is untestable because data on non-selected jobs are not collected. My sampling process eliminates this possibility.

Measures and Analytic Strategies: Study 2

The dependent variable of interest is the callback rate. When employers responded to a submitted job application, responses were coded if they requested an interview with the applicant. For example: “Dear Joe, We appreciate your interest in a career with us. Congratulations on being selected for our initial screening. We think you are a strong candidate for our marketing team and would like to set up a phone interview. Please call us to discuss this opportunity further and find a time to interview.”12

For the majority of applications, no response was received. This is typical of audit studies—past studies have found about an 8 percent response rate (e.g., Pedulla 2016; Tilcsik 2011). In the overall sample, 9.45 percent received an interview request, and 8.34 percent received a formal rejection. The remaining applications received no response, which is a presumed rejection.13

Study 2 gives results from the main effects of the experimental conditions on response rates. Because of random assignment, any difference in response rates by condition can be attributed to the experimental manipulation, and simple t-tests of mean differences are adequate to test for significant differences. In addition, I conducted logistic regressions predicting a callback (0 = no callback, 1 = callback). The primary independent variable is the experimental condition (employment history and gender), and models control for job type.

Study 2 Results: Audit Study Main Effects

Figure 2 displays the mean callback rate by experimental condition, with 95 percent confidence intervals. The results show that employed fathers and mothers received the highest response rates. Among employed fathers, 14.6 percent received requests for interviews, compared to 15.3 percent of employed mothers; this small gender difference was not statistically significant. Relative to the continuously employed, unemployed applicants received about two-thirds as many callbacks: 8.8 percent of unemployed fathers and 9.7 percent of unemployed mothers received interview requests. Finally, opt out applicants fared the poorest in terms of callback rates. Only about 5.4 percent of opt out fathers and 4.9 percent of opt out mothers received interview requests. Relative to their unemployed counterparts, opt out applicants were about half as likely to receive an interview request (t-statistic = 4.03, p < .05).

Figure 2. Mean Response Rates by Experimental Condition in Audit Study, All Job Types Source: Audit study data, collected 2015 to 2016.

Table 2 presents logistic regressions predicting callback rate, with controls for job type. Model 1 includes the main effects of employment, and Model 2 interacts employment with gender. These results show that the employment effects are statistically significantly different, but there are no statistically significant gender differences.

Table 2. Logistic Regressions Predicting Callback from Audit Study, across Experimental Conditions

Discussion of Study 2 Results

In the audit study, unemployed applicants were penalized relative to the continuously employed, and the opt out applicants faced a greater disadvantage relative to the unemployed. With respect to the hypotheses, a pure skill deterioration explanation does not hold, because opt out applicants faced greater disadvantages than the equivalently qualified unemployed applicants. The scarring signal of unemployment is evident, but this signal is less damaging to hiring opportunities than is the violation of ideal worker norms that opt out applicants demonstrate. Within each employment condition, results are consistent by gender, with no evidence of the motherhood penalty in the main effects, and no evidence of the fatherhood opting out penalty in the main effects.14

Overall, these findings support the ideal worker norm violation hypothesis. The unemployment scarring hypothesis is partially supported, because unemployment produces a negative effect relative to continuous employment. However, in these occupational contexts, violation of ideal worker norm signals swamp quality signals of unemployment and produce greater negative results.

Why are there no observable gender differences in these effects? As I will discuss in more detail later, these résumés are relatively high quality—the employed applicants’ callback rate was higher than in several recent audit studies (including Correll and colleagues’ [2007] motherhood penalty study). Gendered assumptions of motherhood and fatherhood might be minimized by résumé quality. Or, motherhood and fatherhood might send relatively weaker signals than employment history, and as such these signals were obscured by the stronger employment history signals. If this were the case, then weaker signals would be observable only in certain conditions. I propose that variation in callbacks across local labor market context—particularly, the competitiveness of a labor market—allows for testing of signal strength. In a low competition labor market, weaker signals are not easily observable because there are fewer job applicants, and employers must prioritize ranking applicants with strong signals. In highly competitive markets, employers have more applicants to choose from, and in these contexts weaker signals can be used to rank applicants. Study 3 tests these propositions.

Study 3: Variation In Callbacks Across Local Labor Markets

Signaling could operate differently across local labor markets. Labor market scholars have proposed queueing theories to explain how hiring processes work across contexts. The queueing approach to hiring is as follows: job-seekers rank jobs by preference, and employers rank job applicants for a particular job opening (Blanchard and Diamond 1994; Fernandez and Mors 2008; Moscarini 2005; Reskin and Roos 2009). The extent to which these queues overlap determines job outcomes (callbacks and eventual hiring) (Reskin and Roos 2009). Because researchers control the job application strategy in audit studies, job-seekers’ interests are rendered irrelevant, allowing for a focus on employers’ perspectives. In queueing theories, if a certain characteristic is viewed as less desirable (e.g., motherhood), then a résumé signaling this characteristic will place the applicant further back in the queue (if all else is equal).

The queueing theory allows for a theoretical test of relative signal strength by examining to what extent the outcomes associated with résumé signals vary across labor market context. Queueing theories do not predict that a signal itself changes across context (Moscarini 2005) (e.g., opting out may produce a negative signal across all contexts), but that an applicant’s queue position as a result of the signal could change due to the size of the applicant pool. Thus, the observed effects of résumé signals can vary across labor market competitiveness, which allows for a test of relative signal strength.

The predictions of signal variation across labor markets are as follows. Local labor markets that are competitive—with relatively few job openings compared to the number of job-seekers—are associated with longer queues for any particular job (Fernandez and Mors 2008; Reskin and Roos 2009). In these competitive markets, a résumé trait that sends a relatively weak negative signal could push an applicant farther back in the queue in an absolute sense: even if their relative queue position remains constant, in competitive environments there will be more desirable applicants ranked higher in the queue (Reskin and Roos 2009). In contrast, a labor market with low competition may be more forgiving of negative signals; with shorter queues, fewer ideal applicants top the queue. Finally, signals could be invariant to labor market context; this might occur if a signal is so negative that it pushes an applicant toward the bottom of a queue no matter the context. If this is the case, there may be no observable differences in callback rates across context.15

The following hypothetical example helps illustrate the logic of this argument. Consider two signals, one weaker and one stronger. Suppose the weak signal moves an otherwise ideal candidate 10 percent lower in a ranking of job candidates, whereas the strong signal moves this ideal candidate 50 percent lower in ranking positions. In a less competitive context in which there are 10 applicants for a job, the weak signal moves a candidate from position 1 to position 2, whereas the strong signal moves the candidate down to position 6. If three applicants are called in to interview, the weak signal candidate gets a callback but the strong signal candidate does not. In a competitive context with 100 job applicants, the signals may produce the same relative effect but move candidates further down a queue in an absolute sense. Now, the weak signal with a 10 percent penalty moves the candidate from position 1 to position 11, and the candidate with a strong negative signal (50 percent) moves to position 51. When the top three applicants are offered an interview, neither candidate receives a callback. Thus, the weak signal is only observed to produce a negative effect in competitive environments, whereas the strong signal is observable across all contexts.

I propose that—in this study—employment history produced a strong negative signal, whereas gender (motherhood/fatherhood) within an employment group produced a weaker negative signal. As described in Study 1, the fatherhood penalty among opt out applicants could emerge in high competition contexts, as could the motherhood penalty among employed applicants, as Correll and colleagues (2007) found. Queueing theories thus produce the following hypotheses for the signals introduced in the prior theory sections:

Labor market context: In labor markets with high competition, relatively weak negative signals will be observable, whereas in labor markets with low competition, only stronger signals will be observed. Gender differences within the opt out and employed conditions may only be observable within high competition contexts.

Study 3 Design and Measures

Study 3 uses the audit study data and exploits variation across location. As mentioned earlier, the audit study was conducted across the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. The dependent variable in this study is again the callback rate across experimental condition. To measure labor market context, I used American Community Survey (ACS) 2006 to 2015 data (Ruggles et al. 2015) to create city-level measures of job-seekers in the major occupation groups of the audit study jobs. The ACS asks whether an individual—employed or unemployed—is currently searching for a new job. I used this to create an occupation-specific job-seeker rate, which varies across city.16 For example, applications in the audit study for software engineering positions were assigned the job-seeker rate for “computer and mathematical occupations” for the metropolitan area in which the job was posted.17

I then used logistic regressions to predict a callback, interacting experimental condition with the local job-seeker rate, and controlling for job type. Standard errors are clustered by location. In Part 3 of the online supplement, I explain how I tested models with additional contextual controls and detail different coding options for the job market competitiveness measure. Because the marginal effects of interaction terms are not directly interpretable from logistic regression coefficients (Ai and Norton 2003; Norton, Wang, and Ai 2004), I display results graphically and present a linear probability model for ease of interpretation.

Study 3 Results: Interactions with Labor Market Context

Figure 3 shows the results of predicted callback rates as the local job-seeker rate varies, across experimental condition, derived from Table 3, Model 2. Job-seeker rates of these occupations vary from 2.9 to 7.8 percent in the 50 cities in my sample, with the average at 4.9 percent.

Figure 3. Callback Rates across Local Job-Seeker Rates, by Experimental Condition. Source: Audit study data, 2015 to 2016. Note: Job-seeker rates are from the American Community Survey 2006 to 2015, for the 50 metropolitan areas in the audit study.

Table 3. Callback Rates by Experimental Condition, Interacted with Local Labor Market Contexts

As the local job-seeker rate increased, employed fathers remained likely to receive interview requests, and there was no significant variation across local labor market in employed fathers’ callback rates. Employed mothers, in contrast, were less likely to receive callbacks in high job-seeker contexts than they were in cities with lower job-seeker rates. This suggests that in labor markets with high job-seeker rates and more opportunities for employer discretion, employed fathers benefit. In these locations, the motherhood penalty is striking: with a local job-seeker rate of 7 percent, employed fathers are predicted to have a 15.7 percent chance of receiving a callback, compared to employed mothers’ predicted callback rate of 7.9 percent. In less competitive markets with low job-seeker rates, employed mothers are given more callbacks, on average.

Turning to the unemployed applicants, I find no significant relationship between the local job-seeker rate and the callback rate for unemployed fathers or mothers. However, in high job-seeker contexts, the gap between employed and unemployed mothers is no longer statistically significant. This suggests that in contexts with increased competition, employment history distinctions matter less for mothers, because mothers from all employment groups fare relatively poorly in these contexts.

Finally, in examining the opt out applicants, I find a slight negative effect for fathers as job-seeker rates increase. Just 2.5 percent of opt out fathers are predicted to receive callbacks in competitive labor markets with job-seeker rates of 7 percent (CI: [.3 percent − 4.9 percent]). In less competitive markets (job-seeker rates of 4 percent), 7.2 percent of opt out fathers are predicted to receive callbacks (CI: [4.3 percent − 10.1 percent]). For mothers, however, callback rates among opt out applicants remain consistently low across the local labor market context. This finding suggests that even in labor markets with low competition, employers are not interested in hiring opt out mothers.

Table 3 shows the regression estimations predicting callbacks, from which Figure 3 is derived, and confirms the findings from Figure 3. Models 1, 2, and 3 are logistic regressions, and Model 4 is a linear probability model, which allows for simpler interpretation of interaction effects (Ai and Norton 2003). In Model 1, I present the experimental condition main effects (coded as a six-category variable rather than 3 × 2 employment × gender interaction so as to avoid cumbersome three-way interactions). Model 2 interacts experimental condition with the local job-seeker rate.

When considering job-seeker rates as a measure of local labor market competition, it is plausible that these rates are related to several additional factors that capture the city’s economic and occupational context. To ensure that related contextual measures do not explain the job-seeker findings, I added four city-level context measures to Model 3: the city’s occupational composition (measured as the percent of managerial and professional workers in the city’s workforce), mothers’ labor force participation rate, estimates of the number of new hires within each audit study occupation, and estimates of the change in occupation size from 2015 to 2016.18 Each contextual control variable is interacted with the experimental condition to ensure that the job-seeker interactions are not due to correlations with these other context measures. Because these measures are included as a robustness test, I do not discuss the coding or motivation of variables here, but I elaborate on these decisions in Part 3 of the online supplement. Finally, Model 4 in Table 3 presents the full model as a linear probability model, in which interaction effects are easily interpreted. This model confirms that there is a significant negative interaction of employed mother × job-seeker rate, indicating that relative to employed fathers, employed mothers fare worse as competition increases (p < .05). Similarly, opt out fathers fare worse as local job-seeker rates increase.

Study 3 Discussion

The variation across local labor markets demonstrates two important findings. First, although I observed no motherhood penalty in the overall callback rates, a motherhood penalty emerges in highly competitive markets for employed mothers compared to employed fathers. These results support the labor market context hypothesis for the motherhood penalty signal, among employed applicants. Considering a queueing approach to hiring, this result suggests that motherhood is a negative signal for employed applicants but is only observable in competitive contexts with longer queues. In contexts where there are fewer job-seekers (and shorter job queues), I do not find a significant motherhood penalty, and employed mothers fare relatively better in these contexts. These findings suggest that for employed parent applicants, employers differentiate by gender—preferring fathers—in longer queue contexts, when they are more easily able to enact their applicant preferences.

Opt out fathers receive fewer callbacks in contexts with high job-seeker rates than in less competitive environments. This again suggests that gender—in this case, fatherhood—is a relatively weaker negative signal among opt out applicants. Although opting out produces negative effects for both mothers and fathers, opt out fathers incur reduced callbacks in job markets with long queues, and they do somewhat better in job markets with less competition. These findings support the fatherhood penalty for opting out hypothesis: in competitive markets, fathers who violate ideal worker norms by opting out incur greater penalties than do mothers.

I find that employment status sends strong negative signals across labor market contexts. Unemployed mothers and fathers, as well as opt out mothers, do not experience detectably different callback rates across labor markets. These findings support the labor context hypothesis: strong negative signals place applicants toward the bottom of queues no matter the size of the pool of other applicants.

Conclusions and Discussion

In today’s labor market, jobs are increasingly demanding and require workers to fulfill ideal-worker norms, which involve being constantly available, working long hours, being highly dedicated, and putting work above competing life demands (Blair-Loy 2003, 2009; Cha and Weeden 2014; Turco 2010). Among workers who have family responsibilities—particularly caregivers and parents—the challenge of fulfilling ideal-worker expectations and balancing family demands can lead to career interruptions. Existing scholarship demonstrates that parents who opt out of paid labor do so because of the inflexibility of employment and the challenge of adequately fulfilling the demands of both intensive jobs and intensive parenting (Stone 2008). Among parents who leave work, the tendency is to remain out of the labor market temporarily and to return to work after several years (Percheski 2008; Stone 2008). Yet, existing scholarship does not satisfactorily assess the subsequent labor market consequences faced by individuals who opt out. In particular, there has been limited study of the demand-side processes that occur during the labor market re-entry process.

In this article, I developed a new signaling theory in which opting out signals a violation of ideal worker norms. In Study 1, a survey experiment, I demonstrated that opting out leads to more negative perceptions than unemployment on metrics of commitment, deservingness of the job, and reliability. In Study 2, an audit study conducted across 50 U.S. metropolitan areas, I tested the relative strength of the ideal worker norm violation signal, unemployment scarring signal, and motherhood penalty signal. I found that job applicants who had been out of work to care for children fared worse in terms of hiring prospects, compared to otherwise equivalent applicants who were unemployed because of a job loss. The unemployed, in turn, are disadvantaged relative to continuously employed applicants. In the aggregate, I found no gender differences in callback rates for mothers compared to fathers. These findings demonstrate that, among the occupations and cities in the sample, violating ideal worker norms by opting out sends a strong negative signal to employers—a signal that swamps the signals of unemployment scarring.

To further examine how signal strength varies across contexts, in Study 3 I integrated the signaling theory with a theory of labor markets as queues. I tested how callback rates differ across the 50 cities in the audit study, using job-seeker rates as a measure of market competitiveness. I argued that strong negative signals (e.g., opting out) place applicants toward the bottom of a job queue no matter the quality or quantity of the other job applicants. Less damaging negative signals will be observed only when labor queues are long, such as in competitive markets where employers have the option of indulging in taste-based preferences and ranking large numbers of applicants. Using this theoretical framework, I found that in competitive markets with higher job-seeker rates, a motherhood penalty was apparent among employed applicants, and employed fathers emerged as preferred applicants. Furthermore, opt out fathers faced additional negative penalties in competitive cities, suggesting that fathers face greater penalties for violating ideal worker norms.

These contextual findings show that macro-level processes across locations can affect hiring processes with systematic patterns. This is not a new idea, but it is rarely incorporated into field experiments on hiring (for important exceptions, see Kroft et al. 2013; Tilcsik 2011). The conclusions drawn from these experimental findings might have been quite different had I sampled only one or two cities. With new technology available to social scientists, including web scraping and “big data” approaches to data collection, it is now feasible to test whether audit study effects vary across contexts. My study incorporates these macro-level labor market contexts into the signaling theories tested in an audit study context. In short, I find that location matters, and it would be fruitful for future research to continue to extend audit study methodology along this trajectory. An important subsequent project could measure variation in gender attitudes at the city level (perhaps using social media data), and assess to what extent hiring processes for women and mothers vary across these dimensions.

This research leaves some unanswered questions, which could inspire future research ideas. First, the résumés in this study examine one method of signaling unemployment, opting out, and parenthood. To provide a clear causal test of reasons for employment lapses, I used several common methods of depicting a gap in employment; among real applicants, there is certain to be substantial variability in explaining an employment lapse. Résumé signaling theories rely on the idea that information (or lack thereof) on a job application stimulates assumptions about the job applicant. A natural question follows: Are there ways of signaling employment history or parenthood that do not produce negative assumptions, or do variations in signaling language yield different outcomes than those observed in the current study? For example, it would be worth testing whether giving no information or less information to explain a lapse yields different effects than informing employers that a layoff caused unemployment.

In a related area, future research would benefit from continued theorization of the multidimensionality of assumptions produced by signals. I argued that opting out signals are distinct from unemployment scarring signals, and although opting out produces a larger negative effect than unemployment, there is some overlap in the types of assumptions provoked by both types of lapses (e.g., capability, reliability). Future research could do more theorizing as to what additional perceptions are invoked by different résumé signals, including perceptions of likeability, interpersonal skills, short- versus long-term commitment, cultural capital, and other moral evaluations relating to the work-family intersection.

Next, the finding that opt out fathers are penalized as much or more than opt out mothers should be unpacked in future research. I argued that this fatherhood penalty occurs because fathers experience higher expectations to uphold ideal worker norms than do mothers, and they are punished to a greater extent when they violate these norms. Considering the dearth of stay-at-home fathers in today’s labor market, this finding raises important theoretical questions on the gendered nature of care work. For example, are stay-at-home fathers experiencing penalties for violating male breadwinner or other gender expectations in conjunction with violating ideal worker norms? If, in the future, stay-at-home fathers become increasingly normalized, would this increase the perceived status of opting out and reduce penalties associated with opting out for both mothers and fathers? Future research could work to distinguish theoretically between the gendered nature of care work, breadwinner expectations, and ideal worker norms, to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how employers perceive opt out fathers.

Future research could also extend the scope of this study to different occupations, racial/ethnic groups, and caregiver characteristics. The current audit study is limited to highly educated applicants who have college degrees and are perceived to be white. Less-educated and lower-income mothers, however, often stay at home to avoid the cost of childcare; an important next project might examine variation in the effect of family lapses among less-educated applicants. Assumptions about parenthood vary by race and ethnicity as well, and these assumptions could lead to different outcomes in the hiring context. Additionally, this article examines the effects of opting out for mothers compared to fathers, but not for childless individuals. It would be worthwhile to test whether similar patterns emerge for childless applicants who engage in other forms of care work (e.g., caring for a sick parent), and if there are gender differences under these conditions.

Finally, researchers should conduct qualitative interviews with employers about their perceptions of former stay-at-home mothers and fathers who returned to work. How much experience do employers have with these types of job applicants, and what are their perceptions of employees who had previously taken lapses for family care? Asking these types of questions will allow for a more precise test of whether opt out penalties follow from taste-based preferences or from statistical discrimination processes: employers might justify their decisions to penalize opt out applicants through a rational business perspective, arguing that these employees are less reliable and less committed to work. Assessing employer familiarity with these types of employees, and their perceptions of work quality and commitment post-lapse, could provide leverage toward understanding these processes.

This article suggests that the way we organize labor produces systematic disadvantages for primary caretakers and contributes to our understanding of how gender inequality in the labor market is maintained and reinforced. In our current gender system, mothers are more likely than fathers to interrupt employment to care for children. We know from existing literature that mothers are “pushed out” of work when workplaces are inflexible and intensely demanding (e.g., Stone 2008). My research shows that, after being pushed out, they are kept out and have reduced job opportunities when attempting to regain employment. When fathers opt out—challenging the normative gendered division of labor—they too face penalties, and in some contexts greater penalties than opt out mothers. These processes produce a reinforcing cycle: ideal worker norms limit job opportunities when caretakers are in work, which contributes to an increased likelihood of leaving work, but the same ideal worker norms are invoked to prevent re-entry back into work. To level the playing field, we may require a rethinking of the ideal worker norm that prevents caretakers from reaching their career goals. Until we reach such a point, it remains unlikely that these forms of inequality will change.

Notes

I refer to individuals who leave work to care for family or children as having “opted out” of work. This is a common term in both the media and academic scholarship. However, it is generally understood that exiting a job is rarely entirely voluntary, and many times these individuals feel “pushed out” or “forced out” because the workplace is not flexible about reconciling conflicts between family and work responsibilities (see, e.g., Stone 2008).

The term “motherhood penalty” has primarily been used in literature comparing mothers to childless women, referring to a within-gender comparison (Budig and England 2001; Budig et al. 2012). In experimental research, scholars have compared mothers to childless women and to fathers, theorizing the motherhood penalty as an interaction of gender × parental status (e.g., Correll et al. 2007). The current study’s experimental design compares mothers to fathers and does not include a comparison to childless women or men. The analytic consequences of this design are that childless women and men who leave work to care for family or who are unemployed could experience different processes that this study cannot directly test. In an online survey experiment not presented here, I found that parents experience greater hiring penalties than do childless applicants who have other family-related lapses (results available upon request). Future research would benefit from examining how these other family-related lapses (e.g., caring for a sick parent or partner) produce different assumptions in the hiring context than does caring for a child. Use of the terms “motherhood penalty” and “fatherhood penalty” in this article thus captures only the between-gender, within-parent comparison; this use deviates from how these terms have typically been applied in other research settings.

Out of the 1,000 respondents, I excluded 29 from the analysis because they spent less than 10 seconds reading both résumés.

For more details on measurement and survey experiment design, see Part 4 of the online supplement.

Because survey respondents are viewing two applicants of the same gender and told that these applicants are finalists for the position, responses to résumé ratings should be considered in the context of two same-gender applicants. It is possible that responses would change if respondents were rating two different-gender applicants or viewed the applicants in the context of a larger pool. The experimental design is helpful because it allows for a precise test of the effect of employment history, but the limitation is that any estimates of gender differences in ratings or effects are less straightforward to interpret.

In the experimental design in which gender of applicants is held constant within respondents, it is not possible to estimate the effect of applicant gender while using respondent fixed effects. There are two possibilities for estimation: (1) between-subject models estimating the main effect of applicant gender (clustering standard errors by respondent), and (2) respondent fixed-effects models estimating the interaction of gender with employment, but not estimating the main effect of gender. The first estimation strategy is shown in Table 1, Model 2. The second produces no substantive differences in effects, and is available upon request.

Pedulla (2016) found that unemployment did not lead to reduced perceptions of commitment to work, which is why commitment is not considered as an a priori prediction for the effects of unemployment. However, Pedulla’s study consisted of childless applicants. Parents might face higher expectations to work (and provide for their children) than do childless applicants, and thus are penalized in perceptions of commitment. Given that perceived commitment is a key dimension on which employers make decisions (Correll et al. 2007), it would be worthwhile to further examine the contexts in which unemployed applicants are perceived as less committed.

One critique of audit studies is that they are poorly suited to distinguish between statistical discrimination and taste-based discrimination. Statistical discrimination refers to cases in which businesses make decisions based on the productivity of a group; here, discrimination is justified from a business sense, because hiring decisions are made based on rational economic behavior (Correll and Benard 2006). Taste-based discrimination, on the other hand, is made due to stereotypes about the performance of particular groups, which bias how employers evaluate these groups (Correll and Benard 2006). Audit studies are sometimes critiqued because they are unable to test which of these processes are taking place (e.g., Heckman 1998). One can speculate about what types of biases are entering into the decision-making process, but this critique of audit studies cannot be entirely avoided.

Is it common practice to mention being a stay-at-home parent on one’s résumé? Based on results from an October 2017 Google search of “should I put stay-at-home parent on my résumé?”, the majority of blog posts and articles recommend to explicitly mention being a stay-at-home parent on the résumé and cover letter. Out of the first 50 Google search results, only five articles recommended not mentioning this in the résumé or cover letter, and another seven recommended putting it in the cover letter only but not on the résumé. The remaining 38 were either strongly in support of mentioning this in the résumé and cover letter (24) or were ambivalent (14) and said it is up to the job applicant, with no recommendation either way. Future research could more systematically study how common this practice is in real résumés and cover letters, but these results suggest that potential job applicants receive positive messaging and general encouragement to explicitly mention being a stay-at-home parent on their résumés and cover letters. The articles generally recommended being direct about the reason for leaving the most recent position, rather than creating a new position labeled “caretaker” or “stay-at-home mother” (see also Karsh and Pike 2009). Future research would benefit from examining whether employers perceive this information differently if listed on the résumé, cover letter, or in an interview, and whether there are ways to present this information positively to prevent employer bias.

The unemployment lapse was signaled through a layoff to correspond to an involuntary bout of unemployment. Some researchers have signaled unemployment by providing a gap in employment but no explanation for the lapse (e.g., Eriksson and Rooth 2014; Kroft et al. 2013; Pedulla 2016). Economists suggest that a layoff due to downsizing is perceived negatively, because presumably companies lay off lower-skilled personnel during downsizing (Charness and Levine 2002; Gibbons and Katz 1991). Additionally, it is rare for applicants to directly state on a résumé that they were fired, but much more common to list a layoff (Claman 2013). To clearly signal unemployment—rather than a gap for an unknown reason—I used a layoff as a common way to explain a job loss. However, it is possible that giving information about a layoff mutes the negative effects of unemployment, compared to a lapse due to firing or another involuntary reason, or relative to no reason given. This possibility should be tested more thoroughly in future research.

I chose these jobs because they are relatively common, vary in terms of gender composition, and exist across many different labor markets (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016).

Occasionally, employers would respond in a more ambiguous way or ask for more information. For example: “Hi Elizabeth, Thanks for sending your résumé. I have a few questions: (1) Have you developed iOS apps before? If yes, are any currently in the app store? (2) It says you are moving to Los Angeles. Are you in Los Angeles now?” This was relatively rare and did not count as a callback. However, results are robust to including these responses, and these analyses are available upon request.

Using formal rejections could be attributable to features of the companies rather than the applicants, so I do not use this measure as a dependent variable in the analyses (these results are available upon request).

See Part 2 of the online supplement for interactions with job type and overall response rates by job type. The similar patterns across most of the jobs suggest that the effect of opting out does not vary widely by the feminization of jobs and is a persistent effect.

One possibility to consider is that the unemployment signal itself may produce different meaning in low versus high unemployment contexts, because employers are more or less forgiving of unemployment depending on whether it is common or uncommon in the local context. In other words, the unemployment signal strength could change across contexts, which would contradict the queueing theory assumptions of an invariant signal effect. Kroft and colleagues (2013) used an audit study to examine the effect of unemployment duration on callbacks across local labor markets, in the wake of the Great Recession. They found that unemployment duration has a stronger negative effect in low unemployment contexts, but when individuals have more than eight months of unemployment, the effect of unemployment is similar across low and high unemployment contexts. These findings suggest that the signal of longer periods of unemployment (in my study, 18 months) is invariant across labor market contexts, lending support for the queueing assumption of an invariant signal. It would be worthwhile to further examine whether rare or common résumé signals produce different effects across contexts to test this assumption more thoroughly.

(number of job-seekers / [number of job-seekers + number of non-job-seekers (employed)]) × 100 in the major occupational category. Note that this measure potentially misses job applicants who did not list an occupation on the ACS. However, the findings hold for alternative measures of local job competitiveness, including a city’s overall unemployment rate, the unemployment or job-seeker rate of college-educated individuals, and the non-manual occupation unemployment/job-seeker rate (see Part 3 of the online supplement).

City-level estimates of job-seeker context are based on the American Community Survey (ACS) PUMA (Public Use Microdata Area) definition. These consist of geographic areas with populations of 100,000 or more. Because the audit study contains the top-50 most populated cities in the United States, each of these cities corresponds to an ACS PUMA. One coding decision to note with respect to the constructed occupation-specific job-seeker rates is that accounting and financial analysts fall under the same major occupational group, per the 2010 Census occupational coding scheme (“financial specialists”). Both job types thus receive the same job-seeker rate values across cities. See Part 3 of the online supplement for additional details on contextual measures.

The first two measures are derived from ACS 2011 to 2015 data (Ruggles et al. 2015); the latter two are from the Quarterly Workforce Indicator (QWI) data (United States Census Bureau 2016), from the time period of the audit study (the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016). See Part 3 of the online supplement for motivation and coding of these measures.

References

Acemoglu, Daron. 1995. “Public Policy in a Model of Long-Term Unemployment.” Economica 62(24): 161–78.

Ai, Chunrong, and Edward C. Norton. 2003. “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models.” Economics Letters 80(1):123–29.

Albiston, Catherine R., Shelley J. Correll, Christina Stevens, and Traci Tucker. 2012. Laws, Norms, and the Motherhood/Caretaker Penalty (http://www.americ anbarfoundation.org/uploads/cms/documents/albiston_120512.pdf).

Arulampalam, Wiji, Paul Gregg, and Mary Gregory. 2001. “Unemployment Scarring.” Economic Journal 111(475):F577–F584.

Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Berdahl, Jennifer L., and Sue H. Moon. 2013. “Workplace Mistreatment of Middle-Class Workers Based on Sex, Parenthood, and Caregiving.” Journal of Social Issues 69(2):341–66.

Berik, Günseli, and Ebru Kongar. 2013. “Time Allocation of Married Mothers and Fathers in Hard Times: The 2007–09 US Recession.” Feminist Economics 19(3):208–237.

Blair-Loy, Mary. 2003. Competing Devotions: Career and Family among Women Executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Blair-Loy, Mary. 2009. “Work Without End?” Work and Occupations 36(4):279–317.

Connelly, Brian L., Trevis S. Certo, Duane R. Ireland, and Christopher R. Reutzel. 2011. “Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment.” Journal of Management 37(1):39–67.

Correll, Shelley J., and Stephen Benard. 2006. “Biased Estimators? Comparing Status and Statistical Theories of Gender Discrimination.” Social Psychology of the Workplace 23:89–116.

Correll, Shelley J., Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112(5):1297–1339.

Davies, Andrea R., and Brenda D. Frink. 2014. “The Origins of the Ideal Worker: The Separation of Work and Home in the United States from the Market Revolution to 1950.” Work and Occupations 41(1):18–39.

Dumas, Tracy, and Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks. 2015. “The Professional, the Personal, and the Ideal Worker: Pressures and Objectives Shaping the Boundary between Life Domains.” Academy of Management Annals 9(1):803–843.

Eriksson, Stefan, and Dan-Olof Rooth. 2014. “Do Employers Use Unemployment as a Sorting Criterion When Hiring? Evidence from a Field Experiment.” American Economic Review 104(3):1014–39.

Fallick, Bruce C. 1996. “A Review of the Recent Empiri- cal Literature on Displaced Workers.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50(1):5–16.

Fernandez, Roberto M., and Marie L. Mors. 2008. “Competing for Jobs: Labor Queues and Gender Sorting in the Hiring Process.” Social Science Research 37(4):1061–80.

Flood, Sarah, Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, and J. Robert Warren. 2015. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey, Version 4.0. [Machine-readable database.] Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Fuegen, Kathleen, Monica Biernat, Elizabeth Haines, and Kay Deaux. 2004. “Mothers and Fathers in the Workplace: How Gender and Parental Status Influence Judgments of Job-Related Competence.” Journal of Social Issues 60(4):737–54.

Gangl, Markus. 2004. “Welfare States and the Scar Effects of Unemployment: A Comparative Analysis of the United States and West Germany.” American Journal of Sociology 109(6):1319–64.

Gangl, Markus, and Andrea Ziefle. 2009. “Motherhood, Labor Force Behavior, and Women’s Careers: An Empirical Assessment of the Wage Penalty for Motherhood in Britain, Germany, and the United States.” Demography 46(2):341–69.

Ghayad, Rand. 2015. “The Jobless Trap.” Working paper, Northeastern University, Department of Economics.

Gibbons, Robert, and Lawrence F. Katz. 1991. “Layoffs and Lemons.” Journal of Labor Economics 9(4):351–80.

Glass, Jennifer. 2004. “Blessing or Curse? Work-Family Policies and Mother’s Wage Growth over Time.” Work and Occupations 31(3):367–94.

Haurin, Donald R., and Kala S. Sridhar. 2003. “The Impact of Local Unemployment Rates on Reservation Wages and the Duration of Search for a Job.” Applied Economics 35(13):1469–76.

Heckman, James J. 1998. “Detecting Discrimination.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(2):101–116.

Jacobs, Jerry A., and Kathleen Gerson. 2001. “Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families? Explaining Trends in Work, Leisure, and Family Time.” Work and Occupations 28(1):40–63.

Karsh, Brad, and Courtney Pike. 2009. How to Say It on Your Resume: A Top Recruiting Director’s Guide to Writing the Perfect Resume for Every Job. New York: Penguin Group.

Kelly, Erin L., Samantha K. Ammons, Kelly Chermack, and Phyllis Moen. 2010. “Gendered Challenge, Gendered Response: Confronting the Ideal Worker Norm in a White-Collar Organization.” Gender & Society 24(3):281–303.

Kroft, Kory, Fabian Lange, and Matthew J. Notowidigdo. 2013. “Duration Dependence and Labor Market Conditions: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(3):1123–67.

Lovejoy, Meg, and Pamela Stone. 2012. “Opting Back In: The Influence of Time at Home on Professional Women’s Career Redirection after Opting Out.” Gender, Work and Organization 19(6):631–53.

Mincer, Jacob, and Haim Ofek. 1982. “Interrupted Work Careers: Depreciation and Restoration of Human Capital.” Journal of Human Resources 17(1):3–24.

Moscarini, Guiseppe G. 2005. “Job Matching and the Wage Distribution.” Econometrica 73(2):481–516.

Norton, Edward C., Hua Wang, and Chunrong Ai. 2004. “Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit Models.” Stata Journal 4(2):154– 67.

Nunley, John M., Adam Pugh, Nicholas Romero, and R. Alan Seals. 2017. “The Effects of Unemployment and Underemployment on Employment Opportunities: Results from a Correspondence Audit of the Labor Market for College Graduates.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 70(3):642–69.

Pager, Devah, Bart Bonikowski, and Bruce Western. 2009. “Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment.” American Sociological Review 74(5):777–99.

Pedulla, David S. 2016. ��Penalized or Protected? The Consequences of Non-standard Employment Histories for Male and Female Workers.” American Socio- logical Review 81(2):262–89.

Percheski, Christine. 2008. “Opting Out? Cohort Differences in Professional Women’s Employment Rates from 1960 to 2005.” American Sociological Review 73(3):497–517.

Reid, Erin M. 2011. “Passing as Superman: The Ideal Worker and Men’s Professional Identities.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2011(1):1–6.

Reimers, Cordelia, and Pamela Stone. 2008. “Explaining Trends in ‘Opting Out’ among Women, 1981–2006.” Presented at the annual meetings of the Population Association of America, New Orleans, LA, April 7.

Reskin, Barbara F., and Patricia A. Roos. 2009. Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations. Philidelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Shelley J. Correll. 2004. “Motherhood as a Status Characteristic.” Journal of Social Issues 60(4):683–700.

Rivera, Lauren A., and András Tilcsik. 2016. “Class Advantage, Commitment Penalty: The Gendered Effect of Social Class Signals in an Elite Labor Market.” American Sociological Review 81(6):1097– 1131.

Rudman, Laurie A., and K. Mescher. 2013. “Penalizing Men Who Request a Family Leave: Is Flexibility Stigma a Femininity Stigma?” Journal of Social Issues 69(2):322–40.

Ruggles, Steven, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Josiah Grover, and Matthew Sobek. 2015. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. American Community Survey dataset, 2006–2015, pooled 1-year ACS samples.

Sallee, Margaret W. 2012. “The Ideal Worker or the Ideal Father: Organizational Structures and Culture in the Gendered University.” Research in Higher Education 53(7):782–802.

Spence, Michael. 1973. “Job Market Signaling.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 87(3):355–74.

Spence, Michael. 1981. Signaling, Screening, and Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Steiner, Leslie M. 2007. Mommy Wars: Stay-at-Home and Career Moms Face Off On Their Choices, Their Lives, Their Families. New York: Random House.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2002. “Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics.” American Economic Review 92(3):460–501.

Stone, Pamela. 2008. Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tilcsik, András. 2011. “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 117(2):586–626.

Townsend, Nicholas. 2002. Package Deal: Marriage, Work and Fatherhood in Men’s Lives. Philidelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Turco, Catherine J. 2010. “Cultural Foundations of Tokenism: Evidence from the Leveraged Buyout Industry.” American Sociological Review 75(6):894– 913.

United States Census Bureau. 2016. “Quarterly Workforce Indicators.” Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. 2015 Q4 and 2016 Q1 (https://ledextract ces.census.gov/static/data.html).

Williams, Joan C., Jessica Manvell, and Stephanie Born- stein. 2006. ‘Opt Out’ or Pushed Out? How the Press Covers Work/Family Conflict. San Francisco, CA: The Center for WorkLife Law, Hastings College of the Law (http://worklifelaw.org/pubs/OptOutPushedOut.pdf).

Winefield, Anthony H., Marika Tiggemann, and Helen R. Winefield. 1992. “Unemployment Distress, Reasons for Job Loss and Causal Attributions for Unemployment in Young People.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 65(3):213–18.

#opting out #The Way We Live Now #single-income households #childcare #parenthood #family #work #work-life-balance #gender #gendered expectations #inequality #sexism

3 notes · View notes

the-lightning-strikes-again · 5 years

Text

Voltron: Legendary Defender—an Unfulfilling Copy of Award-Winning Mecha Predecessor and Market Competitor, Transformers Prime?

Note, this comparison post has major spoilers for both Transformers Prime and Voltron: Legendary Defender. It contains screenshots/topics from the shows that some may find sensitive or disturbing.

The Transformers franchise and Voltron franchise have been direct market competitors, in toy sales and in (primarily boy-targeted) cartoons, since 1984. Both franchises have various iterations and reboots spanning decades. But in June 2011, Voltron: Force aired and stumbled. It was cancelled after a single season and achieved zero awards. In comparison, the competing Transformers franchise had aired Transformers Prime in November 2010, and the cartoon gained immediate critical acclaim, winning over older fans of highly successful previous Transformers cartoons—and pushing the content limits of the (US-rated) Y7-FV mecha genre.

By the time Transformers Prime (TFP) ended in 2013, it had earned several awards and set high standards for mecha cartoon shows in regards to animation, directing, plot complexities, and moral ambiguity, with a very extensive budget per episode.

This 2010-2013 show ultimately wasn’t your average kids show. Executive Producers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman admitted to using this show as their way to deepen the characters they fell in love with from writing the PG-13 live-action film, Revenge of the Fallen.

But did the show tone down its PG-13 origins? Not by much, if at all. TFP deals with very dark, edgy content, as well as sophisticated introspection into various characters. And it got away with it, in part, because it handled controversial topics so well.

Transformers Prime, under a TV-Y7-FV rating, boasts:

Multiple instances of major character death (even within episode 1, complete with blood splatters)

Graphic body horror and mutilation

Zombies

Physical and mental/emotional abuse

Electrocution, near-death experiences with major health consequences, betrayals, and torture

Amputation, disabilities, and characters actively experiencing PTSD and having mental breakdowns

Horror-genre monster chase scenes

Major trolley problems and moral ambiguity

War crimes

Good guys doing questionable/bad things, bad guys doing good things, and good guys working with mass murderers to defeat a common enemy

To an extent, transformers themselves do not exhibit a fully human image, which decreases the possible emotional reaction one might have to the graphic content. At the same time, this show dropped its money hard on developing the characters and making them as “human” as possible, and even having the human characters struggle with that realization, which resulted in a suspenseful, emotionally invested viewing.

The show still, to this day, enjoys an involved and productive fandom who delight in its characterizations, its plot, and its core message (which executive producer Jeff Kline explained as “the universal need to find or forge a family and a home”).

But why does Transformers Prime matter to today’s children mecha show environment? And why does it specifically matter to the audience who watched Voltron: Legendary Defender?

Executive Producers for VLD, JDS and LM, were still working on Legend of Korra, which ended in 2014, when they pitched a reboot for Voltron only months after TFP had finished in late 2013.

Hilariously, a lot of what happens in VLD had already happened in Transformers Prime, but with the twist of following through on a positive or morally meaningful message. So if you’re looking for a show that does what VLD did, but did it well—check out Transformers Prime. This show accomplishes:

Powerful female-gendered characters who live to enjoy their heroism and achieve their dreams

Individuals overcoming their PTSD and reintegrating socially

Humans not being the center of the universe and actually learning moral lessons

Multidimensional, dynamic villains, antagonists, and self-aware heroes

Abuse victims and villains breaking the cycle of evil

Deceased warriors being consistently remembered for their sacrifice and value

Socially and physically nonconforming individuals rising to great moral fame and recognition

A powerful character dying for the greater good, in which they transform into something even more powerful

Heroes being held to high moral standards

Still not sure about checking out TFP? Then enjoy this list of the vast extent to which VLD mimics TFP, as well as how TFP handles such topics with increased complexity and finesse compared to VLD:

Updates to Worldbuilding and Backstories

TFP, in keeping with live-action films, boasts aged-up human companions compared to previous transformer cartoons (Sari from TFA was only 9 at the start of the show). Transformers has, time and again, more typically aligned itself with bildungsroman (coming of age) storylines. Not surprisingly, VLD followed suit in adjusting its pilots to more strongly align to the teenager age group. For the Voltron franchise, however, this meant de-aging the pilots, which made them more fallible in a franchise where they were traditionally the center point of morality as adults. This is unlike the young humans in TFP, who are traditionally schooled by or in dialogue with the transformers about moral decisions and the hardships of growing up/becoming more responsible.

TFP’s synthetic energon or Synth-En, drives people crazy similar to VLD’s quintessence overexposure, bringing out the worst in them. Dark energon, which glows purple and is a mystical science-magic, is derived from a source of great chaos and lends disturbing powers, including reanimation of the dead and mind control, to one willing to bond with it. This is similar to quintessence manipulation as well.

The war between Decepticons and Autobots ultimately resulted in the destruction of their planet. Similarly, for the first time ever in Voltron history, both Daibazaal and Altea are destroyed in the war, leaving both people groups (or their remaining warriors) homeless and roaming the galaxy in guerilla warfare.

TFP boasts characters who live through incredible spans of time. VLD, for the first time in Voltron history, expands with a world of basically immortal aliens as well.

Updates to Characters

VLD also majorly expanded or revised previous Voltron lore, characters, and character arcs. In doing so, it brought Voltron characters closer than ever to their Transformer counterparts in TFP:

(A quick list of characters discussed, for reference if you need it)

Honerva copies Megatron, both before and after his corruption. Honerva’s new history was entirely unprecedented within Voltron lore, but it was a core staple within TFP.

Both Honerva and Megatronus start off as good people, with very close friendships with the protagonist leaders, Alfor and Orion Pax. Both Megatronus and Honerva see societal ills, inequality, and want to fix them, challenging the traditions/hoarding of power by those of higher authority. Both Megatronus and Honerva are told their ideas for improving the world are wrong because they involve force and a demand for access to great power (For Honerva, it’s the quintessence field. For Megatronus, it’s the powerful Matrix of Leadership, which would result in making him a prime). Both characters ignore the concerns of Alfor/The High Council and grow increasingly more frustrated with the balance of power, desiring to usurp it for themselves. Both suffer the consequences and jumpstart a millennia-long war.

Their names change upon corruption. Megatronus becomes Megatron. Honerva becomes Haggar. Neither Megatronus nor Honerva are ever again able to truly separate from who they’ve become. The good part of them is permanently marred.

They’re both obsessed with a magic that can be used for great evil, from a questionable, destructive source (Dark Entity/rift creatures in VLD, the chaotic dark entity Unicron in TFP).

Both shows include an episode of the protagonists/heroes diving into the mind of Honerva/Megatron for more information, and having a harrowing experience in doing so.

Both Honerva and Megatron reanimate, to an extent, a dead soldier (Lotor/Cliffjumper) and use his body/weapons for their own purpose.

Honerva and Predacons Rising Megatron

In the final movie that ended TFP, Predacons Rising, Megatron’s character gets taken to a whole new level. Honerva’s arc eerily matches:

Both Honerva and Megatron are overwhelmed when the Dark Entities/Rift Creatures and Unicorn decide to destroy the world(s) most precious to them.

Both die and are reanimated back to life by dark power.

Upon reanimation, both can wield purple magic.

In TFP, Unicron, an ancient dark entity who is the source of all chaos and evil, says, “Your husk will simply be an instrument of my will.” Megatron undergoes a painful transformation that alters his usual form. In VLD, through contact with a dark entity and through the corruption from pure quintessence exposure, Honerva becomes Haggar. She is heavily altered visually, and is little more than a puppet of Zarkon’s will until she remembers who she is and fights back to regain herself, just as Megatronus does with Unicron.

They both gain the ability to peer into the minds and even alter the minds and behaviors of others.

Megatron cannot join the Allspark (go to the afterlife) because he’d been joined to the lifeblood of the chaotic Unicron, and he spends a deal of time cursed inside the mind of Unicron. Honerva’s soul does not move to the afterlife in death, but instead, being infused with quintessence, she is reanimated. They’re both the immortally undead. In addition, Honerva had “cursed” the souls of the OG paladins. They were inside her mind with her, unable to be in the afterlife because of it, similar to the plight Megatron finds himself in within Unicron’s mind.

They both give themselves over to scorched-earth policy. Honerva refuses the title to run an empire and goes on to nearly destroy the multiverse. Megatron, as Unicron’s puppet, admits to fellow Decepticons (who are subsequently disturbed by him), “I do not wish to conquer this world—I wish to eradicate it.” Honerva follows suit in her desire to achieve the past at any cost to the future of an entire multiverse, carrying Megatron’s banner that, “The past shall consume the future!”

A quasi-redemption arc: Both Megatron and Honerva achieve what they want. Megatron gets bonded to the spark of a great, chaotic power, able to warp time and space as a new, all-powerful being. His abilities allow him to quickly fly to a regenerated version of his home world, Cybertron, which had been destroyed millennia ago. Honerva gets access to Oriande, transreality materials, and achieves entry to a dimension with a still-living family on her home world of Altea (which was living, unlike the Altea she know, which had been destroyed millennia ago).

Once they’re given over to the power or end they desired, they do not achieve the true effect they wanted. They have a moment where they lose their own personal agency within that situation, only to rage to destroy everything at great risk to themselves, and then from out of the rage, fall into a daze of distaste for what their desires have brought them.

Then they both act defeated, whiny, and salty over how nothing’s like what they wanted.

They both disappear off into the sunset in a disquieted, defeated sense of, “Whatever, I guess I’ll be good now and do my own thing because I’m tired.” (Paraphrasing here.)

In TFP, the insanity of Predacons Rising Megatron is described by Predaking (another character) as, “Dark magic…perpetrated by the demon who lives in Megatron’s skin.” In a similar manner, Lotor accuses the Oriande-infused Honerva of being “an abomination.”

Zarkon is a mirror to the standard, more well-known Megatron. But in VLD, he boasts similar characteristics, like Honerva, to Megatronus, picking up Megatronus’s gladiator history. Class issues are important to both Zarkon and Megatronus as well.

It’s implied that Megatron was born into a very low class and rose to power through the gladiatorial ring by rite of combat, bolstering his political career. As a gladiator “in the pits of Kaon,” his rise to become the leader of the Decepticons mirrors Voltron’s brand-new lore of Zarkon rising to imperial power through the Kral Zera, which is a ceremonial gladiatorial arena to establish the new leader through rite of combat.

Zarkon functioned as a military mentor for Alfor; Megatronus was a political mentor to Orion Pax.

According to the lore of the original Thirteen Primes, Megatronus Prime got into a fight with his brethren that resulted in the death of his lover, Solus Prime, a weapons forger. Megatronus Prime’s title as “The Fallen” being closely related to in-fighting specifically over a lover in many ways echoes in the ultimate breakdown of friendship between Alfor and Zarkon, specifically over Honerva and her abilities to manipulate quintessence into tactical advantages/weapons. The end result is that Zarkon “falls” as well through Honerva’s death, just as Megatronus Prime falls through the death of Solus Prime.

Zarkon is massively injured and in a state of unconscious for a time, disrupting the empire. Megatron as well is massively injured in a state of unconsciousness for a time, disrupting the order of command for the Decepticons. In both instances, this is a major plot device to introduce other characters to the show and deepen political conflict.

Zarkon’s armor and facial reconstruction for the reboot more closely mimic Megatron’s elongated face and eye-set, as well as his very wide-shoulder, spiky armor, complete with angled armor lining his cheeks. It’s similar enough that others have poked fun at their similarities.

Alfor’s history more closely mimics that of Orion Pax. They’re both initially great friends with the very person who would later seek to kill them and their friends.

It’s implied that Megatronus suffered through the very issues that he was critiquing to the High Council. Meanwhile, Orion Pax was of a higher class and coddled from experiencing the same societal ills. In many ways, this echoes how Alfor critiqued the behaviors of Zarkon and Honerva, while standing from a place of incredible power through Oriande, as well as physical peace and comfort.

Alfor and Orion Pax are both very scholarly individuals without the military expertise as touted by their counterparts, Zarkon and Megatronus.

Alfor and Orion Pax are both initially deceived by the heartfelt words of their friends, only to realize in horror what their friends actually desired beneath it.

Orion Pax and Alfor stand as the ultimate inheritors of the powers and status coveted by Zarkon/Honerva and Megatronus.

When Orion Pax is converted to Optimus Prime, his old self somewhat dies, and he becomes a more perfected, all-powerful version. Alfor, likewise, dies in the war…and his legacy is inherited by Allura, who is canonically shown as even more powerful. She carries on the mantle/legacy as previously set before her by her predecessors.

And last but not least of the Big Four, Princess Allura’s arc in VLD very closely mimics Optimus Prime’s arc in TFP.

Like Optimus Prime, Allura becomes locked into a millennia-old war that she did not start herself.

Optimus Prime is the last of the primes. Princess Allura is the last of the royal Altean line. Both primes and royal Alteans have access to deep knowledge and mystical abilities coveted greatly by others of their race.

The High Council bestows the Matrix of Leadership, which is the core of Optimus Prime’s power. The Ancient Alteans of Oriande impart their wisdom and knowledge to enhance Allura’s power. Megatronus’s failure to achieve the Matrix, receiving only rejection in return, is echoed in Lotor’s rejection and fall in Oriande, who like his father sought to obtain such power through Galra-standard force.

Optimus Prime is a member of an endangered species, believing his few Autobot comrades to be some of the only ones remaining after the great war. In a similar way, Princess Allura struggles with the isolation and fall of Alteans. Both Optimus and Allura are separated by vast distances of space from other possible survivors of their own kind.

They both agree to truces with great enemies and unknown powers for a specific end. Allura accepts the dark entity and works alongside Lotor. Optimus makes several deals with Megatron, at great hesitance from his team.

Both wield great power that no one else currently can.

They both sacrifice their lives and own energy in the end to restore life itself to worlds, because they cannot separate themselves from the power it takes to restore life.

They both pass down a “transformation” to one of their brethren before dying. Princess Allura gives Altean marks to Lance. Optimus converts Bumblebee to a warrior.

Their comrades all stand and watch as they willingly sacrifice themselves, and they have first-row seats to a major visual outpouring of light and life.

(Screenshot explanation: The visual effect of Princess Allura sacrificing herself to restore life to the multiverse.)

(Screenshot explanation: The visual effect of Optimus Prime sacrificing himself to restore life to the Well of All Sparks.)

Aside from The Big Four, there are other TFP characters with extreme similarities to VLD supporting characters.

Knockout/Breakdown/Predaking as Lotor

The Knockout connection to Lotor

According to Hasbro’s vice president of development and scripted entertainment, Mike Vogel, Knockout as a character received several upgrades because his previous iteration as “Lugnut” wasn’t considered sexy enough. Similarly, Lotor in VLD was upgraded to be a prettier bad boy in several ways that he hadn’t been before, especially in regard to physical clothing and behavior. Both pretty bad boys ultimately boasted a tight waist, spiky shoulders, great eyeliner, and heavily angled paneling on their torsos:

Knockout is coded as being “different” than most of the other Decepticons and is looked down upon for having a road-based alt-mode instead of an alt-mode that affords flight. In being so, he is more similar to the Autobots despite being born as a Decepticon. Likewise, VLD heavily increases the amount of attention and derision given to Lotor for being half-Galran and half-Altean. Both Knockout and Lotor profess great confidence and satisfaction in what they are, though, regardless of anyone else’s critique.

Knockout is summoned to Earth after the fall of Megatron, who remains in an ill, unconscious state. This is reflected in how Lotor is introduced into the revised Voltron series, to assist his reigning father in a time of need.

Knockout is a medic and is tasked with preserving life—or taking it out. Lotor’s base motivation is also to preserve life, but he maintains Knockout’s underhanded side of also deciding when to eliminate a loose or unproductive end.

Unlike previous iterations of Lotor, the VLD Lotor is excessively more evasive and less likely to barge in bull-headedly into battle. Knockout uses similar tactics.

Knockout gets melded into a ship (although unlike Lotor, he does get out and isn’t dead).

Knockout constantly schemes for more power and prestige, using underhanded tactics. He has very little loyalty but does have a deep bond with fellow Decepticon Breakdown, who functions as the muscle to Knockout’s intelligence. They’re usually seen together as two halves of the same brotherly unit. In a similar way, Lotor is the scheming commander and point of intelligence in his own small group. His generals are overall the brawn, like Breakdown.

Knockout provides confidential information about his old Decepticon comrades to help the Autobots while in custody as a prisoner of war. (Although unlike Lotor, Knockout demands, “We’re prisoners of war; we have rights!”)

The Predaking connection to Lotor

Predaking is a type of Predacon, an ancient beast that died long ago but is brought back to life through experimentation. In ways, his ancient status and the strange circumstances of his “birth” echo in the way Prince Lotor is a vestige himself from ancient times and was still growing in Honerva when she died, suggesting that he died as well or was somehow preserved by his infusion with quintessence. The result is that his life is unnaturally sustained by quintessence itself, when he would have otherwise been dead. Similarly, Predaking’s existence was not possible without intentionally overriding natural limitations, since his kind could not be “sparked” naturally.

Predaking is groomed to be a weapon for Megatron and initially assumed to be a dumb beast. In doing so, he endures ongoing physical and mental abuse by the Decepticons, particularly Megatron’s second in command, Starscream. As he grows more intelligent and powerful, he increasingly balks against the treatment he receives and loses loyalty to Megatron. This is similar to Lotor being groomed as the heir to the Galran throne via brainwashing but yet suffers abuse for what he is. He, like Predaking, ultimately grows to reject much of what he’s been told to believe about himself and his place in the world. Both Lotor and Predaking are strong enough to challenge and nearly defeat the main heroes of the shows, Voltron and Optimus Prime, respectively.

Predaking, in hatred for Megatron who tried to make him a weapon, attacks him with the intent to kill. Lotor, likewise, attacks his father, Zarkon—although Lotor does achieve killing him.

Both Predaking and Lotor are core to the dismantling of various alliances upon the discovery of a colony of innocents being killed in the name of tactical war advantages. In both cases, the innocents were people in tubes being groomed/harvested for war purposes.

The Breakdown connection to Lotor

Decepticon Breakdown is betrayed by one of his own team members, whom he had found attractive and had flirted with. The Decepticon femme Airachnid kills him. The distorted remains of his body end up being used for spare parts for a terrorist’s horrifying fusion of organic flesh and mech technology. Ultimately, Breakdown’s body is a victim of being used post-mortem to further the military aims of another person who wanted to exploit him. Breakdown’s personal agency is completely removed, and his body receives no rest.

Lotor, likewise, is betrayed by Voltron and specifically by Princess Allura during an alliance. Princess Allura, as his love interest, kills him. The distorted remains of his body, which are fused to the Sincline ship, end up being used post-mortem to further the military aims of Honerva. Lotor’s personal agency is completely removed, and his body receives no rest.

Bumblebee as Lance

Bumblebee and Lance, as the beloved young but inexperienced warriors, are both killed and brought back to life.

Bumblebee has progressively taken over as the frontrunner of the show within the Transformers franchise. Likewise, Lance gained more screen time and heightened significance in VLD compared to previous Voltron iterations.

Lance in the VLD finale and Bumblebee in the TFP sequel both struggle with the dissonance between who they were during war and now who they are as guardians or people look up to, but who are somewhat vestiges of the past.

Optimus Prime, prior to his death, changes Bumblebee from a scout to a warrior, which was not what Bumblebee was originally designed to be. Princess Allura, prior to her death, alters Lance from being purely human to exhibiting Altean characteristics.

Arcee as Shiro

They both suffer from PTSD, having been tortured by the enemy, interrogated, and experimented on. Arcee, being mechanical, has had her visible scars repaired, but the nightmares remain. Shiro similarly experiences PTSD.

They both have lost a significant other to war. They’re both afraid of losing the children they’re responsible for.

They both find family and are able to find happiness by the end, putting to rest any conflict they had over their previous partner.

Nemesis Prime (a Clone of Optimus Prime) as Kuron (a Clone of Shiro)

Nemesis Prime is a “clone” of Optimus Prime, developed by the human terrorist group M.E.C.H. He exhibits a physical appearance similar to Optimus Prime but, when activated, carries out their will of death and destruction.

Similarly, Kuron is a clone of Shiro developed by Haggar. He exhibits a physical appearance similar to the true Shiro, but when activated, carries out Haggar’s will of death and destruction.

The reputation of Optimus and Shiro are temporarily called in question before others realize what’s actually happening.

Jack Darby as Keith Kogane

Both have missing/dead fathers. Their mothers are alive, and they’re very close to their mothers, but said mother is often not a part of their daily life, given her own missions.

Both are loners and go through an arc of no longer wanting to be a part of the team, during which the team has to remind them of what they’ve gained and how important they are.

Both have a high sensibility to wanting to do the right thing, but not feeling worthy or wanting to have a position of power.

Both are constantly annoyed by the bull-headed antics of their teammate (Miko/Lance), often rolling eyes or getting on their case, but end up bonding with them in the end.

Both are the “human” lead for their team.

Both inherit great power. Optimus Prime, when no longer able to complete the mission, hands Jack the Omega Lock key. When Shiro is no longer able to be Black Paladin, Voltron chooses Keith to carry it forward.

And there’s so many other character similarities.

Moral Ambiguities

VLD also copies the moral ambiguity standards set within Transformers Prime.

In an Afterbuzz interview at the 12:52 mark, JDS and LM uplifted VLD as fairly groundbreaking for children’s shows, per its moral ambiguities. JDS said, “The finale is almost, I don’t know—I don’t wanna say unlike anything that you would see in other like-minded shows, like let’s say, like, Transformers or Power Rangers, or….something that Voltron was like, by outward appearances, being compared to. But it was something I think really exciting for us to explore because we did create villains and create heroes that worked within this very kind of, like, shades of gray spectrum. There was black, there was white. But we played in this weird morally ambiguous zone a lot of the time. And that was—I think, it was important for audiences of every age group to see that.”

Lauren Montgomery agreed at 13:33, stating, “We also came from working on shows like Avatar the last Airbender, and Korra, which very much pushed those boundaries as well, and were extremely ground-breaking for children’s programming. And it was not something that was coming out of western animation.”

Afterbuzz Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MudCcj6QRzA

However, the vast majority of what VLD did plot-wise with moral ambiguity was already used inside TFP, a western animation cartoon airing well before Korra:

The Colony Problem

In TFP, Autobots Wheeljack and Ultra Magnus knowingly and willingly commit massacre against innocent beings. Predacons (a different race of transformers, based on ancient beasts) were being groomed in test tubes in Megatron’s facility for the purpose of becoming Decepticon warriors. In fear that Predacons would hurt humans, the Autobots choose to kill them all. This decision comes back to haunt them dearly, through Predaking’s discovery of the massacre.

Predaking, who is a Predacon himself, is an antagonist of incredible moral ambiguity. He expresses great frustration with both the Autobots and the Decepticons. He despises the abuse he endures from the Decepticons, despises Megatron for betraying his kind to the Autobots, and then despises the Autobots, who knowingly commit massacre against his own kind. His tactics and perspectives, as he refuses both sides of the war and fights to create his own space, result in him becoming an ultimate antagonist to both Autobots and Decepticons.

The Trolley problem as experienced by the Autobots (sacrificing some to save many), and the resulting political fallouts, are mirrored within VLD.

In VLD, Prince Lotor had faced a similar trolley problem as well, in which he was instrumental in how several innocent Alteans were sacrificed for an unknown military aim against the Galra. The slain Predacons and second-colony Alteans are both shown in tubes in an experimental lab, represented as victims/cannon fodder of a much larger military function.

In VLD, the discovery of the Altean colony results in an utter destruction of previous alliances. Similarly, Predaking breaks ties with everyone in total disillusionment and rage, never again believing Autobots when they say they believe in peaceful coexistence of two races. His sentiments are echoed into VLD, in which the Galra are suspicious of Voltron and call them traitors.

Moral Shades of Gray: Characters Who Fall on a Spectrum

TFP’s Predaking has his own code of honor and is a primary example of a morally ambiguous character. He absolutely despises the Unicron-reborn version of Megatron. He snarls, “Dark magic…perpetrated by the demon who lives in Megatron’s skin.” This implies that Predaking ranks himself higher in his ways than Megatron. But Predaking, in his desire for revenge and power, also falls short of the stated moral standards of the Autobots. Similarly, Lotor absolutely despises the witch Haggar/Honerva, calling her an “abomination,” and yet he fails to meet the moral standards of Voltron and is therefore named an enemy despite their alliance.

Moral Focal Points: Have the Good Guys Always Been Good? And Have the Bad Guys Always Been Bad?

In TFP, the Autobots are said to have been the moral standard. However, they also bear a dark history of class issues / inequality and political corruption.

Similarly, in VLD, Alteans posit themselves as the moral and diplomatic standard, desiring peace for all. However, the Ancient Alteans hoarded Oriande’s power for only a select few of their kind. Alfor had no problems barreling in and using force against other people groups, in s3 flashbacks. He also created the most powerful weapon in the universe to enforce his version of peace, in which Voltron itself feeds off the life force of its paladins. Alteans additionally were able to terraform entire planets, the technology of which would have required immense power (where did they harvest that from?), and the result was the massacre of all life on said planet, for them to use to their will. These canon details suggest the Galra’s “komar” life-harvesting technology may have originated from Alteans themselves.

In VLD, the Galra (through Commander Lahn) express frustrations with Princess Allura’s coddled mindset, which mimics Megatron’s own frustrations with Autobot morality, which is derived from a position of power and comfort.

So, in general, there’s a moral similarity between TFP and VLD, in which the “heroes” have these dark pasts and yet attempt to smooth it over, while the “villains” are victims of a much larger, oppressive order and are calling the heroes out for their hypocrisies and crimes, demanding access to the same power as they wield, or committing similar crimes as the heroes and suffering harder for it.

So given all these similarities, how in the world is TFP so much better than VLD, message-wise?

1. TFP actually understood moral ambiguity.

In TFP, Megatron disbands the Decepticons, tired of bloodshed, without turning to the Autobots or acknowledging their perspective as the morally correct one.

The humans in TFP are excessively fallible, just like their transformer counterparts. There is a human terrorist group, M.E.C.H, who paces both Autobots and Decepticons, desiring their technology to enforce their will upon the world. These humans commit great horrors against both sides of the war, resulting in difficult decisions, odd truces between the Autobots and Decepticons, and humans fighting other humans. In other words, humans are NOT the moral center of the universe.

Some Autobots have looser morals and less self-control than others, which grates against the sensibilities of the more morally sensitive and results in a lot of disagreement and problems.

TFP consistently reflects on lessons learned. The heroes admit when they are wrong or fail to achieve moral perfection in their actions. They have to struggle through those decisions, the consequences of those decisions, and are bolstered to do better, be better.

The villains are not simply obsessed with power and are also capable of having empathy and doing things outside of pointless destruction. Breakdown is pleasantly surprised when one of the humans asks, “How are you?” And Breakdown responds politely. He also expresses sympathy for the hard work and struggle of the vehicons, who are servant-class workers on the Decepticon ship, similar to Galran robots. Likewise, Knockout expresses a love of human zombie movies and going to drive-ins to watch them, along with appreciating human vehicle design and street racing.

TFP shows villains scared and in pain, with a tremendous range of emotion and dreams. This is way more complex than how the villainous Galra are shown in VLD, who are consistently on a war path.

The heroes are willing to side with the villains (who killed their own people) to defeat common foes. The tension and resulting conversations from those truces are hilariously more complex than VLD, in which Voltron refused to work with Emperor Lotor, who is implicated in killing Alteans in the larger war against Galra. Instead of pursuing the tactical advantage of an ongoing alliance, Voltron simply assassinates him without due process for his war crime, asserting Voltron as the only morally unfallible point in the universe.

TFP shows the human heroes learning when they’re fallible and trying to be better.

TFP actively struggles with how human children/teenagers are endangered by the war, even when the children themselves don’t understand the danger.

2. TFP does a lot of other things well.

TFP always maintains a perspective that the true battle between good and evil is not a physical one—but one fought within the heart. Per Optimus Prime, “As even Megatron has demonstrated on this day, every sentient being possesses the capacity for change.” This is vastly unlike VLD, which stumbles to handle the perspectives of Voltron antagonists or the belief that people can truly change.

Megatron endures the very suffering he’d inflicted on others and comes to the decision on his own to stop his violence and disband the Decepticons, also ending his own “stereotypical toxic masculinity” arc. This contrasts heavily with Honerva, who goes into the afterlife without an understanding of why she can’t be happy as she is, demanding happiness and a family after she’s caused so much pain even to that family, perpetuating her own “stereotypical toxic femininity” arc.

There is a significant difference in the sacrifice of Optimus Prime compared to the death of Princess Allura. Optimus Prime’s sacrifice was a major power move, as well as not unexpected, given Transformers’ history of killing him off. (Although back in his first death in 1986, this was a horrifying shock to children who looked up to Optimus as a father). But within the context of TFP, Optimus had undergone a low point in the story prior, only to be rebuilt stronger than ever and growing in power and confidence as the re-energized leader of the Autobots. He had everything to live for (family, friends, regenerated planet, power) when he chose to sacrifice himself for others. Additionally, he knew there was hope in choosing to sacrifice his material body to restart the Well of Sparks, so that life could be regenerated on his planet. Optimus Prime even contextualizes his death in terms of rebirth and hope. His last words to his friends are: “Above all, do not lament my absence, for in my spark, I know that this is not the end. But merely, a new beginning. Simply put…another transformation.” He flies into death, more powerful and revered than he had ever been. He has a peaceful expression on his face. All of these details are wildly different from VLD. Princess Allura, like Optimus Prime, hits a low point beginning in s6 when Voltron’s alliance with Emperor Lotor unravels. But unlike Optimus Prime, Princess Allura continues to be progressively stripped of identity, power, and personal agency, careening into utter despondency until she willingly kills herself, with nothing to live for. She constantly gives up her own personal power to others, increasingly isolates herself from others, grows more emotionally volatile, denies her own people, and sinks into the background as other characters determine her life and decisions. There is nothing personally identifying about her by the end, with even her crown and state of dress removed/replaced with the uniform of a basic human soldier. Sorrow for her value and death comes too late in the story, when she has already become the most expendable character. It’s of additional significance that no one in VLD tries to help Princess Allura by offering other ways to resurrect the multiverse. There are only some paltry sniffles and weak, “No, don’t” responses. This is a huge contrast to TFP, in which several characters immediately are incensed by the thought of losing Optimus Prime. They jump in with ideas for how to possibly save their beloved leader, willing to endure more personal hardship on his behalf. They express that they didn’t fight this hard to resurrect Cybertron, only to lose someone they cared about. Optimus Prime explains why their ideas would not work, but in doing so, reveals that he is already one with the All Spark (meaning, that his spark is already part of a mystical collection of souls with the capacity to be born/reborn, and that continuing to live, bonded to the All Spark, would be denying all other souls from experiencing life). It is his explanation that bolsters the necessity of his sacrifice and converts his final words from being a hollow comfort to a genuine conviction that this was not the end. That they would all someday meet again.

In the TFP sequel, Robots in Disguise (2015), it’s revealed that Optimus Prime, in death, has become an interdimensional being, capable of still interacting with and providing guidance to Bumblebee on the “human plane,” all while being spiritually tested by greater beings with even more interdimensional power than him (the Primes). Interestingly enough, this topic is mirrored within VLD. Such interdimensional beings are confirmed to exist via season 7, in which the Voltron paladins are whisked away by an all-powerful interdimensional entity, who tests their worthiness as warriors. Additionally, some of the VLD meta by @leakinghate posits that an afterlife existence for Princess Allura and Lotor as interdimensional beings was supposed to happen in the VLD finale, but was ultimately not published. Had such been published, Princess Allura’s final arc would have further matched Optimus Prime and better maintained the hope and meaning associated with his arc.

Transformers don’t always save the day. Sometimes, it’s a little human girl with a baseball bat, or a little human boy with coding skills, or a teenager willing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect them. This greatly humbles the Autobots, some of whom struggle with their pride and the reality that they don’t have all the answers all the time, and that sometimes, they need to be protected too.

TFP actively struggles with both positive and negative prejudices assigned to humans and transformers. The humans originally think the transformers are just robots without souls—they think it’s all a game. They soon discover that transformers can bleed, and have emotions, and have a soul than can die. Likewise, some transformers find the humans to be a nuisance and despise their “fleshiness,” but soon overcome those perspectives to grow very protective and attached to humans. In other words, everyone struggles through their own perspective and learns on the way.

Optimus Prime remains the consistent point of morality for TFP. When he does controversial things, like engaging in an alliance with Megatron or allowing medical aid to be provided to Decepticons, he acknowledges those things and explains his reasoning. This is unlike Voltron, who engages in action without reflection while still demanding a position as the unquestionable moral center of the universe.

Knockout, as the Lotor bad boy of the series, defects and actively becomes a member of the Autobots. He admits he didn’t have the best role models, and it’s shown throughout the show that he endures physical and mental abuse by some Decepticons as well. He makes a cameo in Robots in Disguise (2015), suggesting he is still alive and well as an Autobot. Optimus Prime at the end of TFP includes Knockout when he says each of his teammates had acted as a prime, offering a tremendous weight of value and respect to Knockout.

Even Predaking, the antagonist, ends up helping the Autobots when it counts and otherwise remains distant with them.

Predaking gets justice against his abusers.

Autobots and many Decepticons are consistently horrified and disturbed by the crimes perpetuated against Decepticon Breakdown, whose body is taken and mutilated by terrorist group M.E.C.H.

Arcee manages to positively cope with her PTSD and remains as an active, plot-intrinsic character to the end, with several episodes dedicated to her own character arcs and the advantages she provides the overall team. She lives to see and experience her dream of a restored planet come true, without being turned into an example of the sexy lamp trope.

The transformers are able to achieve their goal of restoring Cybertron and generating new life, which allows several other characters to begin healing from the trauma of war and regain what they had lost.

The humans who make villainous decisions have dire consequences.

The human Miko rises up to become an Autobot Wrecker in her own right, without sacrificing or compromising anything about who she is, how she presents herself, or what her other interests are.

Bulkhead originally despises Decepticons but ends up rescuing his own sworn enemy from torture and dismantlement because he learns to put justice for and the safety of all people first.

The number of parallels between Transformers Prime and Voltron: Legendary Defender extend even beyond this list. And yet as seen above, TFP succeeded in so many of the major areas where VLD ultimately failed.

Transformers Prime, even years after its finale, remains as the award-winning show that transformed dark and edgy content into messages of hope, redemption, gender equality and social acceptance, moral responsibility, the power of teamwork—and did it as a Y7-FV show geared primarily for young boys.

So, if you were disappointed in VLD and how it ended, check out the edgy but satisfying TFP for what a real children’s mecha show should be like.

(Special thanks to @mermaider00 for being my TFP buddy and for suggesting some of the points discussed in this post!)

#Voltron #vld #Voltron Legendary Defender #Transformers #Transformers Prime #tfp #s8 critical #meta #AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR TRANSFORMERS PRIME #Y'all need to watch this show #TFP was the VLD I had wanted all along and already had #I watched tfp when it first ran #then I had deja vu when I went back to rewatch after watching VLD #it's not a perfect show #still has flaws #the show even garnered a convention panel in 2015 about various production and show bible and budget issues #but it stands the test of time #i love transformers prime so much

48 notes · View notes

canadianabroadvery · 5 years

Link

“There’s never been a society that hasn’t had a clock running on it,” declares a character in Arthur Miller’s play The American Clock, “and you can’t help wondering – how long? How long will they stand for this?” Whether time is running out is a question on many people’s minds today on both sides of the Atlantic, whether they’re watching the “Brexit clock” tick or wondering how long the Trump presidency will endure. The American Clock is set during the 1930s but was written in 1980, as Miller watched America’s headlong race back into the gleeful, reckless greed that dominated the 1920s and led to the Great Depression, and it’s one of several of Miller’s plays that are being revived in London. Clearly that sense of timeliness, in every sense, is mounting.

In addition to The American Clock, this year will bring a new production of The Price with David Suchet to the Wyndham’s Theatre, Sally Field and Bill Pullman will star in All My Sons at the Old Vic, The Crucible will be mounted at the Yard with a female-led cast (including a woman playing the hero, John Proctor), and an almost entirely black cast will revive Death of a Salesman at the Young Vic. Miller’s plays are emblematic, representative: they are often set at moments of national crisis, whether the Depression, the Second World War or the Salem witch trials, as the conflicts of the characters symbolise epochal conflicts in American life. Read them together and you start to get a sense of a nation in a constant state of crisis.

Miller called The American Clock a “mural for theatre”, evoking the agitprop social murals of the 1930s, with a large ensemble representing all of the United States, presenting vignettes that shift and adapt across geography and time. One character picks up another’s narration, finishes another’s line. The stories are the interconnected experiences of a nation struggling to survive, as Miller attempts to render a “mythopoetic” vision of America that might be sufficient to its mythopoeic vision of itself, a nation of shared values and impulses, despite its differences.

The American Clock suggests that out of chaos can come new possibilities, an idea that many people with whom Miller would have had little sympathy are today banking on (again, in every sense). Miller rejected both socialism and fascism as too rigid and extremist; like most of his work, The American Clock suggests that a healthy society needs to find a balance between individual and collective needs. He would have had no truck with disaster socialism or disaster capitalism, but these are still possibilities the play leaves open.

Miller shows a cross-section, a collage, of Americans across the nation and the social spectrum struggling to achieve a balance between the two, in order to emerge from the catastrophe of the Depression – which Miller characterised in his autobiography, Timebends, as “only incidentally a matter of money. Rather it was a moral catastrophe, a violent revelation of the hypocrisies behind the facade of American society.” The ending of The American Clock is ambivalent about whether social renewal is possible, but understands that belief in American renewal is itself central to American renewal. Optimism becomes the only faith system that matters: hope as ideology, a communal identity defined by collective self-belief.

There are good reasons why Miller is enjoying a renaissance this year: not only was he always a political writer, but his political questions align firmly with our zeitgeist. Miller wrote about the individual’s responsibility to society – but also about society’s responsibility to the individual. He challenged the key myths of American culture, broadly incorporated in the familiar ideas of the American dream, including materialism, self-sufficiency and selfishness, but also blind faith in the lotteries of rags-to-riches stories and the redemptive individual. Miller’s work consistently turns to themes of individual and community, trying to come together to rise above chaos but often stymied by the failings of those individuals.

****

Arthur Miller was born in New York in 1915, when Harlem was a mixed neighbourhood of German, Italian and Jewish immigrants, into which black Americans were moving as they left the South in search of opportunity. His father Isidore, who had immigrated from Poland, had built up a large and prosperous clothing business, but when Arthur was 14, it all came crashing down along with Wall Street. The business failed and the family descended the economic ladder. The effects of the Depression shaped not only Miller’s adolescence but his moral and political imagination – and the rest of his life. “I don’t think America ever got over the Depression,” he later said.

Whatever the truth of that may be, certainly Arthur Miller never got over it. He chose theatre, he said, although he had little experience of it even as an audience member, because “you could talk directly to an audience and radicalise the people”. That didactic impulse never entirely left him, but it swiftly acquired greater subtlety.

Miller’s first play, The Man Who Had All the Luck, closed in 1944 after just four days. Three years later, he found his first success, All My Sons, followed two years after that by Death of a Salesman, still the play for which Miller is best known. In 1953, he produced The Crucible, using the Salem witch trials of 1692 as an analogy for the witch hunts of McCarthyist America; the hat-trick clinched his status as one of America’s major playwrights of the 20th century.

Two years later Miller himself was subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities and publicly defied them. He had begun (improbably, it was felt) dating Marilyn Monroe, who threw the weight of her popularity behind Miller as he resisted the committee’s pressure. At a press conference he announced simultaneously that he would not co-operate and that he and Monroe were engaged. Having refused to plead the fifth amendment, which protects a witness from self-incrimination (and is thus often viewed as a morally evasive choice at best), Miller was charged with contempt of court. His marriage to Monroe was complex and controversial, and for many years after her death in 1962, continued to define his public reputation – not least because of his 1964 play After the Fall, widely condemned at the time as an exercise in self-exculpation.

But culpability was always one of Miller’s themes, to which he returned in later life as the chaos attending a highly public marriage to a movie star, followed by her early death, subsided. Themes of guilt and complicity run through most of his plays as a counterweight to myths of American innocence and optimism: people don’t just betray each other, they betray themselves and their own ideals.

Each of these great plays is driven by their protagonist’s powerful need to believe in their innocence; their acceptance of guilt and collective responsibility is tragic but redemptive – except for Willy Loman, who can never be brought to see his own self-deceptions. They destroy him, and it is left for those wrestling with his legacy to insist that “attention must be paid” to such a man. But all three men at the centre of these plays are destroyed, in different ways, by the shame they feel for their choices, by their self-righteous efforts to justify themselves and the inevitable failures of those self-justifications. This makes denial another constant theme, one that Miller watches play out on personal levels to suggest the ways it operates nationally as well.

****

The structure of a play,” Miller liked to say, “is always the story of how the birds came home to roost.” His best plays open at the beginning of aftermath: they are, from one perspective, all denouement. At the start of All My Sons, Joe Keller has already committed the betrayal – selling bad plane parts to the military – that would more traditionally have been the climax of a different play about Keller’s conflicted decisions. Here, the drama is psychological: Keller and his family must come to terms with the choices he has already made.

Similarly, in Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman has already failed: his death merely makes manifest the moral and psychological death he suffered before the action began. In The Crucible, the affair of John Proctor and Abigail Williams that provokes the dramatic action is already over when the play begins. Drama is not cause, but effect. This also gradually brings the past into the present – a technique Miller learned from Henrik Ibsen – showing that even national history is really just the history of personal choices. Climax is confrontation: confrontations with truth, with personal repercussions and moral ramifications.

Miller’s imagination ran towards the epic and the heroic, apparently insignificant lives embodying significant themes; a certain tendency towards grandiosity was usually checked by the smallness of the lives he explored. Willy Loman’s ordinariness is what makes his claims to tragic heroism in The Death of a Salesman remarkable, rather than sentimental showboating, whereas John Proctor’s place in history risks making his martyrdom in The Crucible overblown. Loman’s tragedy is that he has worked hard, and cannot understand why there have been no rewards; on the contrary, there has been only failure. Like so many Americans today who feel “left behind”, Loman is the representative American who can’t understand why the dream has passed him by.

Although The Death of a Salesman is usually read as a broadside against “the American dream”, it is attacking only a cheapened version of the dream, one that postwar America was busily selling itself: condemnation of a society allowing its aspirational political ideals to deteriorate into justifications of selfish materialism. Miller gave the play a telling subtitle: “Certain private conversations in two acts and a requiem.” It is a requiem less for Loman than for the American dream itself: the degraded dream Loman desires is the corruption of an older, more generous one – ideals of mutual responsibility and opportunity, rather than a simple, deluded faith in the idea that “free enterprise” alone could build an exemplary society. That dream is represented in the play by Willy’s neighbours, Charley and his son Bernard, whose prosperity and stability are set in relief against the Lomans’ psychological and financial precarity. Charley and Bernard represent American meritocracy, for they are also honest, hard-working and compassionate. Bernard’s profession as a lawyer reflects their sense of civic responsibility, symbolising democratic ideals of justice and equality under the law.

Loman’s profession as salesman is just as symbolic of the debased dream he chases: the empty dreams of wealth and status that were engrossing mid-century America in every sense, turning it into a nation of salesmen peddling meretricious kitsch.

The Death of a Salesman was written just as the postwar boom began, as America enjoyed a new prosperity – thanks largely to government investment in programmes such as the GI Bill, which sent millions of returning soldiers to university, and the Federal Housing Administration’s loans, which created housing opportunities like Levittown, celebrated at the time as the American dream made real.

Such government loans gave a man named Fred Trump his start in the property business during the 1940s, when he borrowed sums he was later forced to concede before a congressional inquiry had been “wildly” inflated. He used these inflated loans to develop housing projects that became the foundation of the Trump Organization, which would be sued for racial discrimination by the US Department of Justice in 1973, two years after Fred’s son Donald took over the business. The story of Death of a Salesman is that of a nation running a real risk of moral collapse – of becoming a country of con men.

The story that inspired All My Sons was true. The corruption of American ideals is Miller’s perennial subject, the failures of his “everyman” figures to live up to the values their nation espouses – and thus, by extension, the nation’s failure to do the same. The American tragedy, he suggests, is the human tragedy: the story of people who sell out in every sense.

Willy Loman cannot accept that his values were misplaced; he dies rather than face the hollowness of his own life. Both All My Sons and The Price, by contrast, are plays about living with the feeling of having sold out and the costs of the choices we make. Materialism faces off against idealism once more – but now materialism has a more cynical feel. Loman’s tragedy is less bad faith than having put his faith in a bad bargain. Walter and Victor in The Price, selling off their dead parents’ belongings, are less deluded; they are wrestling with the unintended consequences of their own ordinary choices. They gradually pull down each other’s self-righteous justifications, learning the price of being oneself, while Miller suggests the price of a society that allows its morals to be shaped by economics, for a country that offers “no respect for anything but money”.

In his autobiography, Miller wrote that he hoped the audience would leave The American Clock with “a renewed awareness of the American’s improvisational strength… In a word, the feel of the energy of a democracy.” Can energetic improvisation create a collectivity that overcomes division? It’s tempting to answer with the words of another great American writer and say that it’s pretty to think so.

But cynicism was, for Miller, part of the malaise he seeks to redress: America is not America without its idealism. That said, his dramas end with tragedy, not transcendence. And his tragic heroes are not usually hubristic; their flaws are more ordinary, more sordid. They are men who seek exculpation – but culpability, Miller suggests, is the human condition, the original sin. Character may be destiny – but character is also choice. We are what we do, we are what we choose – and this goes for the societies we create, too, while we watch and wonder if the clock is running down. ...”

3 notes · View notes

phroyd · 6 years

Link

This has been going on for over 5 years, funded by the Koch brothers, to take State Legislatures, turn them Republican, and use ALEC to draft Agreements for passage in those states to Agree on an Article V Constitutional Convention. They have secured 28 out of the necessary 34 States needed for approval. - Phroyd

Mark Levin's bestselling book, The Liberty Amendments, contains some radical notions about a complete overhaul of the US constitution, but to debate the specifics of their merits is to ignore the larger insanity of the project.

He proposes 11 amendments, intended to be affixed more or less immediately (well, as soon as can be achieved), and the number alone is – ahem – audaciously hopeful. Remember, since 1789, the constitution has only been amended 27 times; ten of those amendments were accomplished when passed as a group with the adoption of the bill of rights. There have been over 11,000 proposed amendments. A simple assessment of odds puts any one amendment at about a 0.2% chance of getting passed. The chances of all 11 getting passed is beyond my limited recall of high school mathematics. Then again, in the fantasy world where one of Levin's amendments gets ratified, all of them have 100% chance.

In the real world, almost no one believes conservatives could accomplish what Levin has put forward. He begins the book with a blustery denouncement of the current administration familiar to anyone who's surfed over the AM radio spectrum in recent years. And give Levin credit: his rhetorical style has the ornate filigree of a 19th century lawyer – all embedded clauses and rat-a-tat 50-cent words:

Social engineering and central planning are imposed without end, since the governing masterminds, drunk with their own conceit and pomposity, have wild imaginations and infinite ideas for reshaping society and molding man's nature in search of the ever-elusive utopian paradise.

Levin channels his silken outrage into a generous read of the constitution's article V, which he describes as a mechanism for "restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe (or, in the case of societal collapse, resurrecting the civil society)". The parenthetical aside is telling: he means to impress upon readers – ahem, again – "the fierce urgency of now". With the alarm bells ringing so loudly, we hardly notice the improbability of actuallyusing article V, which theoretically allows state legislatures to directly propose constitutional amendments – amendments that would not be filtered through Congress. (Congress is part of the problem, of course: it "operates not as the framers intended, but in the shadows.")

State legislatures, as Levin fully knows, have become increasingly conservative over recent years – due to the older, whiter, smaller electorate that turns out in off-year contests. If any layer of our government is likely to approve of the amendments Levin puts forward, it's them. Indeed, as he points out, many states already have adopted, for instance, terms limits and balanced budget provisions in their constitutions.

Levin's complaints and his ideas about how to solve them have the perfect structure of a luminous Mobius strip: if you believe his indictments, then you'll believe his solutions. But once you leave his twilit logic, the structure crumbles. Phyllis Schlafly, who plays on the same ideological team as Levin, wrote a response to his article V plan that could be summed up as "LOL": Levin and his supporters are "fooling themselves" if they believe an article V convention can achieve their goals. They can "hope and predict, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true …The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation."

It's no wonder that many conservatives have chosen to believe anyway. Levin's fantasy world is elaborate and specific: he presents his amendments as necessary to recapture the intent of the founders, even as the very proposal of so many "reforms" goes against the founders' explicit design of a constitution that is very difficultchange. The meat of his proposals would be, I think, just as unpalatable to their view of the constitution as a broad outline for governance, one more inclined to negative than positive prescriptions. One fellow conservative noted that Levin seems less interested in reforming a corroded document than "tinkering" with it.

Indeed, the specificity of his recommendations – he includes an amendment that would set an upper limit to government spending as "17.5% of the nation's gross domestic product for the previous calendar year" (the number seems to be drawn out of thin air) – suggests that Levin is working less to save the constitution from "Statists" (capital S, always) than just backwards-engineering his personal ideal.

Indeed, there's no arguing that his recommendations are not largely (if not solely) designed to reshape the country as conservatives desire and to disenfranchise or otherwise disempower anyone who might disagree with those objectives. Levin may be able to muster Federalist Paper-footnoted arguments for term limits for supreme court justices, a national voter ID law, and the strengthening of states' ability to override federal law and supreme court decisions, but the real-world impact of such amendments would be to turn America back toward the Federalist era in terms of civil rights as well.

Levin's ideas are not conservative in political philosophy at all, at least in the sense of "standing athwart history and yelling 'stop'". He is liberal to the extreme when it comes to using the tools of the founders beyond what they intended. He seems to confuse his admiration for the logic and writing of our early leaders with ahistorical alignment with them. The Liberty Amendments is heavily larded with passages lifted from their correspondence as well as the Federalist Papers. And by "heavily larded", I mean give-Paula-Deen-pause "larded". Heart attack-inducing larded. You could fry Levin's book and serve it at a state fair.

But it does not come fried, only half-baked. The passages from the founders are not invigorating (or tasty), but dry coughs of rationalization. Yet, it is their frequency that makes Levin's book curiously impressive: it debuted at the top of the New York Times bestseller list. And it is as boring as a phone book – or a recitation of the Affordable Care Act.

Though sprinkled throughout with the ranty denouncement of "soft tyranny" that energizes likeminded listeners to his radio show, the odd genius of The Liberty Amendments isn't that he has riled up his base with fiery rhetoric, but that he seems to have riled it up without it. Given the ludicrousness of his specific "fixes" and the near-impossibility of achieving them, Levin has produced something I have to concede I admire – as a literary trope, if nothing else – speculative fiction disguised as documentary. I admit I liked it better in World War Z.

It is true that Levin's amendments are dead on arrival, but his are zombie ideas that may yet attack. Levin has been mentioned as a possible moderator for the Republican national committee's 2016 primary debates. The committee intends them to be more substantive and less theatrical than the clown-car contests of 2012.

The notion that Levin would lend gravitas, via his originalist fixations, to the events has understandable appeal. But gravitas only comes from plans that are grounded, and Levin's are just wishes, conjured out of thin air.

Phroyd

#us constitution and civil liberties #republicans #us congress #us supreme court #law

5 notes · View notes

deutscheshausnyu · 6 years

Text

Interview with Ruth Kaaserer

Ruth Kaaserer is the current filmmaker-in-residence at Deutsches Haus at NYU. She won the 2017 Viennale MehrWERT Filmpreis for her film Gwendolyn.

Photograph courtesy of Maria Ziegelböck

To start, perhaps you can tell us a bit about your background in Austria and Germany. In particular, what impact did studying sculpture at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna have on your approach to filmmaking?

Originally from Austria, I grew up in Munich, Germany and then went on to study sculpture in Vienna. Film has always been an important part of my life. Mostly everything I know about film comes from going to the movies. The Austrian Filmmuseum was and still is a great influence with its amazing retrospectives and programs. My artwork definitely has an impact on my work as a filmmaker. Before I started making films, I made analogue slide installations with sound dealing concurrently with the language of film and physical space. In comparison to a spatial installation, film might seem at first two dimensional, but it opens up into the endless space of imagination. It is just another way of telling a story to an audience.

You won the 2017 Viennale Mehrwehrt Filmpreis for your documentary Gwendolyn. What led you to make a documentary about Gwendolyn Leick? How did you go about getting her consent to give such a personal view into her life? What was it like filming and working with her on a day-to-day basis?

When I started my research I was looking for a woman pioneer who had already achieved something in life. I met Gwendolyn through a friend and her extraordinary personality immediately triggered something within me. She seemed so elegant and delicate on the one hand and so strong on the other. Her half paralyzed face due to surgery made her even more interesting combined with her dark humor and her crooked smile. I felt there was so much to discover. She was the perfect character for my film. We spent a lot of time together before starting to film. It was such a pleasure working with her as she was not only opening up for filming but also invited me into her life and those of the people surrounding her. The filming process was very concentrated and we were mostly filming arranged scenes. I wanted her to go beyond simply being herself and rather be like a character in a movie.

What do you consider to be your role as the documentary filmmaker when telling the story of someone like Gwendolyn Leick? How did you balance presenting the physical, intellectual, and personal aspects of her character?

It is a long process from the very first moment of imagining a film to the final film. Having had the chance to work with someone as versatile as Gwendolyn constantly opening up a new side of her was wonderful and rewarding. When I met her, she was experiencing major changes in her life. She had just moved from her old house where she had lived over the past twenty years into an apartment on the 16th floor of a new building. She had also retired only recently from her job teaching architectural theory and history at Chelsea College. And after looking back at her career as an anthropologist and assyriologist, having written several renowned books about Old Mesopotamia, she had just started to write her first literary book about the personal relationship between her grandmother and the writer Gertrude Stein. Instead of telling about her life in the past, I felt it was the right thing to start right there where she was at in this very moment in her life.

Both Gwendolyn and your previous documentary, Tough Cookies (2014), focus on strong women engaging in physical activities traditionally considered as masculine. What attracts you to making documentaries on these subjects?

The main characters of both films are women who have the strength to step out of the ordinary by simply following their dreams. They are women who refuse to fit into stereotypical images. The young boxers in my first film align their whole lives according to boxing and therefore accept major compromises both in their private and business lives. Gwendolyn goes even further by constantly embracing new situations no matter what they are. Both boxing and weight lifting are still being perceived as male-dominated even though the number of women in these sports increases constantly. The characters in my films not only challenge these preconceptions about what women or men should be or do, they also give ideas about different ways of living. For me this is not only inspiring, but feels like a necessity.

You are now in New York as the filmmaker-in-residence at Deutsches Haus at NYU. What do you hope to accomplish during your time here? Will you be working on any new film projects? Aside from your artistic endeavors, is there anything in particular you hope to take advantage of while you’re in New York?

Currently I am working on the script for my first fiction film. Even though it is based in Europe I know that New York will inspire me in my writing and I look forward to it so much. I also want to enjoy cultural life here, connect with the local film scene, meet my friends, and make new ones. Between 2005 and 2008, I lived here part-time and did a project about community gardens. It is a two channel slide-audio installation leading through all four seasons. It will be great to see the gardens and gardeners again, especially now when everything is in full bloom. And I look very much forward to showing my film Gwendolyn at Anthology Film Archives later this autumn.

3 notes · View notes

johnbunkerart · 4 years

Text

Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. Triangle Space and Cookhouse Galleries, Chelsea College of Arts, London, 2015. Curator’s Essay.

Frank's career as an artist endured a fiery baptism in the ferment of the 1960s. But this text is not an art-historical overview of Frank's life and how it is bound up with that legendary time of social upheaval and change. It would be too easy to dwell on the mythologies that have grown up around this period, to be nostalgic about those years and in doing so focus on just a fragment of Frank's artistic output. We are in a new century. We are in the ferment of new mythologies and legends. Frank has always said that it is vital to keep moving—to keep moving forward. He continues to make ambitious paintings that press hard upon the history of art but still take the art of painting on to new horizons. There has been a sudden resurgence of interest in and serious academic study of Frank's oeuvre—an oeuvre that spans over 60 years. But Frank is interested in what is happening right now in his studio, on that table, on the floor and on those walls. It is in this spirit that I have decided to approach this exhibition by focusing on these very recent paintings. I feel extremely privileged to have seen a number of these works develop from their very inception to their completion.

Installation view, Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. 2015, Chelsea College of Arts

Having said that, Frank Bowling's art is one of intelligent and complex syntheses. His unique feel for his materials allows him to harness the potentials of the field painting of the original ‘irascibles’, Pollock, Newman and Rothko. But Frank's interests also lie in the cooler ‘high’ modernism of the American Post-Painterly Abstractionists such as Morris Louis and Kenneth Noland. This is then combined with his deep admiration for the British landscape tradition and the likes of Gainsborough, Constable and Turner. One could continue to throw names into Frank Bowling's painterly alchemist's hat, but what comes out is always fresh, vital and utterly his own. On top of all that is his very particular prismatic sense of memory and place. The bittersweet complexities of his colonial upbringing, the ambitious restlessness that saw Frank flit between studios in New York and London for many years; all these connections and associations only deepen the richness and essential generosity of spirit that these new works effortlessly emanate.

Installation view, Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. 2015, Chelsea College of Arts

If one really begins to study the world of appearances it very quickly becomes a realm of staggering complexity and dynamism. Instead of trying to mimic these infinite details the abstract artist attempts to find visual equivalents for myriad experience, celebrating sensations of life lived in colour, in paint's unmatchable rich plasticity.

For years Frank has worked on an almost molecular level with the effects and very different consistencies that acrylic paints can provide for the painter. Translucent gels can suspend particles of pigment above other layers of paint. One is reminded of sumptuous Jules Olitski paintings that work with the effects of spray, pearlescent powders, paints and gels. One might also think of Larry Poons' congealed and clotted paintings that activate every inch of their surfaces to the effects of light. But Bowling's new paintings combine larger expanses of stained canvas that are cut, stapled, stitched and glued together. There is an altogether more airy, open and presentational quality—a new and different sense of space about them. They effortlessly combine years of tireless experimentation with a new sense of confidence—a confidence and ambition that younger painters would do well to learn from. There is an exhilaration induced by the way Frank is juggling with formal complexity. But never does it tip over into utter chaos or flat 'Modernist' mannerism. So how does he continue to achieve such a captivating balancing act between the historical imperatives listed above and the here and now of painting in the moment—in the present tense?

I think he has achieved this by finding a creative friction, a duality at the heart of his developing process over the years. This core duality seems to be comprised of what at first might seem like two opposing ideas about Modernism. The first is a vision of Modernist painting that is aligned with his interest in painting's essential properties—a sort of Modernist classicism, if you will. This idea of ‘abstraction’ led Frank into a deep study of geometry, colour and the developments in acrylic paints and mediums. All these investigations carried on while in dialogue with the art critic Clement Greenberg, who helped Frank in marshalling his confidence to strike out as an abstract painter. But Frank's is a very special brand of 'formalism' that does not lose its links to the social sphere. He grew up surrounded by the imposing architecture of colonial powers transplanted from Northern Europe to the tropics, where they are symbols of both social organisation and subjugation and power. Frank’s interest in geometry has always been underpinned by a keen knowledge of its origins in architectural space and utilitarian value. In a quotidian, everyday way, we feel 'at home' with the ubiquitous formal rules of proportion that permeate our every move in the domestic and public realms of Western architecture and design. In fact, the very humble table on which so much of Frank's current work originates adheres, like any other, to a set of recognisable formal properties as regards to its dimensions and potential practical uses. The bands of colour that are stacked across so many of these new works correspond to that very table's dimensions. But there remains a critical awareness in Frank's approach to the complex histories that permeate the formal values of proportion and scale in Western art and architecture.

Installation view, Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. 2015, Chelsea College of Arts

The second and more difficult version of Modernism is to do with the improvisatory spirit of collage. This other ‘modernism’ seems to be almost exclusively urban. It is abstraction that is not about ‘formalisms’ as such. But it is a place where "the transient, the ephemeral, the contingent" (Baudelaire, The Painter of Modern Life, 1863) can grow new hybrid forms. Collage makes a direct connection to the brain’s readiness to associate, to form bridges between objects and spaces, times and places. But it also shatters patterns, disrupts control and breaks laws. From this perspective, painting becomes a realm in which the mind’s cognitive processes are echoed or played out. In Frank's hands paint itself acts as a kind of binding agent transforming anything it touches, bringing disparate collaged elements into new relationships, by turns masking and revealing, heeding some boundaries and breaching others.

It can be so easy for formally driven painting to become reified, reductive and obscure. But these works showcase Frank's deep understanding of the protean nature and potential of the medium of painting. They sing out with a wide range of paint handling and highly focused yet open and inviting colour structures. But they also have the visual 'bite' that collage can give the artist. There are abrupt changes in speed and painterly attack. Surprising intimations of space are created by the layering of cut canvas, patterned silk, or the stencils of decorative patterning that punctuate the paintings’ surfaces.

We can also see how aspects of his earlier work and career are recombined, creating new and exciting configurations. In About Recent Weather Too, Downpour and Ashton's Mix, Frank has responded to the highly acclaimed show of his poured paintings from the 70s that ran at Tate Britain from 2012-13.But these new 'pours' run across the paintings instead of straight down them. They bleed through rectangles of collaged canvas, creating exquisite pools of colour that activate the divergent surfaces held thereunder.

These reoccurring collaged squares and oblongs of canvas visually echo the edges of the works. They accentuate the 'thingness' of the painting while simultaneously drawing the eye into their complex visual echoes and semi-submerged counter rhythms. Take Fire Below and Across the Wadi for example. The formats of these paintings are deceptively simple and similar. But although these two works may seem architecturally alike, they individually take on a completely different timbre of feeling. Frank's real talent for colour can embrace and articulate such a wide range of emotional registers. Fire Below turns suddenly from rich deep red impastos to chalky cool stains that lash the top band of stitched canvas with tongues of icy fire. By contrast, Across The Wadi undulates with the repeated striations of warm yellows and oranges and pink highlights that streak the bands of collaged and stitched canvas. We can also see the emergence of more overtly gestural signs that open these fields of stains and scintillating webs of drips to a different kind of expressive and direct use of paint.

Installation view, Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. 2015, Chelsea College of Arts

Many people do not know what to make of the term improvisation. It seems to have become a catch-all for anarchy or just doing anything that comes to mind. Anyone who has seriously studied improvisation in any discipline will tell you that it is anything but! In fact, it’s all about ingenuity, innovation and initiative, all of which are vitally creative and very human attributes. The tighter the rules of the improvisation, the stronger the results. If those rules become shared and evolve between individuals and groups then whole new languages within any given medium are formed. If and when these rules become stiff or stale and no longer relevant to the artists and the culture at large, it is the artists, alone or in conversation, who change them; they reinvent them anew. Think of the great Jazz musicians on stage, in a heightened state of awareness, listening intently for their fellow musician’s next move. They all share a deep love of their form and its history, but each great player has a singular unique take on it, a particular sound signature that is their own. Frank remembers the exchanges of ideas between visual artists made on numerous studio visits in New York of the 60s and 70s as having a similar quality. A particular way of working or combination of materials are discovered by one artist and then shared with his or her peers. Someone else runs with it for a while and it is then passed on in a new form.

Life as an artist can be tough and at different times in one's career, money can be very, very tight. Finding materials to work with means being prepared to take up and explore what is to hand. The materials that one artist decides to throw away might keep another artist going for months. Even though Frank might not be working in the same socio-political and economic conditions now, that sharp eye for surprise and the visual potential of all kinds of materials remains intact. I remember how Frank very kindly agreed to meet me in 2008 while still recovering from a serious illness. He patiently answered all my old hackneyed questions about Greenberg, formalism and the New York scene of the 60s and 70s. Soon after, I was at a show of his and found myself drawn to one particular painting. It was beautiful in the mastery of colour and paint but on closer inspection I realised that the central configuration of the work was built up from the used tips of insulin pens. Not only was this a precise piece of formal painting but it was also a record of human dependency and vulnerability. It was both beautiful and dangerous. Frank has developed a unique kind of dialogue with the objects and the life around him and that means the ‘low’ stuff as well as the ‘high’ stuff.

Installation view, Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. 2015, Chelsea College of Arts

Whatever the obstacles Frank has faced in his career, he has used these attributes of improvisation to find a way round them; or he has made those obstacles part of the work. Now he is using limitations imposed by illness or being in one's advanced years to his advantage. One is reminded of Matisse attaching a pencil to a long stick and drawing on the wall from his sick bed, or those incredibly visceral 'Cut-Outs' made with scissors "cutting into colour" while sat in a wheelchair.

Installation view, Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. 2015, Chelsea College of Arts

Many of the paintings here are testimony to the importance that Frank has placed on the individuals and family members that are part of the fabric of his creative life. These large-scale works are a celebration of a more collaborative approach in Frank's process. Frank’s wife Rachel Scott is, like him, a graduate of the Royal College of Art. In the late 70s, dissatisfied with painting, she taught herself what she sees as the much more practical skill of weaving. Ever since she has made rugs of stunning beauty by weaving reductive geometric patterns from the wool of Britain's many and varied breeds of sheep. Rachel is Frank's constant companion in the studio. She cuts the canvases, and helps staple, stitch and glue the variously sized and shaped pieces into the sophisticated arrangements that define the very architecture of each of the works. Gradually over the years other members of the Scott- Bowling clan have become more involved in the various and diverse processes that Frank's works have included. These collaborative strategies are giving Frank access to a newfound spontaneity. Collaborations by their very nature are multifarious and sophisticated interactions and can take on many forms in the studio. For instance, Frank's heavy tray-like palette might be loaded with three or four colours mixed by Frank. The collaborator then might be asked to hurl the paint from the palette at the un-stretched canvas stapled to the wall. Or she or he may have to lean over and pour paint down a suspended canvas as directed. Frank is then all set to respond to these initial moves. The collaborator might be asked to take the canvas from the wall allowing paint to puddle, run and coalesce in new configurations. All this requires intense vigilance, good communication and a fast reactive stance as the results unfold in the moment. Stamina and some strength are required as the often large expanse of canvas makes constant journeys from the table to the wall to the floor and back again. Frank then might 'change tack' after these initial moves, spending hours in deep thought, considering how to take the work forward as the paint 'cooks' away before him.

Through the window of the Cookhouse Galleries...

As I've mentioned, Frank's working table plays an important role in deciding the formal proportions of many of the paintings. But I'd also like to focus on the buckets or paint cans that are used to hold canvases in place as they are unfurled from the walls or from the workman's table onto the floor. As the paint is applied it runs down and pools in the part of the canvas that runs to the floor. As it dries it forms ghostly circular imprints where the paint cans stand and the pigments come to rest and coagulate. In many of the paintings these simple circular imprints become shimmering moons and dark suns jostling for position in amongst the colour-saturated oblongs of stitched canvas. They invite the eyes to roam with them across the many and varied surfaces, appearing and disappearing within. But they can also act as visual anchors in the painting. Remember Thine Eyes is defined by an intense cascade of yellow-white effervescent paint running over beautiful, darker and heavier bands of colour. The circles add an uncanny symmetry to the painting. This work somehow mirrors one's body as one stands before it. The circles hum with energy as though emanating their own opposing magnetic fields from each side of the painting. They both suck in the subtler greens and blues around them and spit out a crackling fiery light. The whole painting seethes and undulates before one’s eyes. It is an intensely physical as well as a visual experience. Again we see the transformation of a practical studio procedure into stunning painterly surprise. These improvisations with his everyday working environment are supplying Frank with different patterns of process, new signs and signals that can be reconfigured in his painterly realm.

Installation view, ‘Remember Thine Eyes’ (2014),Acrylic paint on canvas, 237.5 x 189 cm. Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. 2015, Chelsea College of Arts

I hope this show will go some way in bringing renewed attention and new audiences to Frank Bowling's exceptional body of recent works. Painting in Frank's experienced hands is alive and kicking as never before. He has achieved this by continuing to explore the potential of abstract painting's own histories, its peculiarities and unique position in history and culture generally. Frank has made his mark by running with the Modernist spirit of medium innovation and the power of colour. But he is also a master of the collagic impulse, the subtle or overt disruption of the picture plane, always pushing at the limits of his process. There is a recognition of how life, with all its journeys and vulnerabilities, finds its way back into the work. But also there are the very special qualities that collaboration has brought to the work. They have renewed Frank's abilities to improvise and constantly expand his repertoire, always deepening his painting process. For a painter now in his 80s, this is a staggering achievement and there is a lesson here for us all—young and old.

Installation view, Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. 2015, Chelsea College of Arts

Frank and Rachel's donation of two scholarships to Chelsea emphasises their commitment to bringing opportunity into the arts. We are too rapidly becoming used to an education system tailored to the needs of those who take their financial resources for granted. My wish to meet Frank grew from my interest in abstract artists whose careers, like my own, didn't fit the stereotypical art student trajectory. Frank started out as a painter when the work of Black artists was only beginning to be recognised in the art world. He railed against attempts to marginalise and ghettoise his and his colleagues’ art. Frank has taken on the challenges of staking his own very special claim on abstraction with a vigour and conviction that still holds fast to this day. I believe it is more important now than ever to appreciate the historical importance of his career in these terms—but also to recognise how relevant his experiences and his example might be to younger artists. We live in times where the world seems constantly on the move. Our notions of 'home' are changing too; migrations, emigrations and immigrations are on the international political agenda as never before. Frank continues to take the art of abstract painting into new uncharted territories, always weary of being pigeonholed as a 'Black artist' both by the white elites of the art world or those looking for some kind of essential Black identity. It has been said that Frank is British art's 'best kept secret', or words to that effect. My question, though, is: why was he ever a 'secret' at all? A loaded question? I leave you to consider the implications of it. It is a question that can be added to the ongoing debates about identity, gender, race and class as they play out now in the 21st century. But here is an artist who, by exploring painting on his own terms, has gone some way in changing the agenda for the generations of artists to come. This is Frank Bowling. Right here. Right now.

John Bunker. Stepney, London. 2015.

Frank Bowling and John Bunker at the opening of Frank Bowling: Right Here. Right Now. 2015, Chelsea College of Arts, London.

Coming next... Curator’s essay for Rachel Scott. Warp & Weft 2015 Chelsea College of Arts.

0 notes