Entering the 1960s, women faced the pressure of expected societal roles: marrying young, focusing on home, and becoming housewives. Although women were able to enter the workforce and attend college, expectations of hyperfeminity —exaggeration of feminine traits and conformity to traditional gender roles— remained very significant.1 The early 1960s brought the rise of the second-wave of feminism, which encouraged women to fight for their legal, economic, and social rights. Second-wave feminism also recognized that the earlier feminist movement that concentrated on suffrage did not achieve full equality for all women. The new movement in the 1960s included women’s rights to education, inclusion in male-dominated professions and trades, equal pay for equal work, justice for sexual harassment and violence, and access to reproductive choices such as birth control and abortion.2 National music trends reflected this growing movement. Female artists began addressing themes of equality, autonomy, and challenges to traditional expectations, aligning their music with the goals of second-wave feminism. These feminist national music trends were also connected to the experiences and activism of women at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Women on UMD’s campus began to advocate for themselves as the 1960s progressed, responding to cultural shifts through their engagement with music, their resistance to university policies, and their exploration of feminism. UMD women joined the larger fight for equality, resisting social structures that tried to limit them and creating a space for feminist voices to be heard.
Women’s Records at the University of Maryland
Women were first admitted as undergraduates at the University of Maryland in 1916. Through the 1960s, there were many expectations placed on women to maintain control over their behavior, with no equivalent policies created for men. The University of Maryland General and Academic Regulations limited women’s freedom, while men were independent and free from these constraints. For example, women had to follow curfews, sign in and out daily, and report their whereabouts and companions to residence hall staff to regulate their movement.3 This reflected a broader pattern of society limiting women’s autonomy; the rules reinforced traditional gender norms, highlighting the contrast between growing female independence and institutional structures that restricted it.
University of Maryland General and Academic Regulations, 1967–1969, SCUA.
Windoffer, “Women Who Work,” Internationalist Social Review, 1962, SCUA.
“Women Who Work,” is a radical women’s position paper from 1962 that discusses discrimination faced by women in the United States workforce. Written by Melba Windoffer in Seattle, WA, the paper explores issues such as the fight for equal pay and other gender-based inequalities. The main topics explored include the exploitation of women in terms of unequal pay and how those in higher positions of power often reduce women’s roles to “housekeepers,” or “mothers.”4 Windoffer also encourages women to enter the workforce, believing it would give them an identity outside of their husbands and home. This was seen as a way to address discrimination, framing it as a social issue. Just as Windoffer argues that women’s roles in society were limited, women at the University of Maryland were subject to institutional policies that reinforced traditional gender norms and limited their independence on campus. Like the arguments in Windoffer’s paper, feminist movements at the University of Maryland challenged these structures by pushing for greater opportunities and freedom for women in all parts of society. Regular devaluation of women by sexist structures reinforced economic structures that kept women in lower positions in the workforce. Capitalist societies inherently benefit from this exploitation, as women’s domestic labor supports the economy.5 As a result, women’s roles in both the home and the workplace reflected capitalist structures that minimized their economic contributions.
Student Activism On Campus
Student resistance at UMD in the 1960s was part of a larger wave of activism. During this time, young people increasingly challenged authority, even when their ideas were considered controversial or censored. The Spark, a national newsletter produced by the socialist and leftist Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was distributed by the UMD chapter as part of its resistance against administrative control. Through their writing and newsletter distribution, members of SDS pushed back against censorship, protested broader political issues like the Vietnam War, and confronted systems of power. Their work reflected a time in the 1960s when student, civil rights, and feminist movements often overlapped with leftist criticism of inequality. These students exposed systems of authority that reinforced inequality and restricted voices within institutions.6 Student resistance at UMD was not without its challenges and did not always result in victories. Women still faced systems of oppression within the university and society at large. Activism was often met with resistance from administration, and students still encountered limits to their success, even when they were able to make their voices heard.
Cover of Spark, Let the People Decide, no. 2, November 28, 1967, SCUA.
The Spark gave students a platform to speak out, with marginalized groups across society demanding more democratic and equal participation in shaping their futures. One issue, published on November 28, 1967, directly confronted the university’s attempts to restrict student power and silence SDS members by labeling the university administration’s publications as “obscene.”7 This issue captures the environment of resistance and growing tension between students and institutional authority over the Vietnam War, student rights, social justice, and free speech movements.
Both the struggles and the successes of student activism were showcased in the student newspaper The Diamondback. This publication also served as a platform for UMD women to make their voices heard, reporting on their efforts to gain access to spaces like WMUC and propose petitions for changes to dress codes and curfews. In 1960, WMUC introduced “Miss Midnight,” which featured a woman anonymously signing off the station’s broadcast at midnight. Due to curfew regulations that only restricted women students living on campus, the sign-off had to be tape-recorded. WMUC invited women to audition for the program, requiring them to read a five-minute program for a panel of judges.8 They were evaluated not only on the content of their script but also on their voice and performance. The emphasis on the quality of their voice, rather than their ideas, underscores the expectation that women be judged more for their charm and physicality than for the value of their thoughts. This reflects the tendency of society to reduce women to their mannerisms and appearance rather than their intellectual contributions. While programs run by men were allotted an hour of airtime, Miss Midnight was given only five minutes to sign off the station with “soothing mood music.”9
“Girls Audition for WMUC’s Miss Midnight,” The Diamondback, October 7, 1960.
Additionally, women in the article are often referred to as “girls” instead of women. This infantilizing language reinforces the idea that some students at UMD saw women as lesser, not as equals, but as objects of amusement. Bill Tynan, the Managing Editor on Fridays for The Diamondback, commented that Miss Midnight’s program would “interest all red-blooded males,” further emphasizes the sexualization of women, reducing their presence to a way of satisfying male desire, as the term “red-blooded” refers to men being full of sexual energy.10 We can infer that WMUC was looking for Miss Midnight to have a sultry vocal quality to satisfy male listeners, reflecting societal views that confined women to stereotypical roles. Although women at UMD were making strides in their activism, their representation in public, even within student-run programs like WMUC, was still heavily constrained. This was an ongoing struggle in a system that minimized their contributions and reduced women to stereotypical roles.
George, “Coeds Voting Tonight on Curfew Proposal,” The Diamondback, February 13, 1967.
By the middle of the decade, women students began challenging their frustrations into direct action. In 1967, female students organized petitions to overturn the university’s curfew policies for women. The policy required seniors and those over the age of 21 to return to their dorms by a specific hour. The proposal resolution included introducing a new key-card system that would allow women greater personal freedom.11 The university’s curfews reflected society’s desire to control and regulate women’s behavior. By advocating for the removal of curfews, women students asserted their right to self-governance, demonstrating to the university that they deserved independence. This effort helped raise awareness of the gendered power structures present on campus, as no curfew restrictions were placed on UMD men.12
The 1964–1965 Association of Women Students’ yearbook documents such as the Information Please! handbook outlined the rules and expectations that impacted the experience of women students on campus.13 Information surrounding conduct expectations and standards of dress highlighted UMD’s control mechanisms that were used to ensure order.
The dress codes at UMD served as a controlling mechanism, ensuring that women adhered to societal expectations regarding dress and conduct. In this way, the university regulated student behavior, reinforcing gender norms and maintaining social order.14 However, a petition developed by the Association of Women Students, worked to make the womens’ dress code voluntary rather than mandatory. It also represented a form of resistance, reflecting a growing awareness among young women in the 1960s of the limitations imposed on them in university settings.
The Association of Women Students’ petition addressed not only clothing restrictions, but also the desire for equality and bodily agency. The regulations on women’s attire enforced ideals of modesty and innocence, reinforcing gender hierarchies and limiting women’s self-expression on campus.15
Associated Women Students, The University of Maryland Associated Women Students Scrapbook, 1954–1955, SCUA.
Central Student Court, “SGA vs CHEERLEADERS Decision,” 1969, SCUA.
Struggles over racial equality also emerged on campus. In 1969, a Student Government Association case at the University of Maryland involved accusations of racial discrimination within the cheerleading team. This began when there was a proposal to hold special tryouts for Black women to increase diversity on the team. Supporters viewed the special tryouts as a way to correct historical exclusion and underrepresentation of Black students, while others argued that it was unfair for other groups and may create new forms of division. The Central Student Court found the cheerleaders not guilty of discriminatory practices due to a lack of conclusive evidence. However, the case sparked debate on campus about race and inclusion within student organizations. A group of students petitioned for a vote on the proposed changes.16
This case reflects tensions over how universities and society itself address systemic racism and inequality. For Black women, these struggles intersect with both race and gender. Debates about diversity and inclusion on campus reflected broader conversations about representation and tokenized inclusion to only give the appearance of diversity.
Throughout the 1960s, students began to make their voices heard by voting to change unfair rules and regulations placed on women. Check out this map to see real locations on and around campus where history was made!
Music for Women in the 1960s
At the same time as women at UMD navigated sexist structures, women in the music industry also navigated these structures, placing UMD’s women in line with national trends. In the 1960s, many women in popular music were given no control over their own identities. Male executives in the industry managed the public image and styles of female artists, especially in girl groups. Traditional femininity ideas were reflected in the synchronized performances and matching outfits of each artist or group. This treatment reflected a larger struggle for empowerment that women faced not only in the music industry but in society as a whole. Collectively, women were valued not as people, but as useful commodities for men, defined only by their abilities and uses. With the most important goal being a profit, women consistently navigated exploitation for personal gain.17
“Tonight you’re mine completely
You give your love so sweetly
Tonight the light of love is in your eyes
But will you love me tomorrow?
Is this a lasting treasure
Or just a moment’s pleasure?
Can I believe the magic of your sighs?
Will you still love me tomorrow?”18
The Shirelles’ performance of the song “Will You Love Me Tomorrow” presents a carefully crafted image of femininity through both visual and musical elements. Their synchronized dance moves, matching hairstyles, and black dresses reinforced a polished, unified aesthetic that reflected conventional ideals of femininity at the time. These elements of the performance, particularly their coordinated outfits and movements, suggested a sense of togetherness among the group, reinforcing a feminine ideal that was designed to be aspirational for young women. The style in which girl groups, such as The Shirelles, performed their songs presented an idea of innocence that was not always reflected in their lyricism. “Will You Love Me Tomorrow” tackles the contentious topic of premarital sex, which was considered to be extremely inappropriate sexual behavior for a girl.19 This gave women the opportunity to explore their own self-expression, independence, and showed that women could talk about a “taboo” topic while being labeled as decorous and virtuous.20 The Shirelles’ version of “Will You Love Me Tomorrow” reached number one on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1961, giving the song the opportunity to normalize the message across the country, including to UMD, and therefore give other artists the courage to send similar messages through their music.21 Songs like this, where artists challenged gender norms and discussed risque subjects, allowed society to become more open to these taboo topics. Through these conscious efforts and gained experiences, people were able to slowly change their mental habits and prewired thoughts around the subject.22
These songs were conscious efforts and served as a form of activism, leading to better rights for reproductive choices for women across the country. Women began to have legal access to safe birth control and abortions. Planned Parenthoods began to open across the country, including near UMD, as can be seen on our map.
“You don’t own me
I’m not just one of your many toys
You don’t own me
Don’t say I can’t go with other boys
And don’t tell me what to do
Don’t tell me what to say
And please, when I go out with you
Don’t put me on display”23
Lesley Gore’s “You Don’t Own Me,” released in 1963, challenged traditional gender norms by rejecting the expectation for women to be submissive in relationships. Gore was a white, middle-class, Jewish teenager who used this feminist recording as a way to steer away from the typical love songs that female artists were expected to produce. She directly critiques the objectification and control women often face in relationships. Gore declares freedom and independence for all women; “You Don’t Own Me” served as a call to action for women to stop accepting the restrictions placed on them, such as control over where they could go and when. The song reached No. 2 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 in 1964, meaning women everywhere were listening to the song and taking in its message. Given its chart success, it is safe to assume that students at the University of Maryland, like many students across the country, were also hearing the song and internalizing its feminist message.24 This cultural shift contributed to movements nationwide and student activism at UMD, where women organized efforts to change campus curfew rules. As the song called for independence, it reflected a demand for autonomy, with women on college campuses becoming more vocal about their rights and freedoms.
In the same manner, artist Dionne Warwick’s 1962 song, “Don’t Make Me Over,” encouraged women to fight for self-expression and resist control. Through lyrics like “Accept me for what I am, Accept me for the things I do,” Warwick expresses her desire and need for her partner to support who she is and her actions without control.25 This song entered the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 in 1963, and spent twelve weeks at No. 21. Given its popularity, it can be inferred that this song and its message reached students at the University of Maryland. Warwick’s song both encouraged women to stand true to their identity and advocate for themselves. This call for acceptance reflects and reifies both nationwide feminist movements and student activism at the University of Maryland, as UMD students fought to change unequal standards of dress.
In the 1960s, artist Aretha Franklin shaped feminist movements due to the confidence she expressed in her music. Her 1969 performance at the University of Maryland marked a significant moment in the intersection of feminism, music, and campus culture. As popular music began to shift away women’s roles to gentle, romantic themes, Franklin’s version of “Respect,” an original single by Otis Redding, redefined what it meant for women to sing about love, power, and identity. Her adaptation of the song boosted its popularity, reaching no. 1 on both the R&B and pop charts. Franklin released her version in 1967, making it very likely to have been performed at UMD26
“RHA-UCA Presents Aretha Franklin in Concert” Advertisement, The Diamondback, April 22, 1969.
“R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Take care, TCB
Oh (sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me)
A little respect (sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me)
Whoa, babe (just a little bit)
A little respect (just a little bit)
I get tired (just a little bit)
Keep on tryin’ (just a little bit)
You’re runnin’ out of fools (just a little bit)” 27
Franklin’s vocal delivery in her version of “Respect,” is both powerful and direct as she spells out “R-E-S-P-E-CT”28 placing emphasis on each letter. Franklin redefines “Respect,” as she is not asking, but instead demanding for her partner to treat her equally. Franklin’s confident and assertive vocal style contrasted the passive portrayals of women in mainstream pop, as she resisted against compliancy, and reinforced her authority. Her use of call-and-response techniques with her background singers work to affirm her message of objection against patriarchal norms. As the backup singers echo “sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me,” both Franklin’s urgency and insistence for respect are showcased, and the repetition augment Franklin’s demand to be heard, representing a collective movement toward autonomy and gender equality.
The performance was significant beyond its musical impact. The fact that a university hosted Franklin’s performance, sponsored by the Residence Hall Association, suggests a campus-wide interest and increased engagement with female artists. This signals a shift in how younger audiences were engaging with feminism and cultural change. Female artists worked within a male-dominated system but found ways to resist and redefine their roles.29 Franklin’s presence on a major university campus emphasized the need for women to be heard and respected, not just in music but other aspects of life. Music like hers inspired young women to view themselves differently, and the ad illustrates how institutions like universities were beginning to promote changing narratives around female empowerment.
By examining student experiences at the University of Maryland, this research connects national music trends with campus life, showing the intersection between national movements and student activism. Activism and cultural expression during the 1960s did more than just confront the societal structures that limited women, but also opened doors for feminist voices to be heard, creating spaces where women could inspire change. This era marked the beginning of a lasting movement that continues to evolve, and it serves as a reminder of the ongoing fight for justice and equality.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
American Women in Radio and Television. “International Projects The Educational Foundation of the American Women in Radio and Television, Inc.” Circa 1960s. Box 1, Folder 1: General Business–Application and Letters of Incorporation, 1963–1965. Series 1: General Business, 1958–1993 undated. American Women in Radio and Television (AWRT) Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
Aretha Franklin. “Respect.” Track 1 on I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You, Recorded 1967, Atlantic SD 8139, 1967.
Associated Women Students. The University of Maryland Associated Women Students Scrapbook, 1954–1955. Box 2. Series 1: Scrapbooks, 1957–1961 and 1964–1967. Associated Women Students Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
Associated Women Students. The University of Maryland Associated Women Students Scrapbook, 1964–1965. Box 1. Series 1: Scrapbooks, 1957–1961 and 1964–1967. Associated Women Students Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
Associated Women Students. The University of Maryland Associated Women Students Scrapbook, 1965–1967. Box 3. Series 1: Scrapbooks, 1957–1961 and 1964–1967. Associated Women Students Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
Central Student Court. “SGA vs CHEERLEADERS Decision.” 1969. Box 1, Folder 12: Cheerleaders, 1969. Series 5: Student Organizations, 1952–1970. Division of Student Affairs Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
Clarke, Helen. Dean of Women 1963–66. Proposed Statement of Dress. 1963–64. Box 5, Folder 3: Dean of Women, 1963–1966. Series 1: Administration, 1947–1970. Division of Student Affairs Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
Dionne Warwick. “Don’t Make Me Over.” Track 7 on Presenting Dionne Warwick. Recorded 1962-1963. Scepter SPS 508, 1963.
Floam, Steve. “Ella Here Tomorrow, 10,000 Expected to See Celebrity’s Performance.” The Diamondback. October 31, 1961. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/result/id/25732861-7963-4add-9da6-e669770d91e1?relpath=pcdm.
Gainen, Susan. “Planned Parenthood Centers Would Aid University Coeds.” The Diamondback. September 10, 1969. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/student-newspapers-old/id/0c8097bf-2cb2-47d1-96c6-4065249039e4?query=coed.
George, Debbie. “Coeds Voting Tonight on Curfew Proposal.” The Diamondback. February 13, 1967. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/student-newspapers-old/id/6494bdef-913f-440e-983e-7ce9bc1060bc.
“Girls Audition for WMUC’s Miss Midnight.” The Diamondback. October 7, 1960. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/result/id/607bb8ac-1cf5-446e-a38c-02710b888638?relpath=pcdm&query=.
Gore, Lesley. “You Don’t Own Me.” Track 7 on Lesley Gore Sings of Mixed-Up Hearts. Recorded September 21-25, 1963. Mercury MG 20849, 1963.
Information Please! Associated Women Students, edited by Beth St. Clair. 1966. Handbooks. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://archive.org/details/informationpleas1966univ/page/8/mode/2up.
Information Please! Associated Women Students, edited by Information Please Staff. 1964. Handbooks. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://archive.org/details/informationpleas1964univ/mode/2up.
Information Please! Associated Women Students, edited by Lynn Andretta. 1960. Handbooks. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://archive.org/details/informationpleas1960univ/page/20/mode/2up.
Lightman, David. “Spring Songs: ‘Everyone Hums a Tune.’” The Diamondback. March 28, 1969. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/student-newspapers-old/id/8e8d20af-a947-4267-ab30-d61a8e14595e?relpath=pcdm&query=marvelettes.
McCall, Joan, Assistant Dean of Women. Announcement about Breaking Residence Hall Contracts for Women. January 15, 1965. Box 7, Folder 7: Housing–Women 1964–65. Series 2: Housing, 1956–1971. Division of Student Affairs Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
Munsey, Ellie. AWS Sorority Council Minutes. November 3, 1958. Box 1, Folder 7: AWS Sorority Council 1958–64. Series 5: Student Organizations, 1952–1970. Division of Student Affairs Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
Murphy, Barbara, Mary Woods, Rachel M. Bernice, Ethel Dumber, Molly Jackson, Esther M. Serrano, Judy Moon, and Terry McFadden. “Notes on Women’s Liberation.” 1969. Box 25, Folder 2: Women’s Liberation, 1970. Series 1: Pamphlets, 1846–1987 and undated. Women’s Studies Pamphlet Collection. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
“RHA-UCA Presents Aretha Franklin in Concert” Advertisement. The Diamondback. April 22, 1969. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/student-newspapers-old/id/721cda4a-e82b-41a1-9982-16993a54dcfe?relpath=pcdm&query=concert.
“Senior Class Presents…Bob Hope,” p. 36. In Terrapin, edited by C. Stuart Callison. Vol. 59. Undergraduate Student Body of the University of Maryland, 1960. Yearbooks. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://archive.org/details/terrapinyearbook1960univ/mode/2up.
“Seniors to Star Ella As Spring Highlight.” The Diamondback. May 1, 1965. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/result/id/7bfa0fa7-e189-43e2-bbd8-5400df948ba8?relpath=pcdm.
“Snow Beauty—The 10 Finalists in the Panhellenic Sponsored “Best Dressed Coed” Contest.” The Diamondback. January 17, 1964. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/result/id/915e64f0-650a-4415-acc5-e8e0dbe09e46?relpath=pcdm.
Spark Staff. Note from Spark Staff. Spark, Let the People Decide, no. 2. November 28, 1967. Box 2, Folder 10: SDS Reports & Pamphlets. Series 5: Student Organizations, 1952–1970. Division of Student Affairs Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
The Shirelles. “Will You Love Me Tomorrow.” Track 4 on Tonight’s The Night. Recorded 1959–1960. Scepter GT 9235, 1960.
“Two Women with Pistols” Photograph. University of Maryland Civil War Club. March 1, 1961. UMD Student Life Collection. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/result/id/8ade1a1d-706b-4717-b81f-f052ba757ea9?relpath=dc/2023/3.
Tynan, Billy. “Contact’ Brings New Concept To WMUC Campus Program.” The Diamondback. September 30, 1960. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/student-newspapers-old/id/a3221fb4-ba25-4576-ab3c-fa30f032e13b?relpath=pcdm&query=Miss%20Midnight%20WMUC.
“Voter Registration, Five Women at a Fashion Show” Photograph. June 2, 1962. Labor Collection. Digital Collections, University of Maryland Libraries. https://digital.lib.umd.edu/result/id/d8ce2385-1b4e-49fc-9ab9-d7bd70d3693d?relpath=dc/2023/1
Windoffer, Melba. “Women Who Work.” Internationalist Social Review. 1962. Box 11, Folder 1, Series 1: Pamphlets, 1846–1987 and undated. Women’s Studies Pamphlet Collection. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
University of Maryland General and Academic Regulations. 1967–1969. Box 7, Folder 4: Housing–Reports & Pamphlets, Undated. Series 2: Housing, 1956–1971. Division of Student Affairs Records. Special Collections and University Archives, Hornbake Library, University of Maryland Libraries.
Scholarly Sources
Cusick, Suzanne G. “Feminism and American Music.” Grove Music Online. July 25, 2013. Accessed October 23, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2240908
Cyrus, Cynthia J. “Selling an Image: Girl Groups of the 1960s.” Popular Music 22, no. 2 (May 2003): 173–193.
Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. W.W. Norton & Company, 1963.
Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vintage Books, translated by Ben Fowkes, 1977.
Neal, Mark. “Franklin, Aretha.” Grove Music Online. June 26, 2023. Accessed October 15, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1093/omo/9781561592630.013.90000339378
Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Routledge, 1991.
Stos, Will. “Bouffants, Beehives, and Breaking Gender Norms: Rethinking ‘Girl Group’ Music of the 1950s and 1960s.” Journal of Popular Music Studies 24, no. 2 (June 2012): 117–54.
Turino, Thomas. Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation. University of Chicago Press, 2008.