Roe vs. Wade: Has it Been Overturned as a Matter of Fact

In its 1973 landmark decision in Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court articulated for the first time that a woman’s right to an abortion was protected by the U.S. Constitution. While women throughout the Nation rejoiced in the fact that the Court had decided to place individual rights on a pedestal, Roe subsequently set off a massive backlash, during which conservative interest groups mobilized in order to persuade the Court to reconsider its ruling. Although the Court initially took pride in safeguarding Roe’s expansive protections, the more conservative Court of recent years has issued several rulings designed to limit the right to abortion. For example, in the 1989 case of Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, the Supreme Court upheld Missouri’s decision to prohibit the expenditure of public funds or the use of public facilities for the purpose of performing an abortion. In addition, in the 1991 case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, the Court upheld several restrictions of a woman’s right to an abortion, including a 24 hour waiting period, requiring a child to obtain the consent of a parent or judge, and an informed consent provision. Although these decisions, coupled with a number of other abortion decisions issued by the Court beginning in the 1980s, severely limited the ability of many women to undergo abortion procedures, the media nevertheless held that in general Roe’s central tenets were still intact and thriving. You would be hard pressed today to find a well known political or legal analyst who believes that Roe has been overturned as a matter of fact. However, in order to determine whether or not Roe still stands as originally decided, it is necessary to answer two questions:
· What constitutes the core of the Court’s decision in Roe?
· Have any of the Court’s recent decisions significantly curtailed Roe’s core?
The central holding of Roe essentially consists of two parts. First, that a woman has the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before viability and to do so without undue interference from the State. The period of viability has been scientifically defined to occur at the end of the second trimester, or around the 27th or 28th week of pregnancy (McBride 2). In other words, a woman’s right to undergo an abortion procedure can never be denied by the State prior to the 27th or 28th week of pregnancy. Second, the State does retain the authority to ban abortion after the period of viability, except if the procedure is necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother (Henry 8). Writing for the Roe majority, Justice Blackmun attempted to devise a system of standards for determining under what circumstances a State had a compelling interest in restricting a woman’s right to an abortion, which has since become known as the trimester framework. The framework consisted of the following guidelines:
· Prior to the end of the first trimester, a woman is free to undergo an abortion without any form of interference or restriction on behalf of the State.
· During the second trimester, the State may regulate abortion from this point forward by adopting measures reasonably designed to safeguard the health of the mother.
· During the third trimester (post-viability), the State could choose to proscribe abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
By approving restrictions on the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion, the Court has invalidated much of the trimester framework. However, it does not follow from this fact alone that Roe is dead for all practical purposes. Although it served as a useful method by which to initially formulate the abortion timeline, Justice Blackmun’s trimester framework is not an essential part of this holding. While the framework precludes the states from enacting any restrictions whatsoever during the first trimester, this peripheral protection is not necessary in order to ensure that a woman’s right to an abortion is safeguarded prior to viability. For example, while the enactment of a 24 hour waiting period measure may inconvenience a woman seeking an abortion, it ultimately would not restrict her right to actually undergo the procedure. Despite the fact that the peripheral protections inherent in the framework are greatly beneficial to women, their demise would not alter Roe’s core holding. Thus, in order to substantially impair Roe’s core, a Supreme Court decision would have to either restrict the right to abortion prior to viability, or approve the ability of the State to restrict late term abortions when the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy. At least until 2007, the Supreme Court was unable to do either.
However, in the 2007 case of Gonzales vs. Carhart, the Supreme Court struck a significant blow to Roe’s core holding for the first time. The Carhart dispute involved the legality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The act proscribed the method of intact dilation and extraction from being used by a medical doctor in order to end a fetal life (Grossman and McClain 1). While the law contains an exception for when the mother’s life is in danger, it lacks a health exception. In its 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld the act, and in turn limited the ability of many women to procure an abortion even prior to the period of viability. As a result of Carhart, a woman planning on using the intact dilation and extraction method can be prohibited from having an abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy. According to Justice Blackmun, while the states could impose restrictions on a woman seeking an abortion prior to the period of fetal viability, they were not allowed to proscribe abortion. Due to the fact that Blackmun did not create any exceptions to this rule within his opinion, we can infer that Roe prohibits the states from proscribing a particular method of abortion as well, prior to fetal viability. This decision is the first time since 1973 that the Court has upheld the ban of an abortion procedure before the period of fetal viability.
Anti-abortion activists would counter this argument by stating that a woman is not precluded from having a second trimester abortion: she is only prohibited from using one particular method. However, the reason intact dilation and extraction is used instead of other methods is because a woman has the least probability of experiencing permanent injury to her uterus when this technique is used (Lithwick 2). Prohibiting dilation and extraction will not cut back on second trimester abortions: it will simply cause more women to be injured in the process. As a result of the Carhart ruling, some women with heart disease will thus be unable to undergo abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy, due to the fact that any other method of abortion besides dilation and extraction may be detrimental to their health. At least for this specific disadvantaged class of women, the right to procure an abortion at any time prior to the period of fetal viability no longer exists. Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe did not only guarantee the right to undergo a pre-viability abortion to the majority of women: rather, Blackmun established the principle that this right could not be denied to even a single woman. Thus, while Carhart did not overturn Roe directly and place the abortion decision entirely into the hands of the State, it did significantly curtail Roe’s core by limiting the opportunity for at least some women to undergo second trimester abortions.
The media’s inadequate coverage of the implications of the 2007 Carhart decision exemplifies that when deliberating controversial and multifaceted issues such as abortion, it is not always prudent to take the media at its word. Instead, in order to gain a true understanding of the complexities of the issue, it is necessary to dig deeper and explore below the surface of the issue. As a result of the media’s lack of in-depth analysis, for many people it has become almost second nature to conclude that Roe is safe and will continue to be considered the controlling principle in the foreseeable future. However, as shown by the recent Carhart decision, this is not necessarily the case. The elevation of only one more conservative justice to the Supreme Court could ultimately result in the overturning of Roe altogether, and a return to the dangerous days of back alley abortions.

Works Cited
Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)
Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989)
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, 510 US 1309 (1992)
Gonzales vs. Carhart, 127 US 1610 (2007)
Henry, Kelly Sue. “Planned Parenthood of Southeaster Pennsylvania vs. Casey: The
Reaffirmation of Roe or the Beginning of the End.” University of Louisville Journal of Family Law. Winter 1993.
McBride, Alex. “Landmark Cases: Roe vs. Wade.” PBS: The Supreme Court. 2007. 23 April
2009.
<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html>
Grossman, Joanna and McClain, Linda. “Gonzales vs. Carhart: How the Supreme Court’s
Validation of the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Affects Women’s Constitutional Liberty and Equality.” Findlaw Legal News. May 2007. 23 April 2009.
<http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20070507_mcclain.html>
Lithwick, Dahlia. “Father Knows Best: Dr. Kennedy’s Magic Prescription for Indecisive
Women.” Slate. April 2007. 23 April 2009.
<http://www.slate.com/id/2164512/entry/2164020>

ViCTORiA'S SECRET !!!

As an employee of Victoria's Secret I have a lot of insight into the brand and it's marketing concepts. In the future, I even want to be a graphic designer for the company and participate in the marketing and advertising aspects as well. Although, I am a huge fan of Victoria's Secret, I feel as if at times it negatively impacts females instead of actually making them feel "sexy".


Even within the past year I have noticed that VS has altered its products and it’s marketing away from the "sexy" and "sultry" to a more vintage, classic femininity. For instance, VS has come out with an organic skin care line that is very clean and simple and is all about being natural and exuding your beauty. Furthermore, many of the bras and panties have been toned down and are more neutral in color patterns and the brand is reverting back to its more sophisticated roots. It is even getting rid of the Very Sexy make up line and bringing better quality makeup with a more elegant packaging onto the market. Furthermore, it has launched new perfumes that are very modern, clean and elegant in design.


Basically, as much as I support the more wholesome take the VS brand is taking, it still has to revamp a few other things. Many of the bras only go up to a 40DD(no special orders) and I have met so many women who are disappointed that they cannot purchase anything. Even the clothing line is rather small in size. This leaves girls and women to feel that they do in fact need to look like Giselle and Heidi to wear Victoria's Secret products. This probably may even lead some girls to lower their self-esteem and perhaps influence eating disorders.


In general, I think VS needs to realize that women come in all different shapes and sizes that are all beautiful and should all have the ability to wear something feminine from Victoria's Secret. Additionally, although VS mainly targets females, I feel that it would be a strong advance if it expanded its male market. It should not limit itself. At this point it reaches out to younger girls with the PINK line and women of all ages with the rest of its products. Males are the only target audience missing.


We may not all be VS Angels but we can certainly feel like one!


I am always curious to hear other people’s thoughts about the company and especially whether the sexy theme is in fact better, or is this vintage line a step in the right direction?

Gender and Computers: An Observation

So, this is a situation that has been bothering me for at least the past year, if not past two years. I've done a lot of observation regarding this bizarre phenomenon, and I don't have a satisfactory answer.

Basically, what I've seen is that, as a stereotype, most females and non-straight males do not get along well with computers. DISCLAIMER: I am assuming that non-straight males fall under the same category as females throughout my mini-rant. This is merely to simplify the text both for me and for you. Now, onto my... dissertation into insanity!

Why do women and non-straight men not get along well with computers? What is it about computers that only pull in geeky guys, most of whom are straight? Of course, I fit that stereotype perfectly myself. I'm a geeky Computer Science/Interactive Multimedia major. I spend over 40 hours a week coding, staring, surfing the Internet, and playing games, all with my computer. In fact, as I write this blog post, I'm in Holman Hall, working on building an Artificial Intelligence that will hopefully be able to semi-intelligently play the game of Checkers.

But honestly, who cares about me in this case? I fit the stereotype, and no one thinks differently. About me, at least. That's an entirely different rant, and totally not related to this class at all.

One study I've read (I think it was a study? Long time ago) stated that women shy away from Math, Computers, etc... "the Sciences"... because they assume that those fields take too much time, and many women, as per the study, want to take the time to have a family. Obviously, having a job in one of those fields will take time away from said family, keeping women from working in "the Sciences."

Now, that's a funny observation from that study. I know for a fact that our class has a female Physics Ed major and a female Chemistry major. Clearly, the study isn't all-inclusive.

Another article I've read states that computers are "too technical" for women. The amount of effort necessary to truly understand an operate a computer is much more than they are willing to expend that effort to be a part of the industry. Well, let's be honest. Most straight males are in the same boat, so I can't imagine that there can't be a certain percentage of women who are into computers.

It's true, there are female Computer Science majors. There's one in my graduating class, two or three in the successive graduating class... and that's where I no longer have any idea about the numbers. Percentage-wise, that does NOT get anywhere CLOSE to the sex distribution of TCNJ.

And quickly, to point out why I lumped non-straight males into the "female" category for this rant, I will simply say this. After mentally reviewing all of the class lists of my previous and current CS courses, I can honestly say that I highly doubt any of the males in the classes (some classes were solely male) identified as anything but straight. Weirdly enough (to kill another stereotype), most had steady girlfriends. Go figure.

Really, what it comes down to is the fact that I have NO idea why this phenomenon exists. And throughout it all, I can't ignore the fact that the CS Faculty ratio is approximately 60:40, females:males. Just like TCNJ averages.

So, I leave it to you. What are your thoughts on this?

In Defense of The Octomom™

Everywhere you look these days(Entertainment TV, Magazines, and in the Blogosphere) everyone seems fascinated with Octomom. What is it about Nadya Suleman and her 14 children that draws such a negative and hate filled response? To be completely clear – I do believe that Octomom is probably mentally disturbed AND attempting to make a profit off of her children. While I do not condone that behavior, I am more concerned by the sensational and judgmental response she has elicited from society.

I wonder if there are more layers explaining the response in the media to Octomom. Why is she SO hated? Could it be that the idea of a single mother proactively choosing to have multiple children without the benefit of a husband is SO contrary to the traditional norm that OCTOMOM has touched a nerve and sent us into a frenzy? Power, in any form, that cannot be controlled is a scary reality for any society. Perhaps the power appropriated by single women in America, as represented by Nadya Suleman, has caused a moral crisis in society by upsetting the apple cart. If she had a husband, would she be adored and hailed as the next Jon & Kate + 8 media darling?

I think the idea of the “Single Girl” has posed quite a problem for American society for some time. I remember an episode of Sex and The City that dealt with the idea of how single girls pose a problem since other people just can’t figure them out. Single working women in the 1930’s became known as “heartless women” who devalued the man and undermined the traditional feminine mystique. Similarly “Sex and the Single Girl” by Helen Gurley Brown, gives interesting insight into this conflict during the 1960’s. Written as a self help guide, the book intends to advise women on how to improve themselves to attract men. However, it can also be analyzed for historical significance as it isolates a snapshot of time during which many argue roles for modern women were just starting to change.

While most of the advice in the book doesn’t hold up (“Don’t spend a cent on anything you don’t need. You need iridescent gold eye shadow…”) it gives insight into the mind of the “modern women” at the time. Gurley Brown advises women do whatever it takes to get a man – even a married one. While it isn’t exactly a feminist’s handbook, it provides insight into the way that single girls have been perceived over time. In short, they have been perceived as a problem.

Perhaps people like Nadya Suleman, Carrie Bradshaw and Helen Gurley Brown challenge the status quo in similar ways that threaten social norms. Is the firestorm being thrust upon Octomom a veiled attempt to send a message and impose fear upon single girls of today? After all - good girls are supposed to know better. But maybe the concept of a “good girl” is really just a socialized construction to keep women in collectively desirable roles. Girls who don’t follow normal gendered rules, such as teenage mothers or female criminals, are viewed harshly – even more so than their male counterparts.

The manufactured archetype of a good girl is used to draw a line in the sand that establishes the ideological binary of right and wrong. Those on the right side of the line are intimidated by fear - altering their lives to meet the standard in an attempt to avoid victimization or judgment. On the opposite side of the line live the “bad girls” who encourage ridicule by their actions or who become scapegoats and are considered the source of the problem(ala Nadya Suleman).

The Difference Between Men and Women Coaches in Women's Basketball

I recently went to Saint Louis, MO to see the NCAA women’s division I championship game. I was not a huge fan of either team left in the championship game – Uconn & Louisville. I was actually pretty upset that I didn’t get a chance to meet some of the more successful female college coaches like Pat Summit or Vivian Stringer. It seemed like something was missing from the atmosphere in that women’s championship game, perhaps a head female coach leading the pack. No offense to Gino Aureimma, he is obviously a very successful coach, but I will argue that he can relax more on the job than any female coach I have ever seen. I think that Gino gets away with more, maybe because of his high status as such a successful coach, but I would argue that people would talk a lot differently about Pat Summit if she won the national title and stuck her head and then her body through the rim after cutting down the nets – which is exactly what Gino did. Pat Summit is not seen as the most personable coach, she does not seem incredibly approachable, but she does seem very professional. If she had put her head through the rim along with her body I’m sure the media would be all over how cocky the gesture seemed and how unprofessional that would make her. I guess since Gino is a guy, the terms cocky, brash, and arrogant are more easily acceptable and his unsportsmanlike actions can be brushed off.

It’s funny how sports figures like Pat Summit and Gino Auriemma are analogous to political leaders like Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush. I hear and see a lot of similarities among Hillary and Pat. For example, I believe the words “shrew,” “bitch,” and “power-crazy” have been thrown around during the political debates last year when Hillary was running for office. A strong, professional, hard-working presidential candidate is defaced because she is a woman. Although Pat Summit is praised in the basketball world I have heard people who do not follow basketball so closely comment about how cold she is, how she could relax a little bit more, and doesn’t need to be such a bitch all the time. Perhaps if Hillary Clinton started cracking jokes about chucking wood or maybe if Pat Summit put her body through a basketball rim they’d be viewed as more human. Something tells me that if either woman acted that way they’re professionalism would be questioned, and then they wouldn’t be fit for the job. When we only see women as either Hillary Clintons or Sarah Palins it’s easy to see why we are dichotomized into two extremes. I can only hope we find the middle ground.

X: A Fabulous Child’s Story

By: Lois Gould(Abridged Version)

Characters

Narrator 1
Narrator 2
Mr. and Mrs. JonesRelative #1
Relative #2
Clerk
Other Child #1
Other Child #2
Psychiatrist


Narrator 1: Once upon a time, a baby named X was born. This baby was named X so that nobody could tell whether it was a boy or a girl. Its parents could tell, of course, but they couldn’t tell anybody else. They couldn’t even tell Baby X, at first. It was all part of a very importance Secret Xperimet, known as Project Baby X. The smartest scientists were paid to write the Official Instruction Manual for Baby X’s parents, and most importance of all, to find the right parents to bring up Baby X. Fortunately, the scientists found the Joneses, who really wanted to raise an X more than any other kind of baby. Mr. and Mrs. Jones had to promise they would take equal turns caring for X, feed it, and sing it lullabies.

Narrator 2: The day the Joneses brought their baby home, friends and relatives came over to see it. None of them knew about the Secret Xperiment... So the first thing they asked was what kind of a baby X was.

Mr. and Mrs. Jones: “It’s an X!”

Narrator 2: Well, nobody knew what to say. But, of course the Joneses were not joking.

Mr. and Mrs. Jones: “It’s an X!”

Narrator 2: And that’s absolutely all they would say, which made the relatives and friends very angry. They felt embarrassed about having an X in the family.

Relative 1: “People will think there’s something wrong with it.”

Relative 2: “There is something wrong with it!”

Narrator 2: Clearly, nothing was wrong. Nevertheless, none of the relatives felt comfortable about buying a present for Baby X. But the Official Instruction Manuel had warned the new parents that this would happen, so they didn’t fret about it.

Narrator 1: Mr. and Mrs. Jones had to be Xtra careful about how they palyed with little X. They knew if they kept saying how strong and active it was, they’d be treating it more like a boy than an X. But, if all they did was kiss and tell how sweet it was, they’d be treating it more like a girl than an X. The Manual advised plenty of bouncing and cuddling, both since X need to be strong and sweet.

Narrator 2: Meanwhile, the Joneses were worrying about other problems- toys and clothes. On his first shopping trip Mr. Jones went to the store.

Mr. Jones: “I need some clothes for my new baby.”

Clerk: “Is it a boy or a girl?”

Mr. Jones: “It’s an X.”

Narrator 2: Now, all over the store there were sections marked Boys or Girls. There were Boy pajamas and Girls underwear, Boys fire engines and Girls housekeeping sets. The Official Instruction Manuel advised plenty of everything, so the Joneses bought all kinds of toys. The boy doll cried, “Popa.” The girl doll said “I am President of General Motors.” The Manual advised that X should never be made to feel embarrassed or ashamed about what it wanted to play with. Likewise, if X fell down and cried, the Joneses were never to say “Brave little Xes don’t cry.”

Narrator 1: Then, it was time for X to start school. The Joneses were really worried, because the school was even more full of rules for boys and girls. There would be boy games and girl games, boy secrets and girl secrets, boy lines and girl lines. There would even be a bathroom marked Boys and another marked Girls. What would happen to poor Baby X?

Narrator 2: In preparation the Joneses asked X’s teacher if the class could line up alphabetically. And they asked if X could use the principal’s bathroom, because all it would say was “Bathroom.” X’s teacher promised to help. But nobody could help X with the biggest problem- the other children. Some of the children tried to find out by asking X tricky questions. When X said its favorite toy was a doll, everyone decided X must be a girl. But then X said that the doll was really a robot, and that X had computerized it and told it to bake brownies and clean up the kitchen. After X said that, the other children knew they wanted to see Xs doll! But, the other children continued to make faces and giggle behinds X’s back.

Narrator 1: That night X confessed school was a terrible place for an X. Once more the Joneses reached for their Instruction Manual. They read that other children have to obey all the silly boy-girl rules because that’s what their parents taught them. Lucky X didn’t have to stick to the rules. X could just be itself. “P.S. We’re not saying it’ll be easy.” The next morning they all felt better and X went back to school. That day there was a seven letter world spelling bee, a seven lap relay race, and a seven layer cake bake contest. X almost won them all except that it forgot to light the oven. This only proves that nobody’s perfect. One of the other children noticed something else, too.

Other Child #1: “Winning or losing doesn’t seem to count to X. X seems to have fun being good with both boy and girl skills.”

Other Child #2: “Come to think of it, maybe X is having twice as much fun as we are.”

Narrator 2: From then on, really funny things began to happen. Susie suddenly refused to wear a pink dress and insisting on overalls like X’s in order to climb monkey bars. Jim, the class football nut, started wheeling a doll carriage containing his football uniform around the field and singing Rockabye Baby to it. He told his family X did the same thing… and X was now the team’s star quarterback.

Narrator 1: Their parents weren’t one bit pleased. Susie and Jim were forbidden to play with X anymore. But, it was too late. The other children stayed mixed up and happy and free and refused to go back to the way they’d been before X.

Narrator 2: Finally, the parents called an emergency meeting of the Parents’ Association. They sent a report to the principal stating that X was a “disruptive influence.” If the Joneses refused to tell whether X was a boy or girl, then X must take an Xamination given by the school psychiatrist. If the test showed X a boy, it would have to obey boy rules. If it proved X was a girl, it would have to obey girl rules. And, if X turned out to be some kind of misfit, then X would have to be expelled from school. The principal reluctantly notified X’s parents.

Narrator 1: At Xactly 9 the next day, X reported for the test. The principal along with Parent’s Association Committee, X’s teacher, X’s classmates, and the Joneses waited in the hall. You could hear the psychiatrist’s low voice, asking hundreds of questions, and X’s higher voice, answering hundreds of answers.

Narrator 2: At last, the door opened. The psychiatrist looked terrible. He looked as if he were crying.

Mr. and Mrs. Jones (sighing): “Oh dear!”

Narrator 1: Wiping his eyes, the psychiatrist began, in a hoarse whisper.

Psychiatrist (whispering through tears): “In my opinion… in my opinion… young X here… is just about… just about the least mixed-up child I have ever Xamined.”

Narrator 1: The Parents Committee was angry and bewildered. How could X have passed the Xam?

Narrator 2: Didn’t X have an identity problem?

Narrator 1: Wasn’t X a misfit?

Narrator 2: Why was the psychiatrist crying?

Psychiatrist: “Don’t you see? I’m crying because it’s wonderful! X has absolutely no identity problem! It’s not mixed up. It’s not a misfit. X knows perfectly well what it is! Don’t worry; you’ll all know one of these days. And you won’t need me to tell you.

Narrator 1: With that the doctor began to push trhough the crowd. He hugged X’s parents.

Psychiatrist: “If I ever have an X of my own I sure hope you’ll lend me your instruction manual.”

Narrator 2: Later that day X’s friends found X in the back yard playing with a very tiny baby that none of them had ever seen before.

Other Child #1: “It got cute dimples.”

Other Child #2: “It has got husky biceps. So, what kind of baby is it?”

Narrator 1: X broke into a grin.

Mr. and Mrs. Jones (exclaiming proudly): “It’s a Y!”


The story of baby X raises gender identity issues that we do not customarily address or realize. The parents in the story are the idolized representation of ideal parents. When their baby was born, all that mattered to them was that their baby be happy and healthy. This mentality allowed their child to express itself and be whatever it wanted to be, regardless of the pressures society places on it to conform to gender role expectations. Baby X’s parents continuously encountered people in various settings questioning their baby’s sex. When the people did not receive the expected answer, girl or boy, they became confused and frustrated, for they could not fit the baby into a preconceived mold. The environment created for baby X enabled it to become a more well-rounded and unique individual, free from the stereotypical norms expected of girls and boys during childhood.
The story made me more aware of the social construction of gender and the tremendous impact it has on how we raise our children. The child rearing practice adhered to by baby X’s parents is quite noteworthy, and a healthy way to raise one’s child. It permits the child to find their own form of expression and be comfortable and confident with the person that they are. This story can be correlated with issues surrounding gay marriage. Society could not accept baby X for who it was, just as many people are unable to acknowledge or accept the union of two females or two males.

The Dialogue Continues ...

Students in my Spring 2009 section of "Gender and Popular Culture" will begin contributing to the discussion of gender and popular culture through their blog entries here. See what they have to say and join in the conversation by posting your comments.