I'm afraid TCF misses on this one, big time. For every picture of a team member in a gown, they show 2 where the player is totally sweating or looking like a kick-ass competitor.

I can think of few mainstream publicity vehicles that can match this website for pro-women imagery. The players are presented as individuals, as highly skilled, as heroic.

( In fact, the only irritation I feel is when I reflect that only American sports-worship generates this much non-sexualized recognition of young women.)

But, yeah, homophobia probably prohibited what I would have loved to see: the only thing cooler than this website would have been if they allowed some of the women to wear nice men's suits and ties in the "dress up" pics.

Griffin doesn't aspire to be a drag-queen. Remember, it's not just gay men who do bawdy caustic humor. Drag queens modeled themselves after women like Mae West and Sophie Tucker.

Quite obviously, being "bitchy" is modeled on being an aggressive, mouthy woman. From vaudeville on, women comediennes have taken that gender stereotype and turned it into comedic performances.

Whenever I've see comment posts comparing middle-aged women to drag queens, I have always presumed they were written by thoughtless dudes. I guess I have to rethink that.

(I do see the irony in defending Griffin from a snarky insult. But she tends to pick on inane behavior, not dismissively insult people for failing to meet centerfold standards of acceptable looks.)

I don't know how to say this differently. I found that article distinctly distasteful. In modern America, do other fathers really express a sense of bad luck to the father of a girl?

If all of this is actually true about American attitudes broadly, it's really disheartening. And I'm not sure what to make of the way Aaron Traister discusses it. He seems to think it is some combination of humorous, illuminating, and interesting to hear about these reactions. But why you would think readers would receive these revelations that way?

For me, anyway, it makes me feel dismayed. But I don't sense that Traister is anticipating readers like me. And that's pretty disheartening, too.

Excellent column. I didn't understand why I continue to record "Grey's" even while it makes me roll my eyes. But this analysis captures exactly why the show is a fairly reliable doobie hit for relieving stress.

The MadLib format for those dramatic speeches is spot on. No one repeats phrases like that while speaking. No one uses short declarative sentences. Again and again. No one.

But I can't agree that Meredith Grey is tolerable. Ugh. Impassive stares and unblinking eyes are supposed to signify something, but who knows what it is. And who cares. I've wondered whether Shondra Rimes created Grey as a sly parody of the skinny white girl dramatic lead: she's dull, she's not particularly insightful, she lacks wit, but she's still somehow supposed to be the center of the (Hollywood) universe. Meanwhile, by contrast Yang and Torres reveal just how insipid she really is.

Dude. I try to be generous with the young. Part of me empathizes: embarrassing public behavior is hard to live down, and I know the feeling of wanting to counter it in public, too. You've had a lively ride, and I was interested to learn about your ideological shift.

But, dude. That website. It's hard to tell whether you are ironically "playing" the insufferable loudmouth jerk to make some kind of point, or whether this is a voice you are really offering as witty and interesting. But either way, read it again and ask yourself: why do so many people find it so off-putting?

I recommend you look around a bit more widely and find other writerly voices to study and learn from. It's possible to be caustic and hard-edged while still being thoughtful and intelligent.

I don't think it's that mystifying that many (white) women feel a stronger affinity for the GOP. Republicans stress the themes of security and prosperity in a volatile world, and often link those things to what they say are unchanging moral codes.

What's harder to understand is how the GOP retains credibility on those themes, with men or with women. How does free market purism remain credible when Wall Street has demonstrated it is wildly volatile (not to mention happy to ruin ordinary-income folks)? How do the blunders of the neocon invasions leave any room for confidence in GOP ability to provide security? Why don't the Democrats repeat ad nauseum how much our ridiculous military adventures have cost every individual household?

That's what mystifies me.

Pinsky justifies his shows by saying that it allows people to see the real destruction that comes with addiction. I actually think there is some truth to that--BUT even if he's right, it doesn't justify the exploitation of the addicts themselves that comes with publicizing their rehab.

I watched some of the earlier Pinsky shows on drug rehab. The show did strip away the aura of glamor so often associated with Hollywood drinking and drugging. The scene where the still glamorous looking model was collapsed on the hallway floor, trying (and failing) to vomit into a trash basket, was horrific. So even with the voyeurism, it's conceivable that the shows offer insight to viewers.

But I suspect that, if early trauma is the cause of many of these addictions, the high of media attention is just as destructive. These people have to learn how to stand themselves as ordinary people in a none-too-healthy American society. Pinsky is just giving them injections of another kind of drug.

Yes, Jocelyn Elders--we hardly knew thee. A moment of grateful remembrance for the woman who tried to suggest age-appropriate sex education in the modern US.