Cary's writing this morning raises important issues -- why do some of us so intensely avoid doctors? This is an issue I confront regularly.

I have a strong family history of ovarian cancer which appears at young ages. I will not go to the doctor and I will not get genetically tested. My husband and family harass me constantly about these two issues. So I perpetually ask myself why I act in a way so contrary to my own well being.

I think the basic answer is fear. I'm afraid of what I might be told if I go to the doctor or get tested, so I don't go. It's as simple as that. And that fear overwhelms all common sense or rational thought.

The reason that people can't understand what the true risks are, is that we do an absolutely abysmal job of teaching children about biology, science, and statistics.

What could be more important to learn about in K-12 education then how each system of the human body works? Each of us should know how we work to make informed choices about not only health care, but diet, behaviors that risk brain injury, etc. Our schools, however, do not include mandatory biology that focuses on the human body. Why not?

In addition, think about everyday life and how important probability and statistics has become to understanding all of the data and information thrown at us every day. Does anyone learn about probability and statistics during high school? Only those very few who take an AP Statistics class. Why do we not require every kid to take a statistics class in high school, given the importance of understanding basic statistics and probability to today's world.

Our education system remains mired in the paradigm of the early 1900s where english and history reign supreme. Getting into most colleges requires four years of english and four years of history, but not much math or science. We need to think about what types of information our citizens will need for the country to thrive in this century, not the last one. Such change, however, seems impossible as we become more and more hostile to science and the truths it tells.

I was a female college athlete, and my speculation is that the women on the team loved the idea of dressing up for their pictures. The juxtaposition of glamorous for a night out versus tough and sweaty for a game is wonderful (in my view).

As a female athlete, it really is difficult to find outlets for all of the different sides of who you are. People see you as a "jock." The jock part, however, is only one part of a whole person. Another part is the part that loves going out, dressing up, and having fun.

The web site conveys the message to female, high school recruits, that the team gets it. They are great athletes, but they are also women. There is nothing wrong with this message. I wish my college team had conveyed a similar message.

This article ends with the plea, "we want our paid leave and childcare." This type of entitlement, I believe, is the crux of the resentment.

Working life does not generally allow for three to six months of paid leave. In general, the only workers entitled to such paid leave are women who physically birth a child. Most employers do not provide extensive paid leave to either men or women who do not physically give birth to a child.

This ineqality creates resentment among those who have no opportunity to ever get a paid leave. More importantly, leave laws require employers to keep the mom's position available to her. These guaranteed reinstatment laws put extensive burden on the other employees who are not on leave to complete their own work plus the work of the employees on leave.

I am supportive of paid leave and guaranteed reinstatement, but I believe women need to acknowledge the burden it places on employers and co-workers. The sense of entitlement is real -- "I'm pregnant, so my managers and co-workers need to make accommodation to me and support me even as I do not work and get paid for months on end" -- and, it creates real resentment.

I believe that employers should address this resentment by creating a program that allows for one three month paid leave for every five or so years of work for whatever reason. Such policies, I believe, would go a long way toward reducing the resentment toward moms and babies.

One cannot accept the benefits of more generous leave and pay laws and policies while refusing to acknowledge the resentment that these laws and policies create. This article does not evey recongize the problem.

I watched the Twilight movie with a bunch of kids and hated it. Given the popularity of the book, however, I figured the book must be better. It wasn't.

This is from a person who loves much of the adult "romance" genre. And ... maybe that's the problem. Twilight seems intense romance light for the adult fiction arena.

There really is nothing much going on in the Twilight books (at least the first two -- I couldn't read beyone the first two even as airplane reading) other than really intense relationships. And, those relationships get really boring after several hundred pages.

Many adult romance writers do a MUCH better job of combining intense relationship with an interesting alternate plot. Moreover, how can an adult stomach an intense, sexual relationship that is never culminated? That part of the story line seemed so implausible to me that I just couldn't keep reading.

Moreover, why are we women supportive of teenage girls receiving a message that they can have a sexually intense relationship with a guy who is totally obsessed with her without him ever pushing to actually have sex with her. I just think the whole "Twilight" obsession, particularly among adult women, is just plain odd.