Taking the long view, it is well-known that the longer and further our society goes toward equality of opportunity for women, we are seeing in addition to all the positive changes more and more women arrested for crimes that in earlier days were almost exclusively male.

This is nothing that can be taken as an attack on women; it is a sociological fact.

So if it's also true that the more widespread that women's sports becomes, the more instances there are of female jocks' behavior resembling that of male jocks, that shouldn't be the least bit surprising.

If Ms. Harris didn't choose to take offense at this piece, she would see that it is unquestionably attributing normally better behavior to females than males.

This is an attack on all women?????? Using the phrase "finer feminine values" is offfensive?

(The reality-based crowd is aware that, as a whole, women tend to have better manners and behavior than males. Regardless of how one may think the world ought to be.)

Women are not "being blamed" for not fixing sports; Deford merely said that he had hoped women would bring better behavior to sports than the typical male jock behavior, but apparently that's not the case at present.

(And Broadsheet, which has often pointed out some females' behavior or opinion that doesn't merit admiration, is allowed to criticize women. But no one else is, and certainly not a male, or it's prima facie evidence of an antifemale bias.)

Sometimes I honestly think some of the Broadsheet writers are fourteen years old, so childish are their attitudes.

Look, I think it's nuts to make a fuss about a name like "Pink Taco", even if it was intentionally chosen to be risqu&e-acute;. But if the denizens of someplace in Arizona, however they go about making their decisions, choose to give it the thumbs-down, that's their choice.

Heaven knows that Broadsheet writers can be extremely picky about exactly which words other people should use in various situations. So exactly where do you get the nerve to tell other people that they don't have the right to have their own preferences and, if they can, make their preferences come true?

can be found on Middlefield in unincorporated Menlo Park. For several blocks it's like you're actually in Mexico.

I wrote:

This is an attack on all women?????? Using the phrase "finer feminine values" is offensive

LeCastor wrote:

Yeah, it kind of is. Because it smacks of the view that women are fragile ("fine") delicate flowers that daintily skip across the field hockey or tennis court in their plaid skirts and then drink lemonade afterwards, without even "glowing."

Okay, you say that Deford's use of the phrase "finer feminine values" kind of is [offensive]. Here is what the online Merriam-Webster Collegiate says -- the entire listing for "fine, adj.":

1 a : free from impurity b of a metal : having a stated proportion of pure metal in the composition expressed in parts per thousand <a gold coin .9166 fine>

2 a (1) : very thin in gauge or texture <fine thread> (2) : not coarse <fine sand> (3) : very small <fine print> (4) : KEEN <a knife with a fine edge> (5) : very precise or accurate <a fine adjustment> <trying to be too fine with his pitches> b : physically trained or hardened close to the limit of efficiency -- used of an athlete or animal

3 : delicate, subtle, or sensitive in quality, perception, or discrimination <a fine distinction>

4 : superior in kind, quality, or appearance : EXCELLENT <a fine job> <a fine day> <fine wines>

5 a : ORNATE 1 <fine writing> b : marked by or affecting elegance or refinement <fine manners>

6 a : very well <feel fine> b : ALL RIGHT <that's fine with me>

7 -- used as an intensive <the leader, in a fine frenzy, beheaded one of his wives -- Brian Crozier>

I think it's safe to say Deford did not use "finer" in the sense of meaning 7. IF he used it in the sense of meaning 3, this entry makes clear that it is delicate in the general sense of subtle or sensitive (or else they would be separate entries.

Aren't you working awfully hard to find offense here?

It's not just drinking alcohol, but drinking two drinks (i.e., shots of liquor) a day that was said to lower the risk of heart disease. After that, the reports said, the down side of drinking outweighs any benefits.

BUT -- I just read of a study that calls into question the whole claim that drinking does anyone any good at all. It studied the studies that had concluded two drinks lowers the risk of coronary disease. This study of studies decided that the methodologies of those studies were flawed across the board.

Now, I feel rather stupid telling you this, because I'm not sure where I read about this study of studies, except that at the time it seemed like a reliable source to me.

Although it's hard to be sure of anyone's medical claims -- since medical studies are so often done by someone with an ax to grind, calling into question the supposed benefits of drinking two drinks a day makes sense to me:

It was only a few years ago that a new FDA regulation required liquor companies in the U.S. -- even wineries -- to label their products with a warning about the risk of fetal damage if too much alcohol is consumed by a pregnant woman.

I certainly don't know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if this new claim that alcohol has health benefits was somehow the baby of alcohol cartels.

This study (of 54 prior studies) is much more convincing than I recalled in previous post. It is discussed in a short piece on p. 26 of the June, 2006 issue of Scientific American.

Not all, but *most* of the studies used the same flawed methodology -- neglecting to put former drinkers in the same category as drinkers. Among the seven that avoided this pitfall, none found any protective effect for alcohol. The piece continues:

Even more telling, when the [authors] regrouped the other published data, combining drinkers and former drinkers, the positive effects evaporated.