at play is so contemptibly worse? Whyrnare the British such bad sports? The answerrnlies more in the nature of therngames than of the people. Soccer, orrnfootball as it is called in England, is byrnits verv nature divisive and apt to causernconflict. There arc always two sides andrnsets of mutually hostile supportersrnwhose feelings are bound to erupt inrnthose menacing taunts and blows thatrnare largely excluded from the card-andwhistle-rntamed game below. The hooligansrnhave rightly realized that the realrnconflict has to take place not on thernpitch, but on the terraces.rnWhere football divides the bullfightrnunites. Apart from a few taurophile perverts,rnthe whole of the crowd at a bullfightrnis united as one species in admirationrnof and fear for the matador. Thernmatador represents the triumph of thernhuman brain and manual dexterity overrnthe crude brute force of crude brutes,rnlie is Homo sapiens armed by Homornfaber. How very different from thernmuddied oafs at the goal whose crudernblundering reminds us rather of thernhapless bull careering after the flickingrnred flag of the matador like a witlessrnMarxist.rnFA’crvone in the crowd knows thatrneach time a matador faces a bull, he isrnrisking not the scuffed shins and therncoarsened cartilages of the football heavies,rnbut his very life. It is for this reasonrnthat women are not allowed to bernmatadors whereas they make excellentrnsoccer players. T here can be no doubtrnthat a strong and intelligent ballerinarncould kill a bull, but that is not thernpoint. That the matadors are well awarernof the risks they run is demonstrated byrnthe statue of Alexander Fleming, therndiscoverer of penicillin, that they havernerected outside the bullring in Madrid.rnFleming’s discovery has saved the livesrnof far more gored matadors than boredrngoalkeepers. That death is faced by thernmatador and that the bull is sacrificed inrnpublic rather than in an anonymousrnabattoir gives a vertical and implicitlyrnreligious quality to bullfighting that isrntotally lacking in football. On displayrnis the Adam who must die but who hasrntotal dominion over the animal wodd,rnthe Isaac in whose escape from sacrificernwe all rejoice. It is thus appropriate thatrneach bullfight is governed by a tight andrnunchanging ritual that uses music, color,rnand tradition to produce a seemly orderliness.rnIt is utterly different from thernvulgar and grubby farce of an Englishrnsoccer match, which is a positive incentivernto the hooligan to misbehave, forrnnothing serious is at stake.rnFor a brief time in the history of football,rnnotably in the years immediatelyrnfollowing the Second World War, Englishrnsoccer supporters behaved themselvesrnwith uncharacteristic decorum.rnAt this time, however, most spectatorsrnwere not true football aficionados. Respectablernolder men with families wentrnto watch their local team on Saturdayrnafternoon because there was nothingrnelse to do. As soon as growing affluencernenabled the mass of the British peoplernto buy motor cars, television sets, andrnvideos, they quit going to soccer matches,rnwhich then were left to football’srntrue supporters—a lumpen riff-raff ofrnadolescents and alcoholics.rnIt would be good if the British couldrnreverse this process, but the opposite isrnlikely to happen. Football is already arnmuch bigger commercial enterprise inrnSpain than is the bullfight. As so oftenrnin the modern world, a charactedess internationalrnsport designed to appeal tornthe very lowest elements in society isrnslowly supplanting one that vividly embodiesrna particular national tradition.rnAlso, British animal-rights activists havernbegun their campaign against bullfighting,rnthus confirming the Spanish viewrnthat Britain’s lower classes are thugs andrnits middle classes busybodies. The animal-rnrights lobby’s next move will be tornmobilize that prejudice against all thingsrnSpanish that gripped Britain from therntime of the Armada to the death of thernCaudillo. In the end they will win, firstrnin Britain and France, then in the EC,rnand finally in Spain itself, not becausernthey are in the right, but because single-rnissue fanatics can always wear downrneven the most powerful oppositionrnsimply by being an intolerable nuisance.rnWhen they succeed, Spain—^likernBritain—will fall to the hooligans.rnChristie Davies is chairman ofrnthe sociology department at thernUniversity of Reading, England.rnLIBERAL ARTS 1rnA KINDER, GENTLER IVY LEAGUErn”lire Standing Committeernexpressed support for thernPrinceton’s commitment tornon the Status of Women and President Shapiro havernuse of inclusive language as a means of affirmingrnequity. The Publications Office is drafting a manualrnof style for use in editing University publications, and we have incorporated somernsimple guidelines for inclusive language. The style manual will be available onrncampus once it is publishedrnStanding Committee, I oikrnInstead of:rnthe deaf.rnthe visually impairedrnthe disabledrnthe handicappedrnvictim of AIDSrnblack slavesrnwheelchair-boundrnsexual preferencernhomosexualrnthis summer. In the meantime, at the request of thern’r our guidelines on inclusive language. . . .rnConsider:rnpeople who are deaf, people withrnhearing impairmentsrnpeople with visual impairmentsrnpeople with disabilitiesrnpeople with disabilitiesrnperson with AIDSrnenslaved blacksrnwheelchair-userrnsexual orientationrngay person, gay men, lesbian . . .”rn—from a Communications and Publications memo to “chairs” ofrndepartments, “heads” of offices, and studentrnorganizations at Princeton.rnJUNE 1993/43rnrnrn