studies of police forces have consistently found an unacceptable level of corruption

Care to cite that ? or is it just hearsay - sounds like bollocks to me.

Reminder (as if it's actually needed): "Women's work" doesn't count as work or an economic exchange.

The whole point of the news item is that womens work is being valued economically, there's a clear quid quo pro going on here, people are exchanging their cleaning services for board. The fact that's it barter doens't mean its not economically driven. For the people concerned its an easy way of avoiding the hassles of taxes, regulations etc. Its common in many areas (not just "womens" work).

Sometimes I have to wonder at the reading comprehension skills of BS writers, though I suspect its more a cause of applying the lense of womens oppression to all and sundry - when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.

Additionally, in the US aren't the majority of arrests/convictions for personal drug use ? which are non-violent and victimless.

Also, the large majority of violence victoms are men, but no one cares about that.

Crap - the forum ate my post.

As far as I can tell, the times article only researched men offering board to women. They never bothered to see if women are offering similar quid quo pro's, so attempting to characterise this as men oppressing women is a fairly meaningless exercise.

I've always despised the characterisation of sports people as "heros". To me hero's are people who risk the lives to save others - firemen/women, soldiers, individuals etc.

Or those who sacrifice and labour to help others - animal rescue, crusading lawyers, activists, whistleblowers, the people working in the community.

Athletes ? paid to play games for entertainment. Calling that heroic devalues the term.

You just luurrrvve us - I feel so much better now. All those awkward issues are floating away like little pink butterflies now.

How patronising, and dismissive of the point. The issue isn't wether BS loves men, I don't doubt most do, but nor do I care.

A issue is the coverage of all things women, from the women's view point, usually with the man as oppressor in BS. The flipside the complete lack of any similar coverage for men in salon.

Another issue - the lack of regard for how insanely offensive the concept of BS is for a lot of men and women. Women's issues, all cheeky and pink. The whole concept that women's news is not mainstream.

Or how about this : BS is front and centre on salon - women's issues are more important than any other grouping, gender, ethnic or whatever. And now you're co-opting gay issues, male and female.

I know that this and the other posting on the problems of Male teachers are efforts to make it seem like BS is inclusive. Well you get an F, BS by its very nature cannot be inclusive.

In a lot of ways the salon editorial team has developed a quite bush like style with regard to criticism in their left wing middleclass way. Answer the questions not asked and sideline or dismiss the real issues. Bring up a bogus issue (We really do love men) give it a kiss and say its all better.

Hows the echo chamber up there in salon land ? I'm about the only dissenter left on the TT "Tell our editor how we're doing!" thread, all the others have left or given up, so I guess "Mission Accomplished!"

Ah - the old "everywhere is the men room" fallacy.

We've got stories about James Carroll, Terrence Boyle and Stephen Colbert. All men

They're people issues - unless you think women are not interested in politics etc.

Its a pretty easy distinction to recognise.

For heaven's sakes. The reason there are things like Broadsheet is because coverage of issues important to women are often shortchanged in the mainstream media-- even in the "left-leaning" media.

Yup you're so right - BS covers those article the meida doesn't. It couragously links to the the articles the media prints that other media thingy's won't link to.

Bollocks of course - BS only relinks what other media has already covered, so its hardly breaking womens news into the mainstream.

And this is *Salon*, the editors have complete control of it - if they were serious about covering womens news (the old salon did it pretty effectively) then they could do it on the masthead. Instead it goes into the pink ghetto.

All they've done is create a division between women and men and in the process sideline men.

You know the system screws most men pretty effectively too - they're stuffedinto roles they have little choice in. Class differences count for far more than any other division. Who do you think has more choices - Salon writers like Aylet Waldmen or the average shmoe ?

The fact that class is a problem in no way means that gender isn't or that it trumps it.

I most certainly didn't say that gender is not an issue - I think its a very major issue. I also think its just as much an issue for men as for women.

Yes, class is important, but the "upper class" women you allude to exist within their own "gilded" confines as well and face a different set of restrictions and impediments than others whom the system affects.

I said middle class. And I'm guessing you're throughly in that class if you believe a "upper class" women as you put it has less freedoms than a working class man.

Broadsheet - the last refugee for the oppressed middle classes.

You think BS adds insight with its commentary ? that snarky self-consciously shallow verbiage adds value beyond the blindingly obvious ?

ok ...