I have no problem with stories about sex. I do, however, have a problem with stories that hype the importance of the subject in question (i.e., this tiresome patent-infringement case is of "critical importance" in the fight against AIDS, and concerns the potential for "serious profits") only to acknowledge in its concluding paragraphs that, in fact, the subject isn't very important at all (i.e., all studies of condom use indicate that men significantly prefer old-school, non-souped-up concoms, and besides, the new-fangled rubbers are less effective at preventing STDs). Oh, and none of the major players in the case could be reached for comment.

This strikes me less as a failure of reporting than of editing. Somebody at Salon should have been in a position to say "Uhhh, we don't really have a story here. And it's irresponsible to our readers to have them slog through four pages about a tedious, entirely routine lawsuit by promising that it is somehow 'twisted,' 'bizarre' and altogether momentous. It ain't. And no gaggle of adjectives will make it so."

Yeah, it's about time. It's about time that stories concerning women got as much airtime and as many column inches as stories about men. But about time that these stories get relegated to some ghetto with an adorable moniker, the hipster equivalent of the Women's Page? Only if the time in question is circa about 1964. The advent of "Broadsheet" is indicative of such a profound -- and deeply tacky -- misunderstanding of both feminism and the Left in general that the mind just boggles.

Hey, cool idea: Any stories about Jews, let's stick'em in a section called, oh, I dunno...Kike Korner. It could be illustrated by, you know, an amusing cartoon of people with hooked noses. Then there's Homo Home, and the Spade Patrol and Tell All the Truth But Tell It Slant (Eyed). That way, the normal folks -- that would be straight, gentile, white men -- won't have to spend any time slogging through stories about regressive legislation, offensive marketing campaigns, healthcare initiatives, or anything else that, obviously, is of no concern to them.

Plus which, if we establish all those groovy little "special interest" sections, that will leave all the more room for insightful, hard-hitting investigations about sex dolls and legal wranglings over condom design -- which, of course, are of pressing and personal interest to everyone.

Oh, it is just too, too funny to see this article in Broadsheet -- you know, the column that "only legitimize[s] the already generally accepted notion that there are [articles] for everyone, and then there are [articles] for women. Like a miracle household product, it marginalizes as it defines."