Read other letters about this article
... is what you should have called this stupid section if you had to have it at all. That would have been honest, after all you write "Sometimes those e-mails turned into stories, but often the item would be small enough that it wouldn't merit its own feature at Salon, either. Still, the staff comments -- hilarious, angry, shocked, pleased -- would zing back and forth by e-mail chain. Without realizing it, we'd begun our own internal blog," - fine, if your blog-envy is so bad you absolutely need another bloggy feature here, go for it*. Calling it a "women's blog" is just insulting.
Salon of all places should have more sense than to divide items along some outdated gender-lines. You have been the example I have pointed people to to show them that all of the US isn't sliding into some kind of mid-19th century paranoia.
If you had only called it "The fluff room" or "Editors waste time too" I could have been able to still cling to that hope.
It is one thing to proclaim that lipstick isn't anathema to feminism, quite another to equate women with fluff.
(*But a little perspective on things please: funny, weird, light-weight stuff is ok, as long as it doesn't drain resources from your *real* jobs - publishing high quality journalism.)