Which brings us to your inevitable question: What about men? Where do they fit in here?

Men care about women. Men like to know what's going on with women.

Thanks for that last line.

This is very entertaining. Could have lived without the chick-lit pink, but I understand why you did it. A great addition that I'll be checking regulary.

and I'm a woman.

You're ruining Salon, you know.

Ok, but don't be decadent. Don't just link to the BS crap from us weekly or New York Magazine.

What is with Salon?

How can you start what you term a "women's blog" and

include "catfight" in the advertisement? The term

catfight is extremely sexist. I have noticed that

Salon has been having more and more pointless and

sometimes offensive crap on its site. Last week there

was the whiny and very silly article about how awful

it is when children have homework - shock! horror! -

homework - and now you demean women with this schlock.

If I had not just renewed my membership, I wouldn't.

I am a woman and I know that other women read your

site. Why don't you try not to be such sexist

creeps?

Just a clue - a "women's blog" would not be about how much women hate each other and fight. Who came up with this brilliant idea? I football-watching-20-year-old male? How stupid are your female readers supposed to be?

If I paid a week ago is it still possible to get my money back. This is my third year as a subscriber, but I think that I have had enough!

Bluehammock

I'm a long-time Salon reader, almost from the beginning. I remember when we called this whole section "Mothers Who Think." I liked the implications of that. I was sorry when it went from an intelligent section aimed mainly at women to some kind of generi-human interest thing.

And now, we have some kind of cutesy title for news purportedly of special interest to women? Uhhh, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, but so far I'm expecting my intelligence to be insulted. We didn't need a typical women's section type thing here. I'm fine with the regular news, thanks all the same.

If we must do this, can we put the implication that we think back in the title? Please? With stories and columns to match?

What a great idea! I'm so pleased you started this. Women totally deserve more attention. It's pathetic that anyone even needs to point out that women are important because we're 51% of the population. Everything that keeps women's issues in the forefront is to be encouraged.

Also, I love your illustration. So sassy, chic, and clever.

Well I for one say "Golly, Thanks Salon!". You've made it "cool" again to see women as some weird amusing slightly pathetic separate species again! I for one was finding it a bit tiring to think of "the fairer sex" as an equal one. But if it's OK for Salon to go all "Cosmo" on us, pretty soon I'll be able to make hormone jokes again whenever my "squeeze" is "ragging" on me. I just LOVE 1962!

Everybody who works in an office does this. Hell, practically all of America does this. You find something weird or funny or interesting in the news, and you send it on to your friends and family with your snarky comments attached.

Here's the difference between you and most of the rest of us: we know that nobody but our friends and family cares about our snarky commentary.

You people work for what used to be a really good online publication. Write an article about how Mary-Kate dresses like a grandma now or don't. If you don't have enough snark to fill a whole article, why should we read it? To see how clever and funny you are? Because, as we know, "Women are funny." Girls are cute. They like pink and celebrity gossip and boys. They like to be called broads because that's sassy. And they're funny!

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I think the whole premise behind this blog is astoundingly sucktastic on more than one level.

I was completely put off by the PINK!!!!! but I gave the blog a read anyway.

Let's put it this way.

I'd rather you brought back the odious and insane David Horowitz than have this "girl's blog" in your web site one more day.

It's bad enough that the Busheviks are trying to drag us back to the 1950s of second-class citizenship for "the ladies". Whoever came up with the brilliant notion that "girls just want to have cheeky gossip" should be fired. Now.

Are you kidding with this? A pink sidebar devoted to items of special interest to women, such as Barbara Striesand quips? Have you deemed the War Room too hard for women to understand, or is it that we are not interested in things like politics? I read, and for now subscribe to Salon, for political news and insightful commentary, and also enjoy lighter items such as the Fix and the favorite gadget series. Why are you targeting women for items too trivial or undeveloped for a full-length article in the grown-up section of the site? I can just hear the "contributors" giggling to themselves about how wacky they are -- find the "giggling" reference offensive? The tone of the blog (more like a diary) deserves no greater respect. Hopefully Salon's cheeky women readers will respond with a barrage of criticism to this offensive and juvenile offering.

bravo for this effort. will read it faithfully.

but please, can't we get over this pink thing?

Within just the past few days, we've witnessed an increasingly hostile attitude toward women here at salon.com. There was a lead article about life-size, "anatomically correct" female dolls being purchased and used as sex slaves. Then the male condom article which was so poorly offered that I wasn't even tempted to read it. And now we have featured a "cat fight" between two female columnists, "Mary-Hate and Ashley" and "Celebrity chef burns women," in addition to being told that you like to use the derogatory term "broads" for women as well as the puerile "chick". I know Blumenthal was a hard act to follow, but did you have to deteriorate so far so fast? Next renewal cycle, I'm outta here.