Why do we need this?

This is great. It was developed by a non-profit called ISIS (Internet Sexuality Information Services). They have been on the cutting edge of a lot of sex ed -new technology. www.isis-inc.org

Dear Broads at Broadsheets:

Have to get this off my chest. This is something that I have been thinking about for a while now. I don't usually read the celebrity rags, certainly never buy them, but I do pick them up in the doctors office, when the line at the supermarket is long, etc. However, they are everywhere and in your face, so the covers are hard to avoid. Here's my problem: I AM SICK OF THESE MAGS POINTING OUT EVERY LITTLE LUMP, BUMP, FLAB, PANTYLINE, POOCH, POUCH, AND ANYTHING ELSE THEY CAN GET AN UNFLATTERING PICTURE OF ON THESE WOMEN!!!! WE NEED A BOYCOTT! At the very least, maybe it's time to start running pictures of the editors of these mags (have you seen Bonnie Fuller - she's a perfectly ordinary looking women. In other words: she's a mess!!!) It is misogynistic, hateful, horrible - I'm sick of it!!! And if they're not point out the 'fat' they're suggesting someone's anerorexic! How long are women going to take it? Especially since (I'm willing to bet) women are the biggest buyers of this crap (hey girls: put down People and pick up The Nation). It all ties in with your analysis of the make-over shows.

This is what I read on Salon that pushed me over the edge. Sorry for ranting. Thanks for listening.

Eileen Lynch, Hoboken NJ

eileenlynch@hotmail.com

July 7, 2006 | Morning Briefing:

Witherspoon's Star payback: After Star magazine ran a photo of Reese Witherspoon with a slight belly bump last month, Witherspoon threatened to sue the celebrity rag for falsely claiming she was pregnant. This week, Star has made up for the mistake, in its own cruel way: In a retraction of sorts, the magazine is running a huge shot of Witherspoon in a bikini at the beach under the headline: "Reese Mystery Solved: She's not pregnant ... It's bloat!" Circling her tummy with the caption "Just a pouch!" the editors don't pull any punches, opining that "since she is not pregnant, maybe it's just a sign that it's time to hit the gym!" (Women's Wear Daily, Popbytes)

LOATHE the sexist graphic (Cary Tennis doesn't have to show his chest hair...), the "arch" face, the neckline.

Sigghh. And I also hate the STUPID question:

Why Broadsheet? And the utterly meaningless answer.

Condescend to us some more, grand imagemesiters,

why doncha.

Ick. Cheeky. Bleahh.

It irritates me so much I of course miss some

interesting content...and other boomer women

must be feeling the same way....

I know, nobody's listening. Just had to say it.

"Can't Think of Any Mistakes" is to George Bush

Hi all:

In Venezuela, women are making big advances. Thought this might interest you:

http://www.globalexchange.org/tours/765.html

Seriously, you might want to go on this tour.

"Broad"as an epithet for "woman" is anathema to me. It's too loaded, too sexist, too coarse, to insulting, too painful; not cheeky, not funny, not cute, not clever, not edifying. It disgusts me. It irritates me that Salon offers a solid feminist perspective under such a grating term. Like "bitch" or "to bitch", it's not a word that would ever escape my lips (or computer) without quotation marks. I hope you'll wise up and change the name of the section to something that doesn't hit me hard.

Polly Rothstein

Purchase, NY

...that a huge number of readers will pay no attention to most news about:

rape

child molestation

domestic violence

reproductive rights

contraception

Because those topics that affect 51 percent of humanity are be sidelined in a pink blog with a cutesy, demeaning title. They are only about females, not the human race.

Sillies. Real news, politics and war, is front and center. Connecting the dots between women's and girls' experiences and THE FATE OF THE EARTH?

Not happening here, folks. Not in Salon.

A whole new can of worms will undoubtedly be opened with the way this new study on pregnancy, early miscarriage, and socio-demographic, behavioural and other factors is being reported:

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/12/04/hscout536393.html

(for example, "Women who weren't married or living with a partner had an increased risk of miscarriage." - wouldn't the religious right love to bray about *that*!)

The abstract is here:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01193.x

The cartoon image of the lady representing the Broadsheet column seems to have two left hands.. Is this intentional, or just unnoticed?

that's all

now I'll go read the "important" stuff

I can't believe that this woman, whose calling-truth-to-power helped encourage the American masses to start being openly skeptical (at least) about the Iraq War, has not been the subject or either a "regular" Salon story or a Broadsheet item.

For shame!

So, happened across this TV show following "What Not to Wear." Six contestants vying for a modeling contract. Half way through the show, they admirably have a nutritionist on, who tells one contestant at 20 BMI she's "perfect"; another contestant that at 15.5 BMI she's the "lowest he's ever seen." And guess who does well with the judges, and who is in danger -- 20 BMI is not appropriate for fashion and needs to "tone" -- the judges say she really wants this, so will "do what is necessary" (i.e., starve, I guess -- and by the way, she's gorgeous!); 15.5 looks great in lingerie and has a "unique" look -- she's a winner on the show tonight. Some message. For a show on network television, disgusting -- supposedly the fashion industry is so concerned about anorexia in models, but THIS is STILL the criteria -- the thinnest, sickest model wins? Take a look!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6917332.stm

Broadsheet headlines august 8 2007

"

Airbrushing the baby

The great circumcision debate, continued

Sex ed in Second Life

237 reasons to have sex

The rise of the "vegansexual"

"

Dont you girls think of anything other than sex ? ;-))