Anything that self-describes as cheeky probably isn't. Beyond that, the idea of "cheeky women" sounds a bit cute! pert! trivializing!, like something you'd say about a precocious 8-year-old.

Funny how you don't have any "Editors choices" at all here, after several pages of protest about how offensive the art, the smug intro, and pink and the tired name are.

--> Does anybody know where they are talking about this in tabletalk.salon.com yet? That could be side-splitting.

I have no problems with the interest in talking about women in todays world -- and a little bit of international focus could make this worthwhile.

(The WHAT ABOUT MEN remark is what's known as trolling, people. A diversion. Please!)

The idea that your private email conversation was "a blog" shows how naive and insulated you folks have been.

Sigh. Okay, okay. So I was rough on ya. Like a tough broad.

Get over yourselves, lose the cliche pink and the super-cliche retro-girls artwork, and this might even be interesting.

The pink walls of the new ghetto are fabulous, darlings. I love being told that cheap gossip is women's talk. I don't know who you think your audience is anymore, but increasingly, it isn't this college-educated, politically active feminist blogger--or any of her friends.

Yes, there are issues that have more of an impact on one gender or another, but things such as the "right to privacy," affect us all. I refuse to have what you term "women's issues" stuck behind some pink-walled menstrual hut, while the important work gets discussed somewhere else. By the way, the Rockettes' story? It seems to me those are about working people's rights--not some item of special interest to women.

If I wanted to subscribe to a "women's magazine," replete with stories on how I can get my man to give me more money or how to squeeze my feet into Jimmy Choo's or what Mary-Kate is wearing this morning, well, I would. But support this kind of drivel with my subscriber dollars? Please. There's plenty o' crap out there. Congratulations on joining the pile.

The whole pink, sassy feminist angle is annoying, yes, and maybe even offensive to women.

However, what I see as the real problem here is the blogification of Salon. Before anyone had ever used the word "blog", Salon was a source of well-reported, well-written articles. Nice long articles you could really sink your teeth into.

Granted, War Room was a good addition. There certainly is a place for fast analysis of political stories with our short newscycle.

Then came the War Room redesign. It's a blog, so a design that looks more blog-like and less new site-like makes sense. Ok, no problem there.

But now you've redesigned the ENTIRE site to look more like a blog, and cutting down on the well-reported stories to bring us even more blogs.

Why would I want to continue to subscribe to Salon, or even read it, when I can just as easily subscribe to anyone else's crappy blog? The way this site is going, I can't imagine even wanting to subscribe to its RSS feeds along with the other blogs I read when my subscription runs out (sadly, it's going to take a while, as I subscribed right before you started making all of the All Blogs, All the Time changes).

Finally, a place for women on Salon!

Though I myself am not a woman, I have been intimate with several, and I've found that women have neither the capacity nor the interest to handle complex subjects, like politics or science.

Thankfully, Salon has now recognized this discrepancy between the sexes and has created a section that women can enjoy too.

As for me, I like the new blog. Didn't even notice the pink, until I looked at the comments page where everyone seemed horrified by that choice. I just noticed that it was easy to read. I like the mix of trivial gossip with more substantive stories - got no problem with that format. Nor do I think that the existence of this blog implies that I'm too dumb to read the War Room blog - which I also love. Have fun, go to town, and see where it leads.

How about covering them instead?

If you wanted to create a new "women's" section to cover the feminization of poverty, global women's health care access, accessible education for girls, reproductive care and rights, access to capital like micro-investment programs targeting women, women's leadership initiatives, wage equality, etc., I would applaud that. The Rockettes piece was interesting from an organized labor and maternity rights perspective - but the rest of it? I won't be coming back for Streisand quips, news of the bizarre from the fundamentalist right wing, or the "girly" gossip of the day. Women still have real battles to fight.

What the hell is WRONG with you people?

Can't you hear us telling you you are DESTROYING everything we loved about this magazine/website? Now you want to ghettoize womens' discussions?

Could somebody please check the ventilation system at Salon Media Group?

If that checks out, I suggest tests on the water cooler and coffee pots. There has got to be some kind of mass psychosis that is causing you to continue to stubbornly "destroy the village in order to save it" in spite of the pleas of your devoted readership.

This is ridiculous. By seperating "women's issues" out, you make them different. It's like Women's History Month. We get one month, and men get the other 11. So, thanks sooooo much Salon, for thinking of me. One blog just for me. Because I don't care about politics or human rights or economics. I care about GOSSIP. And jokes! And babies and fluffy white puppies. Give me a break. I'll keep reading Salon, but this is a waste of my time, and yours, frankly.

Shoots for cute. Hits corny.

What is happening to you, Salon? Has the editorial staff been kidnapped and replaced with pod people? First there was the ill-conceived and ill-received redesign. Then there was the day I opened Salon at work only to have the big penis appear at the top of my page. And now this ridiculous blog. It's cheeky! It's adorable! No, wait--it's nauseating! Am I not supposed to worry my pretty little head about all those complex news stories anymore? Or is your next move to eliminate any serious content? Don't get me wrong--I appreciate well-written fluff. I'm fine with stories about entertainment and popular culture. I just don't understand why they have to be designated as women's stories and relegated to a pink ghetto. Salon, you keep to moving further and further from what made me love you in the first place.