Hooray for Salon! I'm nothing short of THRILLED by the new Broadstreet section of Salon. Let's face it, postfeminism (if such a thing ever existed) is over. In these times, I've begun to feel that we need a new revolution. Indeed, I feel that we are now living in prefeminist times.

Salon devoting an entire section to women and the myriad issues we face (both serious and humorous) is a HUGE leap forward in acknowledging the disparity that exists in the media. Thank you for being visionary, and laying the first brick in the large foundation of what will hopefully become a trend towards reporting issues that affect half of the world's population.

It's a noisy world we live in, much of the cacophony is trivia, and I'm disappointed that all you've done with this offering is pile on more of the same.

Next time you darlings of Salon decide to an item or a fullblown story on abortion, why not do something it would never occur to you to do: compare the US abortion picture with that of other countries? Compare it to other western developed nations and then compare it to countries where abortion is illegal, such as Brazil? There are just as many abortions in Brazil as there are in the US, yet abortion is illegal there. Because of that abortion procedures are highly unsafe -- rich and middle class women can get abortions clandestinely but safely because they can afford it, while poor women cannot. Thus thousands of poor Brazilian women are severely injured or die of illegal botched abortions. Instead of covering the abortion issue with the same incredibly insular parameters we have in this country, having a comparative understanding of the world abortion situation would open up the debate and give plenty of ammunition to the liberal pro-choice position.

The only thing more tasteless and offensive then the concept behind Broadsheet is the justifcation you used to introduce it. How dare you complain that "women's" news (whatever that is) is being ignored in favor of more traditional news and then announce your solution is to undereline your agreement with its lack of importance by packaging it off in own separate spot. I am a women and I am can not find the words to express how completely offended I am by the idea that information will be separated by gender. You may argue that your opening editoral welcomed men, but it is clear that you don't mean it. What's next the men's only section? Separate but equal news coverage? If something is worth covering then it worth being read by all your readers. And heres a hint articles that have the word "catfight" in them are not worth covering.

Every Wednesday, when I open my Chicago Tribune, I wonder yet again why they bother printing a separate weekly section called "WomenNews." I'm disappointed to see Salon doing essentially the same thing. I don't understand why this is necessary. Isn't women's news just human news? If you need a place for celebrity gossip and fashion, use The Fix and create a style section. I've been reading Salon for years and have never wished for a special section devoted to my gender. Why would I need that?

A couple of days ago, in another forum, I compared Salon's makeover to the strategy of a radio station that had changed ownership and format. Often, when such was the case, the new radio station would broadcast gibberish for several days in order to scrub its old listener base in favor of the new audience they hoped to attract. At the time, I was being ironic.

Now, after days and days of ever-more-aggressively trivial lead articles, displayed with ever more-cutesy graphics, cumulating in this latest headache-inducing pink monstrosity, I'm beginning to think that getting rid of us is exactly the current editorial strategy.

And my puzzled dismay has distilled into rage: at the increasingly moronic content, the ill-conceived layout, and the fact that the only editorial response after days of vociferous reader protests has been to diminish actual content still further until all that's left is this current garish pink-festooned self-parody.

I do not want a women's blog. If I did, I certainly wouldn't want it to be pink and full of smirky, self-congratulatory titles, snippets of gossip and half-evolved thought. I would, as many others have said here, want real coverage of real news of real interest to real women above the age of 12.

I am not sure what I find most appalling: the apparently wilful destruction of a once respectable, intellectually satisfying web publication, or the apparently escalating attempts to offend loyal readers.

Not impressed, but then I don't read the other gossip features on Salon.com either. I doubt I'll return unless this blog tackles more substantive subjects.

I am so livid right now with this condescending attitude that I can hardly see straight. Real women live real lives. Real women want real stories about issues that actually concern them. We do not want some self-conscious ass wiggling ain't I cute fluff that the editors are attempting to pass off as edge. This is outrageous. It's insulting to all thinking women. And if this blog doesn't receive a makeover or isn't removed entirely, I will cancel my subscription to Salon. This is a new low. I have been a subscriber for many years now, and a member of the Table Talk community since fall of '98. But if Salon doesn't care about me, then I will go elsewhere.

Plenty of other people have commented on "Broadsheet's" appearance of condescension, the trivializing of "women's news" into gossip and fluff, the strange decision to split out some news that is defined as "women's news" but has a much wider appeal (e.g., Harriet Miers), the noticable change in Salon's content since the editorial changes, and the awful pink color scheme (my wife commented, "OK, now they should add "MenSheet," and make it baby blue"), so I won't add my voice to the chorus there.

I will only note that I find it particularly ironic that you introduced this as a "need" in the middle of nearly a month's-worth of news that focused almost exclusively on two women (Harriet Miers, of course, and Judy Miller). Whether Broadsheet is a good or bad thing (I think it's not a very good idea; why do you want to ghettoize yourselves?), your timing is absolutely atrocious.