Nonesuch writes, "Right out of the gate, as a first resort, you're already seeking to forcibly silence someone else."

Excuse me, but "forcibly silence"? I don't see anybody being forced in any way: nobody is keeping Salon from putting its cheeky blog up. Nobody is keeping you from writing a letter defending it, just as nobody is keeping me from writing a letter excoriating it. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from withering criticism.

Welcome to the marketplace of ideas. You're welcome to say whatever you wish; I'm welcome to tell you that what you've said is wrong. Grow a thicker skin and deal with it.

(Posted this elsewhere, but it's a general comment on the blog).

I like the concept, which is why I'm so disappointed in the results.

In the past few days, there have been articles and blog entries with cliched references to women:

"Soccer Moms"

"Chicks"

"Catfights"

"Broads"

Is the intent to subvert the stereotypes by reappropriating the terminology - "taking back the chick," in essence? Or is the intent to be provocative?

I haven't seen the analysis or content to support subversion of stereotypes. And there's a difference between conscious provocation that explores boundaries and simply trotting out the same tired old stereotypes.

Even the naming of the blog as "Broadsheet" is representative. Is the only available reference for what defines a "broad" Rosalind Russell's character? Was Barbara Stanwyck too risque? As good as "His Girl Friday" is, it sends a pretty clear message about the appropriate roles for women - either give up your job and settle for a safe marriage to a dull insurance salesman, or return to a job that you love....and re-marry your boss. Her character is never defined by anything other than her relationship to another man. Both states of being reinforce the notion that women are most often (and easily) defined by their relationships to men.

Your article titles of late do the same. Salon, I expected more.

Sarah

I'll just give you a gut-check. When I saw the girly blog I felt instant disapointment. Tried to figure out what else it felt like. It felt like watching the current administration posture, chests all puffed up, as they waved our 2000 off to war with "cheeky" patriotism.

When I feel, not just see, the way girls and women are manifesting in the media [even wrote Salon once to (sigh) ask them to stop describing what Condi Rice was WEARING in an article in which none of the powerful males' clothing was mentioned...(sigggghhhh)]--feel's like backsliding. Trivializing by way of sexual segregation.

The "fashionista" design is alienating. Then again, I was also stunned by reading the words "Mothers Who Think" when I first discovered Salon.

Most of which I love so much that I devour it daily. Oh yeah, being humorous. I'd rather laugh than breathe and adore men. Just not feeling giggly at the moment.

Laura

Someone mentioned how sad it was to see Salon "circling the drain" a few comments back. In the past few weeks alone it appears that not only has Salon been circling the drain, but now the drain has been identified as the vortex of vacuous commercialism. It seems like there's an identity crisis unfolding here. It appears that someone in top management (I won't name names) is attempting to assert a signature "look and feel" to this site as a testament to her own ego, rather than enhancing what the readership has come to expect from Salon. As with other corporate ventures bound for miserable failure, this one will follow a familiar path. The CEO class will have yet another financial conquest story to pad their inflated resumes with, and the rest of us will have lost yet another independent news and analysis source.

You're doing a heck of a job Brownie!

"'Offensive' is a wonderful word. What it basically means is that the entire community has to respond to, and help enforce, your personal emotional reaction to someone else's statement. It becomes everyone duty to defend your emotional state..."

So now others are not allowed to be offended because it offends you?

Jeeze. I'll be on the patio, since you're already on the cross.

I was glad to hear about Broadsheet's debut (from Bitch Ph.D.); your "mission statement" (though you didn't call it that) sounds just right. I look forward to being a regular visitor.

"Presidents with breasts are way hot for the Fall????????????????" You must think that your readers are incredibly stupid or 12. You need to stop referencing this blog on your main page. I can't bear to look at it - it makes me so mad - and also very disappointed in Salon. Who is running your magazine? A junior high pep squad or an incredibly sexist male? Why did you suddenly decide that your female readers had a low IQ and needed to be talked down to?

Bluehammock

...on the new design at

http://polls.heavystorm.com/poll.cgi?id=5355

Hi everyone, I just wanted to let you know that I've been reading all the letters on this thread with great interest, and for all the debate, I'm incredibly gratified to see how strongly people are responding to Broadsheet. I do want to respond to one quick point.

To those who are worried that the creation of Broadsheet means that we're marginalizing stories about women: that couldn't be further from the truth. Our aim is to publish more -- scads more, in fact -- stories that are of interest to women. And I think if you look at the stuff we've posted already, you'll see that we have radically increased Salon's editorial attention to women in just two days. I think that's a great thing, a progressive thing.

I can also assure you that you're not going to see a decrease in stories by and about women in Salon's feature pages.

Thanks to everyone for reading and writing so much about our new blog. I look forward to keeping up with the debate!

"To those who are worried that the creation of Broadsheet means that we're marginalizing stories about women: that couldn't be further from the truth. Our aim is to publish more -- scads more, in fact -- stories that are of interest to women."

Excuse me, but just how absolutely freaking clueless does somebody have to be to respond to tsunami of complaints that "stories of interest to women" are, for the most part, not stories of interest exclusively to women and therefore, stories of interest to or about women SHOULD NOT BE SEQUESTERED IN THEIR OWN LITTLE PINK GHETTO, by promising to sequester even more stories "of interest to women" in the pink ghetto?

We women are perfectly capable of finding the stories that interest us without a big pink bow to draw our attention. There's no reason to publish the stories that may be of particular interest to women separate from the rest of Salon's content.

It's time to admit that groupthink spawned an idea that has offended the majority of Salon's readership. Keep the stories, but get rid of the ghetto.