At times, the British media's coverage of Parliament's recent call for "zero-tolerance" of sexist advertising reads like a teary-eyed deathbed farewell. The Metro shares its dark vision: "The days of watching scantily clad models dancing on distant beaches to promote the latest perfume could be numbered." Sniff. Meanwhile, the Daily Star offers a funereal reminiscence on Britain's "best-loved" ads: "Sophie Dahl's mouth-watering naked ad for Opium and wonderbra's famous Hello Boys ads." It also gives a nod to Orangina's zoophilic wonderland (freeze frame at right).

But, the rumors of sexism's death have been greatly exaggerated. A large majority of the European Parliament on Wednesday adopted a report on media and gender equality that, among other things, argues that advertising "deemed to portray women as sex objects or reinforce gender stereotypes" should be prohibited -- but the report isn't legally binding. In other words: a complete ban on all sexist and stereotypical imagery hasn't been enacted -- and it isn't imminent, either.

What if it were, though? I'm all for calling out offensive advertisers and voting against them with my dollars, but I can't get behind complete censorship. Not to mention, a ban would require arriving at an agreed-upon definition of sexist imagery, and good luck with that. Eva-Britt Svensson, the report's author, actually says that her aim "is to make it impossible to use gender stereotypes in advertising." What, then, would be permissible -- images of anti-stereotypes? An apron-clad man putting dinner on the table or a woman in grease-covered overalls rolling out from under her pickup, wrench in hand?

I would love to see those images and advertisers should be pressured to upend gender stereotypes. But we all know that stereotypes are true some of the time: Some women bake, some men fix cars. It seems to me it would be difficult to ban advertising stereotypes without creating new gendered images that are similarly limiting.

Real estate developer Terry Montesi recently tried a novel approach to designing a new shopping center: asking the people who make 80 percent of all consumer purchases -- i.e., women -- for input. Of design meetings for previous projects, Montesi says, "We'd have 20 people in a meeting, and sometimes there'd be one woman, sometimes none. It didn't take a brain surgeon to figure out something was broken with that approach." So when he set about creating Watters Creek at Montgomery Farm, a new "retail resort" in Allen, Texas, he consulted a focus group of 23 women during all phases of the process.

So, what do women want in a new mall? The answers include green space, nice washrooms, a variety of safe parking options, heel- and stroller-friendly walking surfaces, child play areas and an outdoor firepit. (Really?) It also turns out that women don't care how snazzy-looking the buildings are (but do care about landscaping). It "definitely wasn't about painting the buildings in pastels. It wasn't about making the buildings look feminine, it was about making the place more friendly to the women who use it," says Montesi. No! Nobody voted for a pink Pottery Barn? Get out!

I hate to be snarky (sort of) when this dude has at least noticed that women tend to be the majority of the mall-going population and thus thought to ask what we want. But it just depresses me to learn that what industry professionals thought we might want were "feminine" buildings -- what does that even mean? Mies van der Rohe with a bow on top? -- as opposed to a generally woman-friendly environment. "It's the sad thing about our industry that we have really not paid much attention to our customer, the women shoppers," the developer says. No kidding. At least this is a start.

Readers, what would you want in your ideal mall? A firepit? Babysitting? Puppies to play with while you wait in long lines? (A friend of mine actually got that service at a pet store recently, and we think it should be available everywhere.) Let us know in comments.

I really want to hug Oprah Winfrey for refusing to have Sarah Palin on as a guest until after the campaign is over. Trying to find non-Palin-related material for a lady blog these days is like trying to find a right-wing pundit who gave a damn about sexism before last week. But now that Oprah's taken a stand, maybe others will follow her lead in blowing off the Republican V.P. candidate, and we can get back to more important stuff (like how the sports car "vroom" sound has been scientifically proven to arouse women, despite its well-established correlation with tiny penises). A girl can dream, anyway. In the meantime, resistance is futile, so here's your daily Palin.

»Continued

In this week's clip for Current TV, I talk about a much-covered study that was just about as hard to ignore this week as a certain gun-toting Alaska governor.

So there is a Sarah Palin rap. It is, amazingly, not that bad. It is actually pretty good. You should watch it while wearing headphones because it contains dirty swear words that might upset the boss man. That is all.

For roughly the cost of buying a pornographic DVD -- on sale -- you can purchase sex in London; for the cost of a hot new X-rated release, you can purchase high-risk sex, like unprotected anal intercourse.

That's according to a new report, which surveyed 921 brothels in the city and found that "full sex" costs as little as 15 pounds (about $26) and unprotected sex just 10 pounds more. Sex with a prostitute on average costs 62 pounds (just over $110) and goes for as much as 250 ($442). Researchers found women of 77 different ethnicities working in the city's brothels, although many were from eastern Europe and Southeast Asia -- both of which are known for sex trafficking.

The report bolsters Britain's fight against sex trafficking and, notably, Minister for Women Harriet Harman's campaign to criminalize the sale of sex. On Thursday, in the wake of the report's release, Harman visited with trafficked women, underscored another recent survey finding that most Brits support criminalizing johns and railed against the "multimedia misrepresentations of commercial sex as a glamorous, easy and fun career choice for girls." She added: "For most women involved in prostitution, the reality is a cycle of violence and coercion, perpetuated by poverty and inequality."

Still, I remain unconvinced that outlawing prostitution is the best approach to reducing sex trafficking or that it will better protect the workers. Last year, British Liberal Democrat David Howarth very reasonably looked at the actual effect of criminalizing sex work: "Evidence from Sweden in making prostitution illegal has shown that it doesn't help in reducing human trafficking. It, in fact, increases violence against women and makes the practice of prostitution far more risky for all involved."

Palin-mania reached a new climax Wednesday night with the vice-presidential candidate's Republican National Convention speech. To say it has been "talked about" today is to say that Palin is "kind of conservative." After several days on hotel lockdown, Palin came out with a smile, proving that, if nothing else, she can outread George W. on a teleprompter any day.

Voting for the McCain-Palin ticket out of spite would be akin to saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs"

Last night's speech received rave reviews from mainstream news sources. Here's a sampling:

"She Shoots! She Scores!" the Washington Post gushes.

"Palin came out swinging!" the Wall Street Journal cries.

"Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party!" the New York Times exclaims.

For a speech that, to my mind at least, did little beyond point fingers and reinforce how damn wholesome she is, the mainstream press seems awfully impressed with her.

More from the New York Times: "Ms. Palin's appearance electrified a convention that has been consumed by questions of whether she was up to the job, as she launched slashing attacks on Mr. Obama's claims of experience," Times reporters Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper report.

Gloria Steinem, meanwhile, hit back with a piece in the Los Angeles Times about why Palin is the wrong woman with the wrong plan and support for the wrong issues. Noting that "Palin shares nothing but a chromosome" with Hillary Clinton, Steinem reinforces the belief that voting for the McCain-Palin ticket out of spite would be akin to saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs." A poll of Michigan voters supports Steinem's thoughts on Palin, showing that independent voters are unimpressed with both the lady and her speech.

Minimal coverage was given to what Sarah Palin did not say, as well as to the fictions she upheld, including her continued insistence that she did not support the Bridge to Nowhere plan (when she did). The Post's Tom Shales went so far as to suggest that if the Republicans win, they may well attribute their victory to Palin. Though he feels her rhetoric is less than brilliant, he describes her as genuine and down to earth, traits that hold heavy sway with voters. And he may be on to something.

Following a week of Democrats taking the high ground in Denver, Palin dug in her canines. Though it has become something of a trend in the Democratic Party to avoid full-on character assault, Glenn Greenwald points out the potentially detrimental side effects of this strategy today, noting that as Republicans build a campaign on character alone, the nice-guy response could cost Obama the election. Nonetheless, the Daily Kos lends credence to the contrary view, with a personal story about getting turned off by the Republican Party, thanks to all of its Democrat-bashing.

In closing, I will turn to the words of Sarah Palin herself: "But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out and those styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot -- what exactly is our opponent's plan?" What, indeed?

When in the course of history we have firsts, or in this case seconds, like Sarah Palin's historic candidacy for vice president, it is vital that we monitor the prejudices and biases revealed by the ways in which these groundbreaking people and moments are discussed. But just as vital as pointing out sexism is pointing out criticism that is not at all sexist, and keeping Palin's boosters from bastardizing feminism in such a way that it loses meaning.

NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin responds to Sarah Palin's speech:

"Last night Governor Sarah Palin spoke proudly of cutting her state's budget and using her line item veto. What she neglected to mention, however, was that in that role she slashed funding for Alaska's Covenant House, which runs a state program that that gives teen mothers skills, training, and a place to live.

»Continued

In less than a week, Sarah Palin has energized her political base in a staggering way. She has also energized those of us who proudly stand outside that camp. As reported in Broadsheet Wednesday, "the number of U.S. Internet searches for 'Sarah Palin' reached a peak greater than any other political personality in the past three years." I know what you're thinking: Yes, even greater than Gary Coleman.

That sound you just heard was 18 million cracks in my heart

Many things struck me about Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention last night. I noticed that, as Joan Walsh writes this morning, she came out "teeth bared like a Rudy Giuliani in heels." I noticed that, as Walter Shapiro writes this morning, she was presented as a "martyr unfairly derided by the national press corps." I noticed that the crowd in Minnesota adored her, could not get enough of her, and showed that in many ways: cheering, fist-pumping, holding signs that read "Hockey Moms 4 Palin" and -- in that great American capitalist tradition -- wearing buttons.

Yes, it's hard to love something or someone in this country before some huckster sells you flair to support your addiction, and the buttons made on behalf of Sarah Palin do not disappoint. There is, of course, the issue of her good looks: "Coldest State, Hottest Governor" reads one, with a photo of Palin that looks like she's auditioning for the part of the sexy D.A. on "Law & Order." The good people of Indiana, not to be outdone, introduced their "Hoosiers for the Hot Chick" button. Sexist? Naaaah. As one woman explained it to MSNBC, "being a hot chick, strong, fun and capable all go together."

But annnnyway. Sarah Palin is more than a pretty face. She's also a woman! I'm not sure if you noticed. And so there's plenty of femme-friendly buttons for the ladies in the audience, especially those of you who think to yourselves, "Hmm, these Susan G. Komen-sponsored products are a little bit masculine." There is the "Women for Sarah Palin" button, and if that is just not enough like a Hallmark card, well then, I give you this baby. (Speaking of babies, why Palin's baby does not have his own button is a riddle to make any Republican entrepreneur weep.)

Of course, the great thing about Sarah Palin, from a salesman's point of view, is that she serves both sides of the Hillary divide. Mad that Hillary wasn't V.P.? Well, thank God for Sarah Palin. Hate Hillary with a passion? Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. And thus we have "If I Can't Have Hillary, I'll Take Sarah" (that sound you just heard was 18 million cracks in my heart) and then, of course, "Hillary who?"

But mostly, you guys, Sarah Palin is hot. And this crowd LOVES a hot chick. You won't see any Democrats sporting the "Our V.P. Is Hotter Than Yours" button (though, to be fair, Joe Biden? He's aging well). Or, the utterly unpronounceable and yet instantly memorable VPILF. High-five, America. Always be closing.