As The Toronto Star's Antonia Zerbisias puts it, the federal regulations broadly aimed at fighting organized crime were "enacted in the dead of summer without Parliamentary debate" and "give government the powers to wiretap, deny bail, and move in on people without the usual safeguards such as warrants." The upshot is that "a trio of prostitutes partying together with their 'dates' are tantamount to The Sopranos, and deserve the same treatment as gun runners or drug gangs," she writes. "Instead of a maximum two-year term, sex workers could now face 'at least five years' in prison, have all their assets seized and their children taken away." In the face of such penalties, advocates say sex workers will turn to the streets, which aren't as safe and take away their ability to fully screen clients.

As for the complaint currently sitting before the Ontario Supreme Court, the aim is to repeal the laws that effectively make prostitution illegal: the ban on public solicitation, living off the proceeds of sex for pay and running a "bawdy house" (broadly defined as "a place that is kept or occupied, or resorted to by one or more persons, for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency"). The plaintiffs' argument isn't just in defense of their right to make money by having sex, but also their right to do so without having to put their lives at risk. As Kate Harding summarized last November:

The fear of losing their assets and homes for illegally living on money earned by providing a legal service is one part of it, but the more important part is that changing the laws could save lives. Unable to work openly, in groups or to hire security, sex workers believe they are more at risk of robbery, assault, rape and murder under the current criminal code than they would be if prostitution were fully decriminalized.

It's easy to express outrage over the Pickton murders, and the fact that police exhibited a bias against local prostitutes that hurt the investigation and allowed a serial killer to continue his spree -- but the real question, the only one that really matters now, is what's going to be done to best protect sex workers and prevent this from happening again.

But, as I found when I called up one of the number-crunchers behind the research, it's important to note that it doesn't actually show that wage discrimination has disappeared, or been reversed, for this demographic. James Chung, president of the firm that conducted the analysis, responded to my search for clarification with a wry, "The devil is in the details," and added that "not all the nuances are communicated" when reporters are rushing to get the story out. So -- deep breath -- let's not rush.

When we talk about young women out-earning men, we are talking about averages. "It does not mean that a woman holding the same job and the same degree out-earns men," he said. Put another way: It does not mean that young women face no pay discrimination. The researchers have "been slicing and dicing Census Bureau data left and right" to find out "what happens with a generation of women who are 1.5 times more likely to go to college [or earn advance degrees] than their male peers." We know that women make 80 cents on every dollar men make, and that the average woman in her 20s makes 90 cents on the dollar. (Again, we're talking averages, which inevitably means comparing some apples to oranges.) What Chung and his colleagues have done is "isolate the segment where women have caught up with and exceeded men," and that is young, single, childless women.

These days, ladies are waiting longer to get married and to have kids – and it looks like it might be paying off. Chung says it is "crystal clear" that women's higher educational attainment is the real reason why. The study found three commonalities among nearly every city where young women clearly out-earn young men. First, there is "a heavy dependence on knowledge-based jobs, which in turn serves as a magnet for well-educated women." Second, minorities make up the majority of the local population (the researchers note that "Hispanic and African-American women [are] almost twice as likely as their male peers to earn bachelor and graduate degrees"). And, finally, "the community has seen a decimation of the manufacturing employment base, making it more difficult for men without similarly high levels of education to earn solid incomes."

The pay gap has always been a contentious topic, and some argue that it disappears when you control for occupation, education, parental status, lifestyle, et cetera, et cetera. But several studies that have controlled for such factors suggest that a significant gap still remains. Now, whether or not that gap can be explained by sexual discrimination is another issue for debate, and yet more research. The important thing with regards to this study is to recognize what it tells us (young, single, childless women on average are earning more than young men) and what it doesn't tell us (anything about wage discrimination). The fact that ladies these days are getting their learn on like never before, and that this gap is most notable in communities with "knowledge-based" job markets that prize higher education, sends a clear message of how we can help young men to catch up.

This will hardly surprise anyone who has paid attention to the wealth of studies showing the devastating impact stereotypes can have on girls when it comes to math.  Even subtle reminders of gender -- "male" or "female" check boxes, for example -- can hurt girls' test scores, and of course the same is true for boys. Lead researcher Bonny Hartley explains: "There are signs that these expectations have the potential to become self-fulfilling in influencing children's actual conduct and achievement." She warns teachers to avoid pitting the boys against the girls and using diminishing sayings like "silly boys" or "schoolboy pranks."

The moral of this study is that sex stereotypes don't just hurt girls, and teachers should treat all children like little people, not little men or little women. Leave it to the Daily Mail, though, to turn this into a battle of the sexes with this ridiculous headline: "Boys 'being held back by women teachers' as gender stereotypes are reinforced in the classroom." Not only is that not an actual quote, but if you make it to the end of the article, you discover that "the study drew no distinction between the beliefs and classroom practices of male and female teachers." 

Atami's struggling local economy has businesses eager to play along. "At the real Hotel Ohnoya, which opened its doors in 1937, the staff is trained to check in Love Plus+ customers as couples even if there is only one actual guest," reports the Wall Street Journal. That means rooms are outfitted with two of everything, even though there is only one living, breathing guest. Also, "Yamadaya, a shop selling processed fish cakes on Atami's main shopping street, started offering special Love Plus+ fish cakes," and "Korean barbecue-inspired restaurant Hien [features] a special Love Plus+ menu of Japanese beef and side dishes." Vacationers are also supplied with a special passport that allows them to check in at various tourist spots and get their souvenir booklet stamped. There's even a special iPhone app the allows men to take photos of themselves on their vacation and digitally superimpose their fake ladyfriends into the picture.

It's true what they say: There really is someone out there for everyone -- and, sometimes, that someone just so happens to be pixelated.

The idea is to tackle sexism in the media by doing exactly what the name implies. As an abstract concept, it's fine -- but so too are lots of activist ideas that end up a schlocky mess. Thankfully, though, that isn't the case here. Mix Gloria Steinem's politics with the sensibility of "The Daily Show" (only, perhaps with more female writers and on-air staff) and you get this mock cable news show with two crowing misogynists and one diminished lady correspondent. Keep an eye on the ticker at the bottom of the screen, which supplies similar dialog from actual, real-life media outlets. That's where the video becomes depressing: Very little exaggeration is required, because this is one case where reality writes its own parody.

When I wrote yesterday about the paper calling her a "hypocrite" for defending an Iranian woman sentenced to death for adultery, I speculated that the editorial powers that be saw Bruni-Sarkozy as "deserving of death as well." At the time, I actually wondered for a moment whether I was being hyperbolic. Sadly, it turns out I wasn't at all.

In the meantime, the Iranian government has expressed mild disapproval of the paper's remarks. (It's worth noting that the daily is supervised by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office.) Ramin Mehmanparast, spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said: "The media can properly criticize the wrong and hostile policies of other countries by refraining from using insulting words." Translation: Next time, make your murderous ire a little more subtle, dudes.