"Passing the Bechdel Test" isn't a necessary criterion for counting something a good female-centric effort, it's simply a very good indicator.
And Sarah spoke with both Huntress and Laurel about non-male things, and Laurel had a conversation in which she blackmailed her female boss, so I'm not sure where you're…

Yes. Nothing is more bold and aggressive than being a passive character for the entirety of one's story-lines, save for that one point where she tried to catch the Arrow.

At the same time, the show has had problems allowing Leslie to fail, so I'm not sure how comfortable Schur will be allowing Peralta to fail. Even Leslie's recall was a very longtime coming, and has not had a large effect on the plot, to the point that her position in the Park's department isn't clear other than…

In Casino Night, Jim made a second move (in the office) after being reject. Jake left before Amy could even respond. These are very different "moves."

Yeah, my respect for both the show and Andy Samberg skyrocketed during that scene. He totally sold — without saying anything directly — that Peralta was afraid that he was going to get killed on the job while still being totally willing to do it.

I did not. I mean… I know that people that aren't Santiago were there, but at the same time…. Holy shit she smoked that dress.

I hate that notion as well. I have many amazing female friends, but I also have several not-friends who are only not my friends because they think that as a man I only want to sleep with them. I lose. They lose. It's aggravating.

A joke that needs to be understood to be funny? How novel! It's like every other joke in existence!

Haha, "duty"!

This post gives me an acceptable motivation to imagine Alison Brie ripping off her underwear! Hurray!

The only show with a more "out of nowhere" breakup was Alex and Dave on Happy Endings… but that was fine because they're idiots who only broke up "because it felt right", while also getting stuck in progressively smaller spaces "because it felt right".

Aukerman explains how he did it on a Conan podcast, if you're actually curious.

The Republicans "vetoing something out of the gate" refers to their public assertions against the system making it politically untenable, not the use of an actual technical veto.

Yes. Media is always targeted at people who are in the exact same demographic as the characters in the media itself. That's why everyone who went to see Iron Man was a billionaire industrialist playboy.

Given that several of the commenters state that they were interested in the book before finding out that it wasn't written in first person, it seems odd that you can't help but think that they weren't.

I largely agree with this. I've never liked Archer that much when they're TOTALLY incompetent. The fact that Archer is an idiot that manages to pull off some shit (e.g. "The Papal Chase"; "The Limited") is more amusing to me than "look at these dummies with guns fail at their ambitions continuously!"

One day you'll realize that you can't "win" at internet commenting, and your memories of today will embarrass you severely.

Keep it going buddy. You're doing great!

A person posting a comment that denigrates the idea of comments in a section devoted to comments is one of the more pathetic tropes of the internet.

I once read an interview where she said that she considers herself more Swedish when she's in Canada and more Canadian when she's in Sweden.