Clearly you have no idea how television works. [as] makes money selling ad space on their network. To do that they'll present advertisers with a breakdown of their viewership demographics, bullet 1 being 57% male. This won't matter to some companies, but for others, or even for specific campaigns, they're not going to…

I'll admit that "merit" in this context does mean, as I put it, "fitting with the house style", which on Adult Swim does skew male. The article mentions that women "make up 43% of the audience". Guess what? That's not 50%, and in TV ratings numbers that's millions and millions of viewers you're talking about. [as] has…

Do you really think people at Adult Swim, one of the most progressive forward thinking media institutions of our time, are actively suppressing the voices of women? Or are people overreacting to a statistic without context?

This is insane, there shouldn't be quotas for who creates TV shows, it should be merit, and merit alone. I'm sure Adult Swim chose the shows that best fit their house style and that they thought were the funniest/most compelling for whatever reason. There's no one at the network going, "oh, this one has a girl's name…

Okay I do actually feel kind of bad about that one, but you see, that's the reaction that 'mansplaining' evokes.

See that's the problem. The word "mansplaining" and the attitude that surrounds it will never do anything but annoy men. All men. Even the ones who would otherwise be on your side, like me, and you need men on your side if you want to fix sexism. It's as reductive as anything men have ever said about women, and this…

I comment on the articles about which I have something to say. I generally don't have much to contribute to "This was a good episode of television". The AV club routinely publishes articles like this one, which I see as crying wolf when there's only foxes. Bill Cosby is a wolf. Gloria Steinem saying women are voting…

If you don't have any specific criticism I'm going to take that as you agreeing with me, or at least continuing to prove my point. If you want to fight the perceptions of sexism, among them that women are overly emotional and prone to gaps in logic, you should probably stop reacting this way, and engage in a reasoned…

Are you? This article makes me angry because there is a gender equality problem in Hollywood (though again, one the American people, not Hollywood, is responsible for) and articles like this only make it worse.

If you can't take criticism of your argument without regressing to such immature and dismissive sarcasm, you're not going to take your agenda very far. It comes across like you're covering your ears going "Ah lah lah lah lah! You don't have a point if I can't hear you!"

"Where have all the nice AVC commentators gone?" You mean, where are all the people who will just agree with me without really thinking about it?

You're right, they do backpedal. That's not good enough after, again, naming people for a roll call of shame for something they are in no way responsible for.

Is that so?

Also the system isn't what's inequitable, it's us. Hollywood does whatever it thinks will make it the most money, and by buying tickets we are the ones reinforcing the idea that male directors will have higher grosses. I can't fault people who's job it is to make as much money as possible for doing just that.…

That's not at all how it reads, which is "Hey look at these sexist assholes choosing not to work with female directors, despite the fact that they have pretty much no say in the matter."

BREAKING NEWS: There are more male directors than female directors! ALSO: Actors who are also directors may sometimes direct selves! SHOCKING!!!

Where's your line then? You don't see a difference between snidely assuming someone's a vegan because they're upset about someone burning a cat and assuming someone's irredeemable because they burn living things for no purpose other than entertainment? I see a pretty big difference there.

I'll counter that hypercorrection with a further one: (from Wikipedia, I'd post the link but that's a no-no here) "this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770."

The joke was marginally funny at best. Had they had a wittier, less flippant response I might not have taken umbrage.

Spoiler alert: People can be complex. Not people who burn animals though, that's pretty cut and dried.