"The Graduate" manages to remain entertaining and enthralling even though, with hindsight, Ben has become a rather unlikable figure. I tend to agree with Ebert's reappraisal of the film: http://www.rogerebert.com/r…

She should troll the director, and everybody, by playing the role totally straight. Not crude, not funny-because-she's-fat, just play it exactly like the Disney Tinkerbell. That'd show 'em.

VandalCabbage, I didn't say the characters were irrelevant, I said their status as hackers was irrelevant to the quality of their characters.

"they don't work as evidence that the hacker archetype comes with negative gender dynamics"

OHHH I understand you now. Sorry. You're asking me for an example that *you* don't consider to be an inaccurate example. No, I can't do that. One commenter's bad role is another one's good-enough role.

So you meant to ask me for an example that IS really really rubbish?

"…except that the problems the author has with these roles are either entirely genderless problems belonging to the hacker roles, or problems with female representation."

If it's true that these roles are rather lazily written, can I find an example of one that isn't? Is that what you're asking?

"Sigh, this is almost an anti-feminist article, for how far it actually goes in denying women access to a specific character archetype."

If you disagree that the character of geek girl/geek boy is often of a stereotypical nature, that's fine. But the person I responded to called it a stereotype, and I agree with him. What I find most interesting at the moment is his assertion that a stereotype can be a step forward.

I'm talking about something more precise than that: I'm talking about whether a stereotype can also be a step forward. (I'm taking for granted that geek girl is a stereotype.)

Unless it's 1970s British TV! On your namesake show, not a looker in the bunch except for the one who was conceptually written as such.

Your comment is not on the same topic as my comment. I have thoughts about your thought, but right now I'm only referring to the claim that stereotypes can be a step forward. Christopher Hitchens said you can only have one goal per debate, and I try to stick to that.

Why on earth do you read a site about art criticism if you don't like art criticism?

"This article defeats its own point by mentioning all the female characters (Black Canary, May, Buffy) etc who are competent in ways that do threaten the traditionally dominant male role."

Is a step forward still a step forward when it's the same step taken over and over again? A stereotype that's a step forward seems like a contradiction in terms, though I'd agree that the very first one can be a step forward.

I was afraid this was going to be about that annoying Old Crow Medicine Show song.

Thanks. And the issue with unimpeachably is more the silly use of a legalism, the ungainly use of an adverb to modify an adjective (which is allowed but often feels weird), or something else?

They come as a pair.

Well, I mean… Peppermint Patty was always 9/10ths of the way there.