[facepalm]

I am sure there are certain media that cater primarily to women. For example, at least in my country, there is a whole genre of romantic novels about physicians.

The main point is that it is not a problem if some product category caters primarily to a specific demographic. What would be an issue would be a significant part of the population being neglected. However, there is no reason why that shouldn't be fixable by the market alone.

I can think of several TV series that cater specifically to women, with lots of women talking.

How can we be sure that the 2000 movies the article talks about randomly selected movies, not movies cherry picked to show the desired result?

Even if we pick random scripts that are available online, there might be an inherent bias? For example, maybe older scripts (from the 50ies) are more likely to be online?

[tomlock]

I encourage you to do some quantifiable analysis that you judge to be free from bias and see if you get a different result.

You seem to be immediately dismissing this analysis as not useful, while only providing anecdotal evidence and questions. Do you feel like your points are more/less useful than the quantified analysis in the article?

[facepalm]

In what way do you think my comment is biased (given that I explicitly marked the women's magazine as a guess and an example)? In what way do you think the analysis is useful?

I think an analysis like that can be amusing. I am not convinced that it is useful, as I explained in my previous comments.

As for doing the research myself, I may, but it is expensive. I don't have a gender studies grant or anything to pay for it.

[tomlock]

I think you're biased because you're dismissing this article without any evidence. I encourage you to post some research about the topic. As for the gender studies grant comment, do you have any evidence to suggest that the authors had such a grant?

[facepalm]

I didn't dismiss it, I question it's usefulness. The article itself doesn't provide any evidence for it's usefulness.

[tomlock]

I'm confused because I think typically a person would consider implying an article or perhaps a piece of code is useless would be an extremely dismissive move. Do you think it is unreasonable for me to imply you are being dismissive when, faced with a quantified piece of research, you suggest it is useless without providing a quantified counterpoint?

[facepalm]

You might enjoy this paper about gendered glacier science: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/030913251562...

I have provided an explanation of why I don't consider it very useful. From the article itself you can gather that there are many movies with more female than male lines. Therefore I question that women are disadvantaged by the available movie offerings.

So what exactly are you talking about? What, in your view, is the usefulness of the article?