[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?

[tomlock]

I find it kind of confusing that you seem to be posting articles, claims and references to funding that can’t be found in the article, or don’t seem related to the article.

For instance, you’ve just now made the claim that there are “many” movies with more female than male lines. The article clearly states that in their analysis, they found that 1505 films had 60% or more male lines, while only 173 had 60% or more female lines. That’s a ratio of nearly 10:1. Where are you getting your figures from?

Additionally my initial criticism of you was that you seemed happy to trust your intuition about magazines without any quantifiable evidence. I implied that perhaps without this article, you’d be making a similar claim about the prevalence of movies with women as the predominant speakers in them. This analysis is useful because it can be used to demonstrate that there truly is evidence of a gap between the amount of talking time men and women get in movies.

Perhaps you should examine your behaviour and ask yourself if you’re truly free from bias, when instead of quantifying your objections to a quantified claim, you’ve implied that somehow this is the work of biased academics.