[tomlock]

Could you provide data that clearly indicates that the imbalance in film representations of women causes no harm?

My position has always been that you've assumed this article is useless without providing any evidence. I trust the article's claims more than your armchair pontification about whether it is useful or not. I have very little doubt that you'll continue to believe that magazine ratios are in favor of women without any evidence, with or without a quantified study on the subject. If that study came out in favor of men's magazines, it sounds like you'd accuse the authors of an agenda, as well.

Fortunately, more logical people have probably read this useful article and realized their assumptions about the representation of women in film were flawed.

[facepalm]

You still didn't say what you consider useful about the article. The article also doesn't explain why imbalance in film representations is bad, it just assumes it. But because it has some numbers and charts, you seem to believe it proves everything you want to believe.

And your quote about the number of logical people reading the article comes across as really silly, after you have asked for evidence so many times. Have you quantified the number of "logical people" who found it useful vs the number of "logical people" who found it useless? Do you have evidence that the people you consider logical and who found the article useful are really logical?

You going on about the magazines just proves that you don't understand my point. I think it is enough now - you could just reread my previous comments if you are still interested...

[tomlock]

The irony is delicious when you demand data to back up the negative assumptions I make about your motives and mental faculties. I’d provide more evidence, but it is expensive. I don't have a gender studies grant or anything to pay for it.