Pretty much the last 3 episodes were about tying it all together with the beginning of Rogue One.

I would say that the story of Andor can only be judged independently of external concernes by excluding those last 3 episodes.

It was good at all levels - not only did the characters had real human depth as did the story, but it even had details like creating a Gorman language and an actual detailed Gorman fashion, so the Production quality matched the quality of the Script, Direction and Acting.

It’s unsurprising that some (maybe many) think this is the best Star Wars ever, at least adult Star Wars.

I saw Rogue One again just after the last episode of Season 2 and whilst they’re almost seamslessly linked, you can absolutelly notice the change of pace and story telling style from one to the other: you go from a story of people in the Rebellion to an Action rollercoaster with an almost symbolic bit of background story.

Mind you, both are a pleasure to watch in their own ways, though Rogue One is mainly “chewing gum for the brain” as entertainment goes whilst Andor is a far grander meal.

I think this is originally from the 00s (notice in the undertitle the news about Pres. Obama)

It was already a silly job title back then and time was not kind to it…

Reminds me of this meme about modern title inflation:

We are CURRENTLY in a situation where people from the “wrong” social groups are discriminated against, and that’s a problem. People who are less qualified are being hired over people who are more qualified. Denying that is either ignorance or bad faith.

The solution to that problem is to hire people ON MERIT ALONE

Gender is not merit and is not competence, and yet here you are claiming unironically that to “solve” the problem that people are chosen on the base of gender, people should be chosen on the base of gender.

How about making sure that people are not being chosen on the basis of gender?!

Your “solution” just moves the unfairness around, still hiring because of chromosses they were born with some people who didn’t deserve to be hired and not hiring because of the chromossomes they were born with some other people who did deserve to be hired, fully preserving the unfairness of gender-based hiring, but being unfair to different people (and not those individuals who gained from previous unfairness, which would be just, just those who happen to have been born with some chromossomes similar to some otherwise totally unrelated individuals who benifited from the previous direction of Discrimination).

As I wrote earlier, you can’t Discriminate your way out of Discrimination.

The article itself clearly and unambiguously wants gender-specific hiring, so clearly some people believe that the problems of Discrimination are solved by Discriminating in a different direction.

The way I see it, more Discrimination with different beneficiaries is not an easy shortcut to fix the problems of Discrimination and the only way to fix it is the hard work of cracking down on the causes of Discrimination.

Judging not just by this Article and also by many discussions I’ve that view is definitely contentious, often because people think that “counter”-Discrimination will correct the effects of past Discrimination, which at times it does, only it does so by moving the problem around as the new Discrimination is itself unfair for both people who were never victims of the past Discrimination and don’t deserve the gains they will now get and for those who never gained from past Discrimination and are now unfairly sidelined by the new Discrimination.

Is it wierd for me to not want people to be chosen for a responsability that has nothing to do with gender (unlike actors and actresses, were the character being played usually is gendered) based on their gender?

If there is a gender inequality problem in this, I bet it’s the same as a lot of other areas with a similar kind of gender inequality: were people are given opportunities based on who they know and who their parents are - i.e. Cronyism - and those networks of mates mainly contain people of the male gender because of the enviroments were the form and the profession currently being dominated by that gender. However such an environment doesn’t explicitly disciminate against women, it discriminates against anybody who isn’t friend with the “right people” or doesn’t have the “right parents”, quite independently of them being male or female.

Maybe “Financial Mentors” should invest in Unknown Filmmakers in a gender agnostic way and “Take a Risk” - I bet that a lot of great new filmmakers who aren’t part of the “mates network” and happen to be female would gain from it, right alongside those who happen to not be female.