Except that at no point have I claimed that their interpretation is incorrect, nor have I ever said that they are competing hypotheses.
Again, I have not claimed that they are 'competing hypotheses.' They're not: my argument against your point does not rest on it and the author's being 'mutual exclusive,' and yet you keep revisiting this point as if it's somehow relevant (while ironically claiming that I'm not listening to you.)
My point has been--from the beginning--that sexism can manifest itself at multiple points in this chain, and offered other possibilities. Among those possibilities were the fact that a lot of TV 'made for women' is based on sexist ideas (thus the soap opera example), as well as the possibility that men who rate poorly a 'women's show' might be doing it as a form of toxic masculinity posturing, and not necessarily just sabotaging.
The kind of 'posturing' you reference can absolutely qualify as sabotage, as it involves tearing something down to build yourself up.
As to your latter point: given that we're looking at shows that women rate very high and men rate very low, you are still implicitly saying that men are more discerning than women: women can't see through how awful these shows are because they're 'made for them,' while the men drag their shows' ratings down closer to what they 'should' be. That. Is. Sexist. Invoking internalized sexism doesn't help you a bit, because you're still saying that the women are fooled when the men aren't.
As much as you want to claim it's not true, you're saying that these women who are giving high ratings to these shows are poor deluded creatures who can't see past their internalized misogyny, while men
Plus, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you do not understand how the causal links are happening here. Again, we are not using these data to try to differentiate between multiple hypotheses. That's just something you're making up. Instead, these are all post-hoc explanations for the data.
Good lord you're an arrogant one, aren't you?
So yeah, I keep disregarding counter-arguments, because they are counter-arguments against stuff that I never defended.