The two angles critics seem to take when evaluating a piece seem to be discussing the work on its own (in a kind of bubble), investigating what is sets out to do and how it works out these issues, and discussing the context in terms of comparison, biography of the creators, and the social context. The first way seems fairer to the work, in the sense of evaluating what it did instead of the many things that it could have been but wasn't (maybe the authors intentionally avoided certain goals for whatever reason). In this context, I think it is unfair to call Knocked Up sexist for having a male protagonist and a female foil instead of the other way around, or for not having two perfectly balanced characters. Furthermore, why is a critique of the context of how movies in general treat an issue fair to put on a single work more highbrow than actually focusing on the work itself? Knocked Up was funny and interesting, and the fact that it left room to more fully explore the foil character more (it was after all a movie about Seth Rogen's character, right?) isn't necessarily reason to call it sexist.

The trap of critics in always ranking, valuing, and comparing movies not only to other movies, but to what they could have been (if a critic has such a perfect concept of what movies should be, shouldn't they write that movie?) as a legitimate alternative to commenting on what the movie in itself was seems to be embodied in the Highbrow article. In the end, the social context and ideals can inform on how a piece could have been made differently, but the heart of the work is what it did and how well in executed. The more relevant critiques would seem to be the ones that deal with the positive space of what was created more heavily than the negative space of what wasn't.