Oh CNN. These days, you people can't seem to get triggered enough. In attempt to seem both relevant and caring, you wrote an article titled "Is Olympic coverage undercutting women's achievements?" I get it, sometimes it's hard to keep the shrill cries of "SEXISM" limited to women-only safe spaces.

But does your feminist puff piece have any merit? After all even Ahmed Mohamed's suitcase clock is right twice a day. Unless it explodes. Fortunately for all of us, you conveniently numbered your points. Let's go through them one by one, shall we? Also, these points? I put them in Spanish. Closest I could come to Portuguese. Some might find that racist. I don't care.

Point Numero Uno: An NBC official had the machismo to insinuate men and women are different. What a dingleberry.

"The people who watch the Olympics are not particularly sports fans," he had said. "More women watch the Games than men, and for the women, they're less interested in the result and more interested in the journey. It's sort of like the ultimate reality show and mini-series wrapped into one. And to tell the truth, it has been the complaint of a few sports writers. It has not been the complaint of the vast viewing public."

Your panties got twisted over this? Advice: wear Depends. This guy is saying men and women like different things. I'm failing to understand how this is sexism. Because men and women like different things. See also any store with a men's department separated from a women's department. Oh... wait, that's it isn't it? A man dared say that men and women like different things, which implies men and women are different, and in this case that the Olympics must be better packaged for women, who generally don't like sports. Because more women are watching the Olympics than men. GOT IT!

But guess what? A lot of women don't follow sports as closely as men tend to follow. Do some women love sports? Absolutely. But as a general (and statistically verifiable) rule, men are greater sports fans than women. See also any advertisement which plays during a football/basketball/baseball game. You'll notice a lot fewer ads for Tampax and a lot more for Gillette. It's not sexism, CNN. It's capitalism. Know the difference, m'kay?

Point Numero Dos: NBC had the audacity to show Katinka Hosszu's husband after she took gold in the 400-meter individual medley. Her husband? Also happens to be her coach. That's key here. According to you harpies at CNN, NBC commentary credited the COACH/husband with some of the athlete's success. Then you and some egg-avatared, irrelevant n00bs attributed the commentary to sexism.

Hmm. While I admit I'm no great sports fan (I am a lady, after all), I have seen enough sports to know... the coaches? Yeah, they get a lot of credit for wins. And bashed for losses. See also any televised sporting event where there are coaches. Also, see salaries for high profile coaches. Also, here's a question for you dunderheads. If I were to turn on the Olympics right now, do you think I'd also see a coach given kudos for a male athlete's win?

Point Numero Très: SEXISM you say, when an NBC commentator (who, lets face it, commentary isn't reserved for Nobel Laureates), compares a group of teenage girls wearing bright leotards (gymnasts), to a group of teenagers who hang out at the mall. I'm not sure this is sexism as much as it is a wish... of teenage girls whose parents won't let them flock to the mall with their BFFs sans parents. Again I'd ask, if a commentator had said "that group of guys looks like jocks hanging around the lockers," would you have cried sexism? Asking for a friend. Because maybe sometimes people are using examples they've actually seen. In real life.

We're more than halfway through this list. Score so far to fair-minded people who don't sit around getting triggered: Not sexism. But let's move on.

Point Numero Quatro: Chicago Tribune tweets a thing.

First, here's how the Tribune responded:

Tricky. I too have noticed, and not just in sports but also Hollywood reporting, how women are described based on their husbands/boyfriends. Now, before you point and yell "AH HA!" at me, don't. The fame by association pairing is often for good reason. Because like the Tribune did here, the Olympic athlete is a relative unknown compared to her husband, who plays for an NFL team. In Chicago. Where this paper is based.

The reverse would've been done if a male athlete competing in the Olympics was dating a much more famous female celebrity. Like Taylor Swift. The effort by the reporting newspaper would not be sexism but relevance. "Johnny Englebrechet takes gold in sport you only care about every four years," is less appealing than "Taylor Swift's BAE Nabs Gold!" We can debate pop culture and its impact on reporting at a later time (also the stupidity of the term "BAE"), but often it's not sexism. It's trying to sell an article.

Point Numero Cinco: Actually your point here is praising the bashing of the phrase "does such-and-such like a man." Which... okay, I guess. But that's not really the point of your article, CNN. So really you only had FOUR examples of "sexism" for Olympic commentary. All of which I batted away.

So, CNN, what can we learn from this? Where most of us can LOL at inane commentary (for the Olympics and all sports), you wrote up a "serious" article about it. For the purpose of what? Trying to push how sexist the world still is? And these were your best examples?

Here's the deal, sexism does exist. I've never said it doesn't. But you're reaching here, and that's where I take issue. Every time you cry "Sexism!" when it's not sexism, you undercut actual examples of sexism. The same applies to you she-beasts who cry "rape" when it's not rape. Trivializing sexism actually hurts women, it doesn't make them feel more empowered.

So next time do us all a favor, CNN: mute the commentary. You'll be happier for it.

Written by Courtney Kirchoff

Also, CNN? Here's an example of sexual harassment. Featuring me. Also, if you criticize my bad hair day, I will construe that as sexism. Just FYI.