And while all interesting points, they don't forgive the piss-poor portrayals of women as characters in much of the media so much as rationalize them.
I wasn't looking to forgive them. My day job is to offer explanations for why things have occurred they way they did, not advocate or condemn them. In my free time, I offer my own views on such things more directly. I think it is a serious shame that pop culture portrayals of women are less progressive now, in a number of ways, than they were when I was in elementary school in the 1970s--but I also don't like the idea that we, as an audience, are entitled to be satisfied by makers of art and entertainment according to how we think things ought to be. The power of the wallet and the power of persuasive argument are two useful ways to advocate change. But (and I'm not placing you, specifically, in this camp) the tendency to get excessively outraged over rather minor things in an effort to draw attention to a particular "wrong" is often counterproductive. So while making a persuasive case for improving the portrayal of women characters in Trek, for example, is laudable--suggesting misogyny is at work to explain why Uhura's phaser was somewhat ineffectual in the scene where she fires at Khan, on the other hand, is simply absurd and laughable.
It is not absurd, and you may be laughing but a lot of other people are not, including myself. All of these scenes are set up to play out the way that they do. In other words, there are plenty of artistic choices at a writer's fingertips. When the only person to shoot a phaser several times and still they need help is a woman, that says something. You can say that Spock needed her help too, but he is the one who ultimately takes Khan down in the end.
No one is getting excessively outraged here, but feel free to assume that's the case.