Female Characters on Television

All right everyone, I was going through the news to try and find something to write about today and low and behold, the very first thing I see is an article by Sarah Hughes called, From Orange is the New Black to Game of Thrones: The age of the TV heroine has arrived, and who do I see? I see the main characters of Orange is the New Black, Scandal at least I believe it to be so, I have not actually seen that show, Margaery Tyrell from GOT and Claire Underwood from House of Cards. I wanted to slap myself when I saw this.
Just from the picture, I could tell this was going to be bothersome, as I know that at least two of those characters are not heroines, in the terms of heroic actions, Margaery being sort of a good though ambitious anti-hero, and Mrs. Underwood being, from what I have seen so far of House of Cards, to be a less pleasant anti-hero married to what I would call a villain. An entertaining villain yes, but then again so is the Joker and no one questions where he stands. Now, assuming we are looking at this, not from a 'heroic' aspect, but level of importance, we can still find that the term 'heroine' is still misplaced as again, Margaery is not a heroine. She's actually more of a secondary character. Important to the plot but not one of the big characters like Daenerys Targaryen or Arya Stark, both of whom are far closer to being called the 'heroine' on the show, though I'd quickly like to point out that this story has no one protagonist, anyone who watched or reads the books knows this.
Not wanting to jump to conclusions, I began to read. It begins, of course, with an jab at Mad Men and the "macho protagonist Don Draper". It tells of how since the "golden age of TV drama" we have loved "difficult men". I'll begin there.
Have we loved difficult men? Yes. Why do we loved them? Is it some sort of male conspiracy to control the minds of those that watch? Is it the patriarchy? No. We love difficult male characters because we love difficult characters, regardless of genders. Difficult characters, ones that go back and forth and fight with two or more sides of themselves are often good, if not the best characters. Overly good or overly bad characters are not as good as drawing us in. There are exceptions of course, Joker is one such character. But even he has moments of logic and reason that many, including myself, could find compelling, even respectable and which pulls us toward his side. So yes, generally we love difficult men, but we love difficult women too. Besides that point, this point was made based on the demographics of how many people watch a show like Mad Men. Millions watch, watched, or will watch this show, but billions won't. For whatever reason, most will not see this show, many of those because they don't like it. I actually never got passed the first episode. I found the premise confusing and felt that the main character was too much of a piece of shit for me to enjoy it. Might I have changed my opinion if I kept watching? Maybe. Then again I am currently watching Spartacus and the characters I think are pieces of shit in there have remained as such in my mind for quite some time. On to my next point.
Next up there was this section called "Entitled Anti-Heroines" and on it was Cersei Lannister. My jaw dropped. Anyone who watched Game of Thrones are reads the A Song of Ice and Fire Series knows that Cersei is a villain. She's so bad that when I read her POV in Feast For Crows I still found her to be a monster. She wasn't more relatable like her brother Jaime was, I still wanted her to die for being such a horrible person. Her only redeeming quality is her love of her children, but that is in no way enough to redeem her. Yet here she is as an anti-heroine. For Sarah Hughes to say this screams to me that she has not actually viewed what she is writing about, but more like taken a road trip to Tumblr and seen the feminist comments there.
Alright, now why am I bringing, now in two cases, feminism into this. The reason is because I believe it is playing a role in this. This article is for the empowerment of women, but not real women in horrible situations like Saudi Arabia, where they can't drive a car, or in the women of Bangladesh where they work in sweatshops to create "I Drink Male Tears" shirts and Levi jeans. No, this is for the empowerment of fake women on an electronic box. It's to exclaim what everyone already knew, and has known for decades. Women have power on television. Since Lucy from I Love Lucy, a show literally named after her, we have had women in powerful and important roles in television. TV would not being nearly as enjoyable if there were no chicks, anyone can tell you that. Now I'm reading how all those women who have dominated the time frames of TV viewers for years have somehow disappeared. That kind of sucks since I found I Love Lucy to be really funny.
That's not the only problem I have with this article. As mentions above, Sarah Hughes obviously did not view, at the very least, GOT as she fails to grasp or understand her characters, thus the idea that she published something she clearly knows not nearly enough about is irritating and unprofessional at best. Then there is her pardoning of villainous characters like Claire, who is placed in the "Pragmatic Powerseekers" section. Not villains mind you, but a powerseeker. Someone with ambition who steps up to the challenges in front of her and defeats them. There is no blame or crime placed upon they are described as astute, or at worst scheming. No real blame is placed upon them for lives ruined or ended, they're just trying to advance their cause. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, am I reading too much into this? Quite possibly. Am I letting my distaste for third wave feminism make me a bit paranoid? That too is very possible. Even so, I worry that I may not be paranoid. That what I write is true. That this is another attempt to bolster first world women, while ignoring third world, and bash men for dominating another field of influence, even when it's not true. Whatever the case may be, I urge that everyone takes a moment to give what they see and hear a critical eye. I am by no means exempt from this duty, nor the eye itself. Please look over this. Analyze it. Question it. Call me on my bullshit. I'll take it and work to be better next time. I want the truth and the betterment of the world. I can't do that if I'm in the wrong, so please, respond, tell me what I'm doing wrong and help me to be better. Thank you.
I bid you all a fine day.