so forgive me if this seems random and unconnected. :)
Of course! (My post was pretty random, so...) And I hope you forgive me for being so late replying.

I will confess that sometimes I find myself frustrated when I read a review that is so heavily filtered through the author's perspective on a particular issue that there seems to no real attempt to engage with the actual story. I do feel that for some their watching experience is a kind of tick-box exercise. But I also understand it.
Absolutely! And this is what makes this whole thing so tricky to write about. It's like splitting hairs.

if people didn't make a fuss about things they see as wrong, or groups they see as mis- or under-represented, then important change wouldn't happen.
Absolutely. But - as I said in a response above - a problem is that it's often those who *dislike* something who make a fuss, which makes it harder for those in charge to take them seriously.

It's blanket-ness that I struggle with though, when events are interpreted out of context.
*nods*

I haven't seen Luther, but I enjoyed this review by AA Gill in which he talks about the tendency to cast black people as presidents and professors and so on, which however well-intended it might be, is really no more than tokenism.
I read that back when it was in the Sunday Times, and also thought that it was a brilliant point! (I'd totally watch Luther, except I dislike the OTT violence and misogyny... *sigh*)

I love programmes in which the central character is a strong, brave, brilliant woman. But I also am fascinated with the reality of that - how can you be that slightly superhuman person and still function in the real world? How do you have a relationship? How do you deal with the inescapability of being who you are, the expectation, the loneliness? And none of these are issues that arise because the character is female, but I can probably identify with her a little bit more because she is.
*nods a lot*

It's because she gives up herself to look after everyone else. It's because she looks failure in the face and still finds it in her to fight back. And in spite of the message of Chosen, for all it says about choosing and empowerment, I think what I love most about Buffy is that she recognises that being the Slayer isn't a choice, not really. It's a duty, and one that she carries out with courage and heart and grace.
Awww, how do you always find the perfect words? Really, just ♥ to this.

Strength is not something you can measure by the length of a character's skirt or the speed of their snappy comeback. ;) It's about resilience and vulnerability, toughness and compassion, leading from the front and from somewhere in the middle.
Absolutely. And it's one of the things I like very much about this season of DW - the fact that the Doctor is beginning to heal from all the pain, and a lot of the time it's him looking after his companion(s), not the other way round. (I've been reading a lot of meta these last few days, so it was in my head. And I like to see those qualities in a male hero, because they shouldn't be somehow unique to women.)

I seem to have written an essay anyway, and I've only just begun. ;) But I'll stop.
You know, that's exactly how I felt when I wrote the post. I had all these thoughts, and it seemed that what I wrote down was only the very tiniest tip of the iceberg. (And I'm inordinately pleased that I made you think too! *g*)

One final point about Amy though: she is an unparented child, and one who has lived her whole life as the heroine in her own fairy tale. As much as anything, that to me is what informs her character.
That's a beautiful way of putting it. And yes, that's how I see it too. (I love her to bits, but then I've always liked 'difficult' characters.)

But mostly I just wanted to say I enjoyed your post, and this was meant to be a kind of agreeing. :)
Aw, thanks! :)