^@ Dens-was that sarcasm?
The people who watch/read such media as film, games and so on are, to varying measures, prone to taking what they absorb as an accurate depiction of reality. There is also some measure of trust by people in the media, film and game industries, and to varying degrees rely on them to have done the research and present ideas and stories in a way that honors and/or reflects the setting, characters and events, especially if the piece is presented in adds or taglines as geing realistic, historically accurate, based off a true story, etc. The creators, thus, have some responsibility to show the truth, just as news stations do.
The thing is, the creators often don't. This comes from any combination of factors including
1) a genuine oversight by the creator.This doesn't doesn't really excuse it, though, as the creators should have done the research first.
2) the creators decide to alter, skew or altogether make something entirely inaccurate/unrealistic because of the Rule of Cool-a sliding scale of letting the story get away with something simply because it is awesome. There are varying degrees of this, and varying degrees to which it can be implemented and still present things accurately. Entire movies somtimes exist only thanks to this.
3) the creators decide to make something unrealistic because the audience expects or even demands it, something called the Coconut Effect. This is a result of inaccurate stereotypes, or people having been exposed to certain elements in media that are unrealistic for so long that they come to thing the false media version is realistic and the real is fake-or reality is unrealistic.
4) the creators may be promoting a viewpoint on a subject or justifying one that is just inaccurate. This can include implying untrue things about someone, (positive or negative) altering things so as to support or undermine someone, or only present certain information and omitting other.
5) the creator doesn't care about presenting things accurately and is out to make a monetarily successful piece, taking advantage of the Rule of Cool, the Coconut effect, and that most people don't do the research.
On the other hand, the audience themselves are also responsible; most often, they haven't and aren't going to do enough (or any) research on the subject, and trust the piece to have presented things as they really are/were/will be. Some get so caught up in their existing views on things, they refuse to do any study, or even consider changing their views when blatantly presented with evidence and/or research that their view is inaccurate. These hold a lot of weight, as a lot of the false paradigms that the creators play a part in creating are quickly dispelled (at least somewhat) when the audience does even a little genuine research.
This bleeds into basically all areas of life in 1st-world countries (at least) today, including how women are viewed, expected to be and demanded to be, and thus what they will do and how they will do it. This can be quite harmful.
I agree that the audience does not offer much in their comments towards media creators in the way of requests, suggestions and alternatives, and that is a part of getting the kinds of media that the do want.
Myself, I find the entire conflict of gender roles, expectations, values and demands to be uterly bizzare. I look at it and wonder, "Why? Why is this even an issue?"