As a very important note, pushing towards a Matriarchal society isn't feminism by the traditional or more widely accepted definition, it's female supremacism. I will agree there are risks in overstatement in feminist literature and there is often too little scrutiny of how and when crass generalisations are made, but it's very important to distinguish and maintain the "feminist" label as meaning "gender equality".
Onto topic: it's true that superheroes originated in the 40s & 50s, but that doesn't mean that the newer comics have to follow the same lines. A lot of the characters have literally been reborn/passed their suits on several times in the literature since their first incarnations, so 1940s attitudes needn't dictate modern comic releases and/or films. And in many ways I don't think she was sniping at a lot of the heroes too much, with odd exceptions - the point I felt was that there aren't many female characters who are developed with the sort of edges and definitions the male ones have. As you say, for example, there's Cyclops and his neurosis about the dangers of his own powers, and so on and so forth - but in literature in general there are precious few female characters developed beyond "tits and guns" or "tits and no guns". Even the well written ones suffer from being pigeonholed because there are so damn few of them. I think the other thing to note is that she is probably wrong in many cases about comic book superheroes because like most of the rest of the world she's probably not well versed in graphic novels - and the writing of the characters in films, where a lot of people haven't been exposed to the depth of the proper comic canon, is often really, really dire.
I disagree strongly on the Doctor though, whilst at first sight he does sometimes come across as a bit bland and jovial, for me he has a lot more potential to be really, really grimly scary than anti-heroes like Batman. The Doctor doesn't have
vices per se, but definitely has a hell of a cutting edge to him. Such as
literally locking his whole species in a flaming world of hell.
Also
actually tricking people into killing themselves/each other so he doesn't have to.
The Doctor at his scariest is a reminder of what happens when good realises, in cold and calculating majesty, that being nice simply isn't always efficient. Batman has all these beatings up of people, struggles over not killing them, etc - the Doctor, in his colder moments, would have managed to get them to kill each other. When the Doctor goes anti-heroic he doesn't light a fag, phone for a hooker, or start beating his enemies into a pulp - he just starts removing and/or destroying people who are being problematic. He does get some bad writing at times (as do all major recurring characters), but I think he can be one of the most fascinatingly complex and grey characters at his best.
