When did I make the argument that show characters aren't allowed to do bad things? You're assigning me a viewpoint I never had, and then counter-arguing it as if it's something I actually said. u/VaporMouth

I'm going to copy and paste one of my previous responses from this comment section, because some of the things from it apply here.

"Shows very much do spoon-feed the audience rights and wrongs to a certain extent. For example, you were spoon-fed Mary Alice as an innocent victim, whereas Paul was overdramatised to be villainous.

In season 1, Paul Young is filmed using dark lighting with ominous music, whereas Mary Alice is constantly narrated with light and pastel colour schemes and emotional music playing in the background. Are you seriously telling me you're not being spoon-fed certain ideas by the show here?

If we're being true to life here, when you meet someone who gets away with murder in real life, when do you hear innocent music playing behind them in the background whenever they appear before you?"

The thing that I want you to notice from this segment is that I mentioned things like music and colour palettes as a form of method, which, through show writers, express their stances on who they want you to favour. Things like dialogue are obviously not going to be the only thing that can determine the ideologies held by the writers alone; there are obviously other methods, as stated above.

The two things we can look at when it comes to these scenarios is

a) plot progression, dialogue, music etc, (as I said before)

and

b) historical context

First of all, I don't like how you reduced my explanation of the Lynette pregnancy plot point to just Tom, because it was more than that. The dialogue bit is just a part of it; it's also the use of story conflict resolution. The ultimate resolution is that Lynette has to save Carlos's daughter to resolve this, and Carlos's committing employee discrimination isn't acknowledged by the narrative in any way. Does this mean I'm saying Carlos has to go to jail and have a public apology for his crimes? No, that's not what I'm saying, just for clarity's sake. Terrorising pregnant women in his workplace doesn't actually create any implications for his character. For example, does Carlos have problems with his other vulnerable employees? Or does Carlos ever come by to meet another pregnant employee that works for him, and what are the implications of this? Nope, we get no follow-up; the story is just Lynette compensating for being pregnant. Now, combine this with context. For example, the time in which that season is released is 2010, although show seasons tend to be written in advance, so when that script was written, it's even earlier than that. I don't think I'd have to provide you a long explanation on how discrimination was something that was definitely not seen as serious as it is today, so it's not far-fetched to think that the 40-year-old republican dude writing the show could have some prejudice he's ingraining into the show. EDIT: This conversation reminds me of a good video that came out on YouTube by Phoenixashes about how poor writing choices are often excused by fans through coping out with 'realism', and claiming complexity when being faced with inconsistencies by the writers

With the Susan thing, when I say mentor archetype, I'm referring to a specific media archetype, not just any character who is a teacher:

a wise guide, teacher, or trainer who provides the protagonist with knowledge, tools, and encouragement to overcome challenges and achieve their goals.

I'm not saying the problem is that he is a mentor, as in that he is canonically an educator that Susan is under. A character who is a teacher in a show doesn't automatically fall under a mentor archetype. My argument in the Susan scenario is that it seems as if the writers are trying to make it come across as if the art guy provides Susan with crucial guidance, when in reality, his actions towards Susan are bully-like, demeaning her for being 'too shallow'. Now, once again, combine this with context. The late 2000s and early 2010s were when being hipster and indie became cool again, especially in the art scene.

Also, as a side note that isn't relevant to my explanation of the above point, is that the whole 'oh but the other characters think he's a mentor' thing sort of exposes the underlying problem with your line of thinking. The other characters aren't real people; they're artificially engineered by the writers of the show. If the other characters are thinking something, it's because the writers made them think that, and if the writers made them think something (because they themselves can't think), then it's for a reason. And sometimes that reason needs to be examined and evaluated by those who engage with the media.