It's funny - I used to be on the same page as some of these politicians, but after investigating film history as a kind of hobby, I realised a lot of assumptions people make about 'representation' are wrong
Women were considered the main audience for Hollywood films (more spare time to visit the cinema) until the late 70s, men were placated with genre films (Western, gangster and spy movies, general action offcuts).
Plenty of excellent three-dimensional female characters in the most popular films - see any role played by Joan Crawford or Bette Davis, Scarlett O'Hara, etc. Hollywood used to favour outrageous funny women like Mae West and Lucille Ball for major roles. The Pre-Code (early 1930s) had a special focus on female stars. There was an entire influential genre of 'women's pictures' which often featured major names and were big studio investments
Even Hitchcock (who is supposed to be a huge misogynist) makes his female characters interesting with their own thoughts, feelings and motivations, rather than resigning them to nude set decoration. The men in his films tend to be naive, underdeveloped or evil
I think that truly interesting, three-dimensional and exciting characters have always been the preserve of women. But Hollywood's major investments are now action blockbusters and this means that a) all male characters are uninteresting as they're inherited directly from the B-movies of the past, which weren't written particularly well b) women are drawn into this paradigm as sex objects or cut-and-paste love interests, and get cut off from their heritage of unlikely feminist cinema. It's oppressive to various degrees for all involved
Film/TV industries are trying to solve this by just giving the women the uninteresting male roles, which will never satisfy. The whole thing is hollow. I think people act as if men have always had the best deal and the best role models in film/TV and this is only just being overturned now, when that's not entirely true from a historical perspective