RIP the only show that depicts women journalists as capable adult humans who are good at their jobs.
RIP the only show that depicts women journalists as capable adult humans who are good at their jobs. Amazon

Unless you watched it with the same quasi-religious fervor that I did, you probably don't know that Amazon had a streaming series called Good Girls Revolt, much less that it was prematurely canceled after premiering in October. But its overt feminism is one of the things that got me through the aftermath of the election, and I suspect I'm not alone in this.

Good Girls Revolt is set in the late '60s in "the pit" at a weekly magazine, where female employees are relegated to working on background and writing copy for male reporters, receiving no credit in print for their work or ideas. The show's focus—the women employees' decision to sue their bosses for reporting credits—is an exciting one, all the moreso for its being real, or real-adjacent: The women of Newsweek really did file a similar lawsuit against upper management in 1970.

Before its abrupt cancelation, Good Girls Revolt was often measured up against Mad Men, an unfair, odd comparison that likely comes from both being set in the past. I loved Mad Men, but it's a slow burn and a character study of sociopathy. Good Girls Revolt, on the other hand, arrives with an agenda that's as necessary as it is obvious: This is a much more immediately enjoyable show about women advocating for themselves in a workplace and a culture all too happy to screw them over, in every possible way.

On Mad Men, a few extremely determined women were able to push their way into the upper echelon of Sterling Cooper's boys' club, but they typically didn't do it together. That "there can only be one" approach is realistic, but it's very different from what happens on Good Girls Revolt, which rejects the "exceptional woman" narrative for a more inclusive one.

However clunkily, it also addresses race as well as gender, and focuses on frequently glossed-over historical details, like the Black Panthers' school breakfast program, and frequently danced-around realities, like reproductive coercion and the risk involved in obtaining an illegal abortion. Good Girls Revolt is also one of the few TV shows I've seen that acknowledge journalism's serious lack of diversity, and the way it negatively impacts an outlet's quality and makes way for major blind spots.

These things matter, because while there are plenty of TV shows out there that are ostensibly about journalism, they often get it so wrong—especially when it comes to women journalists. From House of Cards to the recent Gilmore Girls reboot to Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom (a show I watched primarily for its opening credits), women journalists are portrayed as pretty universally incompetent and/or ethically bankrupt. Not only did Good Girls Revolt avoid this depressing trap, it also featured Nora Ephron AS A CHARACTER.

So while, yes, it is set in 1969, and also yes, it is at moments deeply anachronistic, and Grace Gummer's Nora Ephron wig is indeed a monstrosity, Good Girls Revolt is one of the only TV shows I've seen that depicts women journalists as capable adult humans who are good at their jobs, know the rules even if they occasionally ignore and/or break them, and don't just serve as set decoration while the man reporters do the hallowed, woman-free news.

Perhaps even on a streaming service, this made it too overtly progressive to survive.

On TV as in real life, Good Girls Revolt was the exception to the rule. I hope it's picked up elsewhere. After the year we've had, we need it.