the problem with the anti-hero argument is that nobody can seem to really agree on what makes an anti-hero. i tried to find a decent definition online and cant find anything accurate and substantial
but lets go for the basics, from wikipedia:
this seems to be agreed as the basis for the antihero generally - it seems to focus on motivations, actions, and ideals. this as opposed to, say, attitudes or aesthetics.
i feel like its also worth noting the 'man alone' stock character, which seems pretty influential to modern understandings of the antihero: 'the solitary, rootless nonconformist.'
so lets apply this to your case studies with firefighters and doctors. although first id like to assert that while firefighters and doctors do save lives and their work is incredibly positive, the doctor or the firefighter as a character isnt necessarily heroic - lots of doctors go into it for the money or parental pressure, for example. and theyre also people in the real world who arent playing roles within a story. so i feel like the argument 'doctors and firefighters are jaded and therefor the hero archetype is bunk' is flawed.
none of this is exclusive to the anti-hero archetype, and in fact can feed into the motivations of either heroes or antiheroes in fiction - classic heroes are often faced with moral dilemmas that challenge their values, and often face trauma. for example, t'challa in black panther has to grapple with the revelation that his father did terrible things, and has to decide between following in his familys legacy or changing the country for the better. he feels guilt, grief, a milieu of complex emotions - but hes still a classical hero.
i take issue with the use of 'white' here as a metaphor for moral purity - but again, a character seeing themselves as morally pure does not come into either the classical hero or anti hero definition.
these however, do sound like features of an antihero. i mean those doctors sound like assholes.
but again, these are real people, and not archetypes in stories. to apply the concept of the hero or antihero to real people is inherently flawed, bc a lot of what makes a character in a story a hero or a villain or an antihero or anything else is to do with perspective, message, and arc.
this is irrelevant to both the hero and antihero archetype, and i feel like here you go on a significant tangent from the argument of heroes vs antiheroes. i feel like theres a different, very interesting argument youre making about the relevance of the hero archetype and its individualist perspective in a world where the individual lacks power, but i cant like... quite parse it? idk. i dont wanna put words in your mouth.
i agree, soldiers arent heroes. the hero worship of the military is unhealthy and misguided. at best theyre victims, at worst theyre murderers.
i mean, do superheros need to all be gritty and realistic? is not the core desire of the superhero genre a power fantasy? have you never seen or read about a tragedy and dreamed about becoming super strong or super fast and able to save them?
i feel like the reason superheroes are like this is because people in the real world are so powerless. we want to create real change in the world, but dont know how, so resort to these unrealistic fantasies - which also reinforce dominant values of strength, aggression, and masculinity. like, theres a looooot to criticise in the superhero story, and it says a lot about the ills of american society, but i think understanding that superheroes are inherently unrealistic and that is the appeal is important.
what?? no they dont. every superhero in every comic has had their period of darkness - i mean, the marvel ultimate universe happened. i mean theres waaay too many superhero comics out there to be like 'no they always face hard choices and they always become cynical' - of course they dont. ms marvel isnt gonna turn around and decide humanity isnt worth saving, shes in an optimistic comic for little girls. but there are so many arcs in superhero media where these heroes are faced with hard choices and become jaded - and theres also, like, loads of superhero antiheroes?
that sounds like a naff episode. theres plenty of naff writing out there, fam. but to generalise this one example to the entire genre is unfair. also... it was probably made for kids. you generally dont kill buses full of children or girlfriends in kids shows.
i think your criticism of a trend in superhero media to create characters that are too perfect, dont develop, and dont face proper stakes is a valid one - however, i think your application of this criticism to every classical hero is unfair. i also dont agree with your assertion that all 'real' heroes (a whole 'nother conversation) either die or become antiheroes - i think it shows a distinctly pessimistic outlook that im sure you have your reasons for, but i dont share it.