The term “strong female characters” has been a hot topic lately, especially within the feminist movement. It refers to female characters in TV and film who are “strong,” who aren’t the typical damsel In distress or hero’s love interest, and do the saving instead of needing to be saved. Lately women have been demanding better representation of women in media, who can be better role models for young girls and are equal with their male character counterparts. And fortunately, for the most part at least, studios have been delivering. We now have “strong female characters” like Black Widow, Katniss Everdeen, and Rey from "Star Wars."We’re getting a "Ghostbusters"reboot with an all-female cast. Netflix even has a category dedicated to “Strong Female Leads.” This is not to say we’ve never had empowering women in media before, just look at Princess Leia and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But with the rise of Third Wave Feminism and social media, the demand for more and better female characters in the books, shows and movies we watch has never been “stronger.”
This is all great. Female representation is better than it was 10 years ago, and young girls deserve good role models in media, whether they be princesses or superheroes. But studios and audiences still have a long way to go. While the concept of “strong female characters” means well and has given us more empowering characters, it has one big problem: it makes us believe there is only one type of “strength” for women.
Recommended for you
And this strength is inherently masculine. It is an idea of “strength” that claims to empower women while also perpetuating the age-old, sexist idea that femininity equals weakness. They are saying that you can’t be strong or brave or capable like the male heroes unless you are “male” as well.
My favorite example of this phenomenon is the Stark sisters from "Game of Thrones."While the show has a huge problem with exploiting and normalizing sexual violence against women, such as using rape for shock value, "Game of Thrones"deserves credit for having a wide range of female characters who are diverse and distinct from one another, which is a rarity in the action / fantasy genre (I’m looking at you, "Lord of the Rings"movies). These include sisters Arya and Sansa, whose personalities and audience receptions are as different as night and day. Arya is a tomboy who loves sword fighting and openly rejects “being a lady,” whereas Sansa is as ladylike as one can be, who loves sewing and fairy tales and wearing pretty dresses. Yet Arya is one of the show’s most beloved characters, because she is “strong” and “tough” and “amazing,” whereas Sansa is one of the most hated for being “too weak” or “too stupid” or “too annoying.”
I don’t mean to put Arya down in favor of Sansa. Both characters are wonderful in their own right. I only mean to point out how their receptions by audiences reflect the problem with the notion of the “strong female character,” that female characters can only be strong if they are more “like the boys.” Throughout the show’s six seasons, Arya and Sansa have suffered their fair share of trauma and abuse, but have overcome their circumstances in different ways. Arya has her sword “Needle” and her fighting skills, making her “strength” more visible and typically masculine, so audiences recognize this and praise her for being a “strong female character.” But Sansa doesn’t have a weapon. She never dons a suit of armor or wields a sword or commands a dragon to burn a city down. She has her manners and dresses and sewing needles, and yet she endures. She survives. Her “strength” is invisible. She has an inner strength, one that’s mental and emotional rather than physical. Yet audiences overlook this, because the concept of “strong female characters” as only being masculine women has made them view any strength in females that is not masculine as not being strength at all. So Sansa continues to be hated, despite her wonderful character development, her perseverance and will, all because she is more “feminine” than her sister.
This double standard is not limited to "Game of Thrones."Disney princesses like Cinderella and Anna, whose strength came in kindness or love, tend to be received less favorably than their more “unfeminine” counterparts, like Merida and Mulan. Last summer’s "Avengers: Age of Ultron"was widely criticized for giving Black Widow, who is usually stoic, a rare moment of emotional vulnerability when she revealed she was infertile, a problem many women have and suffer from in real life (this scene was poorly executed, and Black Widow being the Hulk’s love interest is a whole other problem, but the criticism to her infertility and insecurity over it was still unfair and unnecessary). Even Rey, who had both “masculine” and “feminine” traits, who could take on thieves and Sith lords with a staff or lightsaber yet also be kind and hopeful and vulnerable, was mocked by many for being a “Mary-Sue” or “unrealistic.”
My point is not to put down female characters who are “tomboys,” or to say we need more “girly” characters. My point is that the notion of the “strong female character” needs to change. Studios need to stop presenting “strong female characters” as hypermasculinity in female form, and audiences need to stop accepting these characters as the only options for female empowerment. Strength can be expressed in many different forms, for women as well as men. The concept of the “strong female character” should be more inclusive, open-minded and acceptable.
