wrt261

[wrt261]

The strong female character is limited as it is currently conceptualized and therefore is poorly realized. We must advocate for changes to be made in the way female characters are written in order to achieve a level of diversity and equality in media representation which is currently not being attained.

[wrt261]

So why is depicting diversity in female characters in the media so important?  

Carlos Cort asserts that “entertainment media [teaches] the public about minorities, other ethnic groups and societal groups, such as women.” Media teaches gender-role attitudes, body-image beliefs and reinforces cultural norms. It influences how women believe they should behave in society and how they should interact with the world, others and themselves.

Cort also states that “the media influence not only how others view them, but even how they view themselves.” This means the characters that young, impressionable girls and teenagers are latching on to are becoming their guides. They are influencing how females identify themselves as they grow.

We can’t have every single girl striving to carry around a bow & arrow, shooting at people, and having that be her only pride and personality. There’s more to real women than that. We can’t have females growing up to feel inadequate because their depiction in the media is inadequate. We must fight to improve media literacy for girls and women; allowing them to access themselves through the screen.

Additionally, females are not the only ones consuming media. Media is also defining how young males and non-binary people perceive women. It is defining what they should expect from a woman, and how they should interact with and treat women.  If the only depiction they’re seeing nowadays is the Strong Female Character™, they’ll be in for a shock when they encounter real women.

Image Source: giphy.com

[wrt261]

*Side Note: there’s a difference between strong female character and Strong Female Character™. The ™ signifies a very specific type of character, which is completely undesirable. Here’s some other examples of ™ being used as a differentiator:

Image courtesy: Know Your Meme

So basically, the ™ version of an identity is the extremist, or ™ is a demarcator which indicates that the person works against the goals of that identity and is therefore no longer that identity anymore.

[wrt261]

Now to begin...

This is messy topic overall. Some people hold it very closely and personally to their hearts, some are neutral, some are enraged by it. There's miscommunication, misinformation, prejudices, lack of understanding… and there isn't even an official definition of Strong Female Character (SFC).

Before I can even start figuring out a definition of the term itself, what do we even mean by strong in this context? Physical strength? Emotional strength? Stubbornness? Having their "own" opinions (does anyone really have their own opinions? Aren’t we all products of our influential environment?) Sticking with their opinions (can't this inhibit personal growth?) All of the above and more?

Or do we mean complex? Realistic? Able to stand up as a well-written, relatable, three-dimensional human? In fact, this discrepancy feeds into Bijhan Valibeigi’s article title “Strong Female Characters are Rarely Strong and Barely Characters,” which will be further discussed.

[wrt261]

Sherlock Holmes threatens criminal while substantiating his character. Image Source: giphy.com

Now not every male character is perfect, however they're not the point of my essay. Sophia McDougall does a wonderful job at pointing out the complexities that male characters get to have, which female characters can only dream of. Her example: Sherlock Holmes, a possibly self-destructive depressed addict, “gets to be brilliant, solitary, abrasive, Bohemian, whimsical, brave, sad, manipulative, neurotic, vain, untidy, fastidious, artistic, courteous, rude, a polymath genius. Female characters get to be Strong.”

She then goes on to point out how silly it would be to ask whether Sherlock Holmes is “strong.” Answering “yes” to that question would tell us nothing about who he is as a character. She compares this question to trying to fit male characters into a box.

Captain America, James Bond and Batman all technically fit into the “strong” box, however she points out that other facets of their identities inevitably extend outside this box; Captain America’s dorkiness, Bond’s psychopathy, Batman’s whole…bat thing. None of these characters fit neatly inside a “strong” box because “they’re used to being interesting across more than one axis and in more than two dimensions.”

Male Marvel characters in superhero pose. Image Source: androidguys.com    

She then examines the male characters that do fit neatly into the “strong” box; the figurative “Strong Male Character™.” She lists those like He-Man, The Lone Ranger and Superman, ie. Extremely boring, 2-dimensional characters. She points out how utterly poor and boring fiction would be if writers strived only to create “Strong Male Characters™.”

McDougall says the correct question we should ask when writing or evaluating a character is “what is he/she like?” This question produces a long list of character traits that come together to form a complex and realistic character, such as the above example of Sherlock Holmes.

If the “strong” box is far too constricting to develop a real, complex male character, then why is this “claustrophobic little ‘strong’ box” the standard for our female characters? I’ve personally read through many character analyses for this project, and not one referred to a male character as “strong” yet “strong” in the abstract was a character trait of basically every female character I researched.

[wrt261]

A (not so) hyperbolic comic, “Show of Strength.” Image Source: writingmastery

So now that we’ve seen what a mess the “strong” in Strong Female Character is, let’s look at the definitions of the term itself. I've seen SFC defined as a “a cinematic cliché, the opposite of the damsel-in-distress stock character, or a character whose gendered qualities have been removed” (via Wikipedia).

These “gendered qualities” refer predominantly to stereotypical feminine qualities like emotion, especially those other than anger (seriously what's up with emotion being classified as a feminine quality? Oh right I forgot, men are just unfeeling robots).

This definition has come around because SFCs™ have been designed so that their gender comes before their humanity. Their lack of femininity is what is perceived to be strength, and this is exactly what has created the recognizable trope of boring, 2-dimensional female characters (with weapons!!), and perpetuates harmful stereotypes about femininity.

In the words of Sophia McDougall, movies that feature SFCs™ as the hero’s love interest boast that “normal women are weak and boring and can’t do anything worthwhile. But this one is different. She is strong! See, she roundhouses people in the face.”

Bijhan Valibeigi offers further insight into the reason these have become the definitions of the trope, stating that an SFC is “a character whose exterior qualities and achievements are designed to stand in contrast to her inner feminine vulnerability. She is given value because of her masculine traits; she is kept from being the protagonist because of her feminine traits.” This definition speaks to the issue that people generally do not automatically respect female characters. She must earn their respect, and her title of “strong”, through displays of masculinity.

[wrt261]

Agent Peggy Carter punches a disrespectful recruit to the ground. Image Source: giphy.com

Take Agent Peggy Carter for example. Felicity Gardner gave a detailed analysis of the issues Agent Carter faced as a female character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Agent Carter is established as a Strong Female Character™ from the moment she punches a sexist male recruit to the ground. She effectively escalated a verbal dispute to one of physical violence in a heartbeat.

This feeds into Sophia McDougall’s claim that “the Strong Female Character™ has something to prove. She’s on the defensive before she even starts.” She has to establish that she’s every bit as good as her male counterparts, and this is often done through violence. This moment is meant to prove to the audience that Peggy’s “not like other girls.” She actually deserves their respect.

But why does she have to gain respect in the first place? She obviously has a superior title, introducing herself as the agent who supervises all operations for that division. The character Colonel Phillips enters the scene right after Peggy has been established as “strong” and he is respected by default. There is no need to establish him as “strong” to the recruits or to the audience; it is automatically assumed that he deserves his authority.

The film could have challenged the audience’s own sexism, by never including Peggy’s “establishment” and forcing them to confront the reasons for their own lack of respect for Peggy, but this likely would have just caused them to view her as weak, focusing on the times she acts on emotion.

[wrt261]

Now let’s imagine Peggy was male...

So a recruit says something disrespectful to his male supervising officer and he immediately punches the recruit to the ground. Does the audience suddenly gain respect for this male character, or do they view him as physically abusive and aggressive? In both cases, the characters are in a time of war and don’t have time for disrespectful recruits, yet in one instance the character’s action serves to gain the audience’s respect or her, and in the other it brings an aversion to the character.

The Strong Female Character™ is allowed to get away with these actions because there’s apparently no other way for her to gain respect; be brought up to the level of a man. (Why is that the standard she must achieve anyway? Good ol’ patriarchy, huh.)

It is understandable that she is viewed as ‘out of place’ in the war because the film decided that there simply won’t be any other supporting female characters around. The weight of representing her entire sex falls solely on her shoulders, as there are no other females around to share the duty. This could explain the extreme lengths her character was written to go to in order to be respected, and therefore gives her a forced feel.

[wrt261]

Here’s some of the main issues with SFCs

Turning to Tumblr, a microblogging platform which served as a hub of social justice activists and communities for years, two users have also offered definitions which serve to refine the hallmarks of the SFC trope. Writingmastery has formulated a definition of SFC based on the previously mentioned article on The Mary Sue. They write, “Strong Female Characters™ are leather-clad, emotionless, “independent,” defined by their relationships to men, and often have a tragic backstory (often involving abuse at the hands of men).”

Thecaffeinebookwarrior takes writingmastery’s definition a step further, providing specific characteristics (fittingly referred to as “symptoms”) which apply to SFCs:

“The symptoms for a Strong Female Character™ are as follows:

She punches and kicks things a lot.

Or, alternatively, is referred to as being able to punch or kick things, but  never gets the opportunity to do it.

Emotional callousness/lack of sympathetic attributes.

Hates children.

Looks down on traditionally feminine women.

Has approximately three personality traits.

Tamhonks (I know, these names are getting less credible-sounding as we go) has added a few more valid “symptoms”: “

Everybody is immediately drawn to her for no discernible reason

Extremely powerful compared to all of the other characters within the story; there’s no reason as to how she became so powerful

For some reason is able to quickly pick up new skills in a period of time comparable to a genius; no explanation for this either

Has virtually no weaknesses except she’s clumsy teehee :)”

[wrt261]

Disclaimer...

Not every SFC falls into these traps of the trope in the same way. For example, there’s a pool of about 5 personality traits that SFCs could potentially be given (strong, independent, snarky, fearless or cold), and any combination of 3 of these 5 would contribute to the three-trait symptom. (Heads up writers! There’s at least 636 Personality traits women can possess other than “strong” or “independent.”)

I want to examine and compare a wide range of characters, across genres, over time, in similar situations, and within the same television series, some of whom fall into these traps, and some who have avoided them and gone beyond.

The characters I mention are ones who have personally stuck out in my mind, including Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games, Tris Prior from the Divergent Series, Arya and Sansa Stark from Game of Thrones, Elizabeth Swann from Pirates of The Caribbean, Christine Daaé from The Phantom of The Opera, Dolores Abernathy and Maeve Millay from Westworld, Callie AdamsFoster from The Fosters, Anna from Frozen, and Fiona Gallagher from Shameless.

[wrt261]

Katniss Everdeen angrily aims her bow. Image Source: giphy.com

We've had a surge of Katniss Everdeens and Tris Priors thanks to the popularit of dystopian Young Adult fiction. They’re the leather-clad badass who was kind of just...physically strong. Haymitch, Katniss’ mentor, literally describes her as having “the personality of a dead slug” in the first book. In the second movie, Peeta states, “you’re stubborn and good with a bow” to which Katniss replies, “that about sums me up.” So then, what is she like? She’s “cold, stubborn, strong” and that’s about it. Rue and Prim are used purely as plot devices to establish her “strength.”

For the most part, Katniss rejects femininity; she’s established as very different from her sister and mother and is instead often compared to her father. She hunts like him, shoots arrows like him, is rebellious like him. She can also fish like Gale and trap like Gale. She’s the man of the house.

This was an interesting role for her character to take on as Fiona Gallagher, a character I discuss below, faces a similar situation in a much different way, thanks to the way she was written. Her femininity was not omitted.

[wrt261]

Tris Prior angrily aims her gun. Image Source: giphy.com

Tris Prior is “strong.” She, as a character, hates showing weakness. The entire point of her initial story is that she’s not just strong! She’s smart (Erudite) and brave (Dauntless) and humble (Abnegation) all at the same time! Wow! 3 personality traits! Groundbreaking! This symptom isn’t forced at all! Oh and she also cuts her hair short to represent her transformation into a strong character. She at least did have some brief female relationships, though most of them died, and boy troubles broke up others.

There’s barely any substantive response to “what is she like.” Short and sweet, Tris exemplifies SFC™ symptoms; oozes them, really.

[wrt261]

Next up: Arya and Sansa from Game of Thrones.

Arya Stark insults femininity. Image Source: giphy.com

From her introduction, Arya Stark was established as a tomboy, declaring, “I don’t want to be a lady.” While nothing is inherently wrong with this, the issue is that most SFCs are expected to adopt this attitude and reject all traditionally feminine behaviours in order to be considered “strong.” There were to be no “lady-like pursuits” for Arya whatsoever and it is clear that she looks down on her traditionally feminine sister, Sansa, for this exact reason, which is quite unnecessary. According to Gardner, “the idea that rejecting femininity makes you strong creates an antithesis in which other, more feminine, characters are presented as weak.”

Arya was such a compellingly effective attempt at creating a three-dimensional character. She possessed internal ambitions such as wanting to explore the world, and carried a personal vendetta against anyone who hurt her or the people close to her. She was definitively not a damsel in distress, and avoided the pitfall of being emotionally shallow and purely rage. She formed diverse, important, caring relationships throughout the series and was able to contend with the different emotions that accompanied each of these.

Unfortunately, all of these relationships were with men; The Hound, Jaqen H'ghar, Syrio Forel, Meat Pie, Gendry. Arya interacts with female characters Melisandre and Brienne for all of 5 minutes each, and shares a broken and antagonistic relationship with her sister Sansa for 7 of the 8 seasons. Despite this downfall, Arya was allowed to fill more roles than a female character typically does; daughter, sister, friend, lover, fugitive, executioner. Her actions are purposeful, anchored to her core values. If Arya was a male, she’d still be considered a good character the audience would root for, which shows that her humanity was, for the most part, considered before her gender. The Game of Thrones writers came so painfully close to escaping the SFC™ symptoms, but unfortunately still fell short.

[wrt261]

Sansa Stark continues to be manipulated by Peter Baelish. Image Source: giphy.com

Contrastingly, Sansa Stark was an attempt at a SFC who was feminine. She and Arya are somewhat foils to each other. However, Sansa turned out to be just a 2-dimensional damsel who became "strong" at the drop of a coin. Her passiveness and her femininity itself were some of her greatest weaknesses. Sansa was subject to the manipulation of multiple men throughout the series. She was the plaything of Joffrey Baratheon, Lord Baelish and Ramsay Bolton. She ran for Jon’s protection, relied on Tyrion’s protection, and on Brienne’s (at least she got one not-too-antagonistic female relationship).

For most of the series, life just happened to Sansa Stark. She suffered incredible traumas at the hands of various men. All her abilities and her entire personality are (self-) attributed to the men that came into her life. Her character is defined by victimization and violation by men. She herself states “Without Littlefinger and Ramsay and the rest, I would have stayed a little bird all my life.”

Once she has escaped these abuses and manipulations for the most part, Sansa begins to exhibit uncharacteristic qualities, which seemed to have just developed magically. For example, she’s suddenly brilliant at war strategy. When did she become a leader? She sewed, she was abused, then she lead the North. Yup, that’s exactly how someone becomes qualified to lead a territory. It’s understandable that she’s learned not to trust men, and has picked up some manipulative skills as well, but that’s about it for believable character development.

Sansa’s ability to survive the horrors she went through is a testament to her capacity to survive and withstand pressure, however, for most of the series, she serves no concrete purpose to the plot, stands for nothing, and just falls into both of her roles (victim of abuse and Queen of the North). She never truly develops on her own and is merely a victim of the things that happened to her. She was metaphorically “handed a gun” and we must now just accept her new-found Strength™.  Her emotional callousness and about 3 personality traits additionally make her an incredibly boring character, which is what often happens when women are written as anything other than a traditional damsel or SFC.

[wrt261]

Elizabeth Swann as Pirate King. Image Source: luke-skywalker

Remember Valibeigi’s point that a SFC’s assigned male traits are what give her value, as her femininity keeps her back? In light of that, I have to address Elizabeth Swann's clothes, but also...would we even discuss male characters' clothes in arguments like this?

Here, the point is relevant because her clothing choice is a symbolic rejection of her 'weak' feminine nature and her embrace of bravery, “strength” and adventure. (But then isn’t it also sort of difficult to realistically fight pirates in a corset and 6 inch heels?)

Elizabeth went on to earn the title of “Pirate King” by the way, and stowed away as a cabin boy for a large portion of the second movie. We’re reminded, however that Elizabeth is in fact a woman every time she is sexualised by the men surrounding her.

Additionally, like Elizabeth Swann, a lot of SFCs don't get a happily ever after, even if they are written a love interest. Elizabeth sees Will pop out of the sea once every 10 years. She’s in a pretty similar situation to Wonder Woman. Does this aspect of the trope exist because we as a society may see a romance as undermining her “strength?”

[wrt261]

Christine Daaé’s only signature silent, mouth-ajar expression. Image Source: buffyscmmers

Let’s take a step back to examine an older version of a controversially strong female character; Christine Daaé from The Phantom of The Opera. Christine, like Sansa, seems to be lead around by life. She’s been described as “spineless” and makes about two autonomous decisions in the entire play. You could literally replace Christine with the last slice of pizza, and the story would progress exactly the same. As Kira Brighton points out, Christine cannot be successful on her own; she can only be so in proximity to whichever man she chooses. Hence, her gender is a hindrance.

While the love triangle is the central plot of the play, it depicts the struggle of past female characters being constricted by the “innocent/seductress” dichotomy. These were the only two roles a woman was allowed to fill; simple, silent and submissive to men, or disobedient, inappropriately expressive, and a temptress to make men to do evil (notice neither of these roles allow space for a woman’s relation to herself or other women). Christine is being forced to choose not just a man, but which of these two roles she will play for the rest of her life.

Brighton states that Christine was strong because she maintained herself in an impossible situation, forging a third option in which she was neither the innocent nor the seductress, but both and neither. In a time where female characters were unable to be emotionally deep, complexly written humans, Brighton shows that Christine was able to bend the dichotomy.

Unfortunately, although the dichotomy of innocent/seductress has been altered, a dichotomy does still exist. Is today’s female character strong or weak? Since “strength” is still attributed to “manly” and “weak” attributed to “feminine,” we end up with characters like Dolores of Westworld.

[wrt261]

Dolores Abernathy as murderer, Wyatt. Image Source: thenarddog

Dolores falls into today’s dichotomous trap in the worst way possible.To make matters worse, the creators tried to write off her lack of charater with two words, “I’m me” ie. the equivalent of slapping a bandaid on a broken bone.

Dolores Abernathy is a straight up actually boring 2 dimensional character if I’ve ever seen one. Her dichotomy is the most painful thing I’ve ever seen on television. She begins as a sweet, innocent farm girl object, complete with a cute Southern drawl whose purpose was to be owned & raped. It is later revealed that she had a LITERAL MALE PERSONALITY NAMED WYATT coded into her.

As a character, Wyatt is a stone-cold murderer, which means Dolores can either choose to be a sexualised object or a male murderer (because a third option is totally out of the question). So, in an attempt to be portrayed as strong, from the moment she picks up a gun, she becomes a murderer whose only emotion is anger. Her character is literally scripted within the show, but she’s still written so badly that even her unscripted character seems scripted, forced and unreal.

One quote of hers which exemplified her boring and forced dichotomy comes from season 2, episode 1, "I'm not Dolores or Wyatt...I'm me" but um...3 seasons in and I still don't know who she is. There’s really only her Wyatt personality present, which makes her incredibly stoic and causes any scripted demonstrations of emotion to come across as robotic and forced.

Her romance doesn’t work out at all, either, when she literally breaks her lover, Teddy, by cruelly altering his code so that he can be an emotionally shallow monster like her. She treated him, the man she supposedly loves, in the way the farm girl version of her was treated, and in the most unfeminist display of character I’ve ever seen, proceeds to selfishly justify her unconsented, invasive actions, while implying to Maeve that her daughter keeps her trapped (S2E8).

The only relationships she has are with males (Teddy, her father, her creator Arnold, Bernard) and the one female relationship she has with Maeve is hostile and never really develops. It is shown by her rejection of her “Dolores” personality that her gendered qualities were hindrances. I suppose I do love that her actions make the audience question whether she’s a hero or villain, but still, she's probably the worst SFC I'll mention and I literally just talked about Christine Daaé.