Now here's an interesting article.

[here_inmyhead]

Why Strong Female Characters Are Bad For Women

I always wondered about that. We get a lot of so-called "strong" female characters "full of attitude," but in the end they're not well developed, and you just don't connect to them at all. :/ It's not enough for a girl to "kick ass." I mean yeah, that's nice, but it's not a necessity to be a likable and respected character. What makes her truly awesome is she's got some goddamn humanity, not that she was a cardboard poster child to be gawked by sleazy nerdy fanboys about how awesome she is ~*FOR A WOMAN*~

I dunno, this paragraph says it better than me: This Super Strong Female Character is almost like a Mary Sue, except instead of being perfect in every way because she’s a stand-in for the author, she’s perfect in every way so the male audience will want to bang her and so the female audience won’t be able to say, “Tsk tsk, what a weak female character!” It’s a win-win situation.

It's like people think in shallow terms regarding what "strong" and "flawed" means. Strong only applies to bruisers, of course! You're a flawed character if you fall over a lot and people laugh and find it endearing. That's Hollywood for ya. And recent books with so-called "independent heroines" and video games. MICROWAVE BEAM AQUIRED. MAKE DINNER FOR ADAM.

Comments

tl;dr

[silverflight8.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure when strong character = unlikeable character who is also (on the side) strong started. I dislike the distinction. :(

I think what is needed is just more prominent female characters that - there is nothing inherently wrong with a cruel female character, or one who doesn't care for others, or whatever - it's just that there are too few significant female characters in the first place who defy genre conventions. (This is why I find analysis of just one book slightly questionable; one book or movie or game with [problematic thing] is significant because of the larger context, not because it happened in a single work.) arglebargle.

Re: tl;dr

[insanepurin.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that the strong kick-ass type of female character is bad. What I meant was that there's two sides of the same coin; the shallow stereotypical "strong" female can be just annoying as the passive and weak damsel in distress. Though Hollywood and general media does seem to have a general impression that a female who's a fighter MUST be hot-headed or bitchy or even misandrist to convince the audience she is one. :(

It's weird. You'd think with all the advances we're making in human rights that there'd be a lot more variety in stories, especially as far as female characters go and all the debate that goes on in fandom, and then my faith gets snuffed out again. D: Auuuuugh.

Re: tl;dr

[silverflight8.livejournal.com]

Yes. to all your comment :P Sorry if it came across wrong; I completely agree with you.

[valkyriur.livejournal.com]

There are certain things I dislike about that particular article, but overall I agree with what it's saying. We need strong character who are female. Not females who are strong. And there is definitely a difference.

[insanepurin.livejournal.com]

I agree some parts of the article could be worded better (and come on, don't be hatin' on Liz Sherman! If it's any consolation to the article writer, she's better in the second movie. :P) I generally agree what the article is saying.

We need strong characters who are female. Not females who are strong.

Hear hear!

[miritsu.livejournal.com]

Replace "bad for women" with "dull as dirt" and you'll have a phrase I've been saying for years now. -_- Most hot, spunky babes in both rom-coms and geeky action movies are so dull they might as well drop out of the movie frame altogether and no one would notice.

For me, I'd actually rather see WEAK women, as long as there's a reason they're weak, because everyone's weak in some ways and being weak sometimes gives a person flaws and thus character. I'm just tired of being bored.

[insanepurin.livejournal.com]

It depends on how one defines "weak" as much as one defines "strong." If we start requesting weak female characters as opposed to say, well-developed female characters (or go further still into saying "female characters with great characterization," as Hollywood males would think that "well-developed" equates with "well-endowed." :P), it can just as easily be taken the wrong way and we're back at the damsel-in-distress route again. Or worse, like whiny self-pitying "heroines" in skanky clothes that do nothing for themselves. :P ZOMG THEIR SO FLAW3D WEREZ SUCH GOOD RITERZ!!!11!1

[miritsu.livejournal.com]

I am okay with a damsel in distress as long as she's not just a plot element, though. Is she neurotic? Angry? Self-pitying is okay if you can see the effect on other characters, the ways she sabotages herself.

In other words, I'm not "requesting" weak female characters, I'm requesting characters with actual character.

[zuki-chan.livejournal.com]

Thanks for linking this Puri, it's an actual article that speaks what I've been thinking for a long time! I'm so sick of movies in particular relying on a "kickass heroine" who happens to be wandering around in sexy lingerie whilst fighting demon hordes - and who will naturally still be softened by her male love interest. Female empowerment and girlpower hooray lol!
I think one thing the article didn't really cover is the fact that if a woman that is considered strong is portrayed, it will often be "they are great at buttkicking". As if the only way to be a strong character is to literally have the muscles. Which is both sad and hilarious. Be more inventive, make more complex characters people! Please?

TLDR: Cool article find bro, A++

[insanepurin.livejournal.com]

THE ONLY WAY A WOMAN CAN BE STRONG IS IF SHE HAS MASCULINE TRAITS. SO YOU KNOW, SHE CAN BE A MAN, BUT SHE'S A WOMAN. OH YEAH, GIVE HER SKANKY CLOTHES SO WE KNOW WHAT SEX SHE IS. SEE? WOMAN. WOMAN. WOMAN WOMAN WOMAN.

Pillars of emotional support? What are those?

[lurora.livejournal.com]

While I agree with this article, I can't help but think that the reason those characters are like that is because... well... they're fanservice for the target demographic. :|a

They aren't there to make feminists happy or to improve the story. They're there to give the nerdy action fan something pretty to look at/fap to. Sex sells, as I'm sure you know.

What you're asking is for an industry focused on "PRETTY SHINY SEXY" to think about these new and strange ideas called "plot" and "character development."

Now if they were actually trying to make a decent story, then yes, THIS. THIS SO MUCH.

Sorry. For some reason I was abnormally cynical when I wrote this. ._.;;

[deryck.livejournal.com]

Hollywood, make movies with either all-male or all-female casts.

Problem solved. :P