CULTURE, FEATURED, MOVIES, TV

Why Strong Female Characters Are Bad

for Women
by mlawski Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 7:16am
Article Tools:

Opening Arguments
Last night I finally saw the 2007 Transformers movie. It was OK, in a Michael Bay sort of way, but it was
very clear that it was made for a very specific audience: young white nerdy men who wish they could bone
models after watching them sexily fight robots so sweat cascades down their luscious tanned bodies. All
right, fine. If you must, Michael Bay. Id prefer if you objectified some hot men every once in a while, but
I also understand that you think that would make you gay, and you dont want that, Michael Bay. I
understand.
But then I see this quote from Megan Fox, the actress/model playing main hottie of the film:
Both of the female characters in the movie were very strong characters. Rachel [Taylor]s character is
very intelligent. I thought that they were representing women very well.
Thats the last straw. Its bad enough that they make movies that objectify women, but then to call those
women Strong Female Characters? I do not think that phrase means what you think it means, Megan
Fox.
So you know what I say? I say screw Strong Female Characters. What we need now are some Weak
Female Characters. My arguments below the fold

Strong Female Characters: A History

Once upon a time in movieland, female characters were the designated Damsels in Distress. They were
tied to railroad tracks, trapped in burning buildings, falling to their deaths, waiting for Superman to save
them. While the hero fought the Bad Guy, theyd sit in the back biting their fingernails instead of running
away to get help or throwing a punch of her own. Sometimes theyd seem smart, strong, and assured until
the villain grasped them by their arm, leaving them powerless. Oh, and the swooning. Sometimes there
was swooning.
Along would come the Hot Hero, strong, rugged, with a square jaw and stony buttocks, to save the day. As
in the heroic tales of old, their prize for defeating the villain would be the chance to shag the Damsel and
live happily ever after.
All in all, the Damsel in Distress was kind of a terrible character, but at least she did end up with the hot
hero at the end. Sure, he might have anger issues or just be a tool; then again, he was also probably a
prince or a cowboy or a hot PI or a superhero or if the hero was a regular everyman hed still be a
Clark Gable or Cary Grant or Humphrey Bogart so it wasnt all bad.
Somewhere along the way feminism happened and the wymyns were all, Um, no? It took a while, but
some writers in Hollywood got the idea. No more would female characters be Damsels in Distress. No,
there should be Strong Female Characters in cinema emphasis on Strong. While these women would
still be young and hot, of course, theyd also have one characteristic that made them more masculine.
That could be physical strength or a superpower (see Liz Sherman in the first Hellboy movie), the ability
to shoot a gun properly (see Princess Leia), or it could be something more metaphorical, like being able to
out-drink a guy (see Marion from Raiders of the Lost Ark). Writers patted themselves on the back,
saying, You wanted Strong Female Characters? Well, now theyre strong.
Yeah, the trouble is, although these characters were marginally better than the original Damsels in
Distress, they still ended up having to be saved in the final act by the male hero. There would usually be a
scene (or three) where the Strong Female Character would be trapped by the villain and put into sexy
clothing, I guess as a punishment of some sort. And even when she was being strong, she was always
doing it in the sexiest way possible. Shed never, say, get a black eye or a broken nose in a fight. Her
ability to fix cars (a powerful, masculine trait) would basically allow her to get sexy grease all over her
slippery body. Her ability to shoot a gun was so the films advertisers could put her on a poster wearing a
skimpy outfit with a big gun between her legs. All in all, the strength of her character was just to make
her a better prize for the hero at the end and for the horny male audience throughout.

And the heroes got worse, too. Yeah, these Strong Female Characters would sometimes be rescued by the
Hot Hero. More often, now, theyd be saved by the Schlubby Everydude. Apparently somewhere along
the line directors decided that film heroes should be more like audience stand-ins: lame, scrawny, nerdy.
So you wouldnt have Hot Strong Marion sleeping with Hot Strong Indiana Jones at the end anymore.
Youd have Hot Strong Megan Fox sleeping with Weaselly Weak Shia La Beouf at the end. Um,
WHAT?! If this female character is so strong and so hot and so great in every way, why in the world
would she end up with that loser? Oh. Because hes the audience stand-in. That makes perfect sense.
Some movies nowadays go even further. They pile up one awesome trait after another on top of this sexy
female character, thinking that will make them stronger. For instance, consider Rachel Taylors
character in Transformers, who, Megan Fox claims, is an intelligent, Strong Female Character. Of
course! Shes a 23-year-old, model-thin super-attractive super-genius hacker who is SO SMART that
everyone in the Pentagon spends the whole movie looking at her dumbly because shes just SO MUCH
BETTER THAN THEM AT EVERYTHING. Or, as A.O. Scott said in his Wall-E review, this is the female
character (like EVE) who is a supermodel who also happens to be a top scientist with a knack for
marksmanship.

This Super Strong Female Character is almost like a Mary Sue, except instead of being perfect in every
way because shes a stand-in for the author, shes perfect in every way so the male audience will want to
bang her and so the female audience wont be able to say, Tsk tsk, what a weak female character! Its a
win-win situation.
Except not.
Saying Yes to Weak Female Characters
 I think the major problem here is that women were clamoring for strong
female characters, and male writers misunderstood. They thought the feminists meant [Strong Female]
Characters. The feminists meant [Strong Characters], Female.
So the feminists shouldnt have said we want more strong female characters. They should have said we
want more WEAK female characters. Not weak meaning Damsel in Distress. Weak meaning
flawed.
Good characters, male or female, have goals, and they have flaws. Any character without flaws will be a
cardboard cutout. Perhaps a sexy cardboard cutout, but two-dimensional nonetheless. And no, Always
goes for douchebags instead of the Nice Guy (the flaw of Megan Foxs character in Transformers) is not a
real flaw. Men think women have that flaw, but most women avoid Nice Guys because they just arent
that nice. So that doesnt count.
So what flaws can female characters have? Uh, I dont know. How about the same flaws a male character
would have? This is especially important in comedies, because, nowadays, male writers are so clueless
about writing funny women that female characters in sitcoms, sitcomish-movies, and comics tend to be
the Smart, Gorgeous Snarky Voice of Reason in an unreasonable world. In other words, Not Flawed and
Not Funny.
Im sick of it. Lets see more female characters
that fall down hilariously (like Lucille Ball)
that are arrogant (like Zhang Yiyi in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
that are realistic or exuberant villains (like Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton or Atia from Rome)
that are neurotic (like Elliott from Scrubs)
that are mean or cruel (like Elaine from Seinfeld)
that are vengeful (like The Bride from Kill Bill)
that are forgetful (like Dory from Finding Nemo)
 that say the wrong things (like C.J. in The West Wing, often, or, again, Elliott from Scrubs,
always)
that are emotionally repressed (like Marge from The Simpsons)
that are nerdy and awkward (like Belle from Beauty and the Beast)
that are crazy (like everyone, male or female, from Neon Genesis Evangelion)
that are insufferable know-it-alls (like Hermione or Lisa Simpson)
that are depressed (I cant think of one, which is interesting, since women are more likely to be
depressed in real life. Whos the female equivalent of Hamlet? Is there one?)
Etcetera. They dont have to be physically strong, although they can be (The Bride, the women from
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Ripley, Sarah Connor, and even the half-naked Faye Valentine from
Cowboy Bebop are strong Strong female characters). Strong just means they have their own goals that
move beyond I want to do whatever the male hero wants to do or I want to marry the male hero. I
want to have a baby is moderately better moderately. Lets try to be a little more creative, huh?

(Brief interlude: And, by the way, its OK if these women are hot. The characters I just mentioned above
[The Bride, the Crouching Tiger ladies, Ripley, Sarah Connor, and Ms. Valentine] are all quite attractive.
But they also DO get beat up and they DO look like they could kick your ass. Except for Zhang Yiyi, whos
like thirty pounds. But she at least looks graceful enough that she could fly and kick your ass with a
sword, and she looks angry and batshit crazy enough that shed do it twice. And they all have their own
goals, flaws, and back stories. I dont want you thinking I have something against attractive women. I am
one myself, after all :)
Once your female characters have some depth to them, it doesnt really matter if the male hero saves them
or not. For instance, Batman saved Rachel Dawes a couple of times, but I never saw her as only a Damsel
in Distress, because she was her own person with her own moral code and own heroic goals to clean up
Gotham with her Lawyer Powers. There was nothing in her background that led me to believe shed be
able to fight supervillains single-handedly, so when Batman has to save her (just like he saves everyone
else), its believable. If, say, she had beaten up the Joker with her super kung fu skills she learned in self-
defense class and her super-powered mace she developed in her own chem lab after she got her PhD from
Harvard, and her makeup and hair still looked good afterward, then shed be LESS of a Strong Female
Character. Shed just be some image of what the nerdy male audience wants in a damsel.
Got it?
My work here is done.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Female Character Flowchart
by mlawski Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 7:00am
Article Tools:

UPDATE: You can now buy your own poster of the Female Character Flowchart in the Overthinking It
Store.
Note: This flowchart was created with extensive help from Carlos A. Hann Commander, a guru of the
Adobe Illustrator.
At the risk of being called a penis-bashing dog-faced psycho feminazi* again, Im going to talk about
gender today! (Woo! Gender!) More precisely, Im going to show off this crazy infographic I made with
Carlos A. Hann Commander. Think of this piece as a visual aid for my strong female character article, my
piece about likability in fiction, Belinkies awesome piece about Chris Nolans women, or any of the other
gender-related articles on this site. Better yet, you can use this graphic the next time you write your own
original female character and wonder if shes a clich or not. I know how hard writing original characters
can be, and I hope this flowchart can help you out.
Before we get to the graphic itself, here are some explanations and caveats.
1. This flowchart focuses on the one- and two-dimensional female characters we see over and over
again in modern fiction.
2. The graphic does not include every type of female character that has ever existed, but I did my
best to focus on the most important tropes.
3. Some of the listed tropes might be considered crazy-sexist, and others represent more positive
stereotypes. The tropes are subjective, and they exist on a continuum of sexism. Consider Family
Guys Lois Griffin (who falls under the category of Perfect Wife). Lois isnt a particularly complex
female character, and the idea of a fun-loving sexpot wife who stands by her man no matter what he
does is kinda-sorta sexist, in that this character is a fantasy fetish figure tailor-made for adolescent
male audiences. But as far as sitcom housewives go, Id much prefer to watch a Lois-type character
than a classic sitcom shrew like Debra from Everybody Loves Raymond. At least Lois represents a
more positive (and sex-positive) stereotype.
4. If youre a writer and you find that one of your characters fits one of the categories on this chart,
theres no need to panic (or start yelling at me)! Two-dimensional characters are the backbone of
fiction, especially fantasy fiction and most comedies.
5. However, if you find that all or most of your main male protagonists are well-developed and all or
most of your female characters are not, you should probably start worrying a little. (Chris Nolan.)
6. When you get to the love interests section of this chart, be aware that it refers primarily to
heterosexual relationships. Its not that Im trying to be heteronormative; its that, hey, were talking
about modern pop culture here. How often do you see homosexual rom/coms or long-term lesbian
relationships on TV or in the movies? (Porn doesnt count.) The exception, of course, is The Wire, but
then Kima and her girlfriend were obviously well-developed strong female characters who wouldnt be
found in this flowchart in the first place.
7. Obviously, this chart in no way applies that there arent male stereotypes out there in the pop
culture ether. There are. Obviously. But it seems like Hollywood has a significantly harder time
writing non-stereotypical female characters than male ones, so I made this chart to help out.
And thats it! Enjoy the flowchart-y goodness after the jump.
*Hey, guys, Im also Jewish. Couldnt you stick a Yid or two in there?
About mlawski
Mlawski is an improbable grouping of letters. Mostly consonants.
Article Tools:

feminism, flowchart, gender, infographics, strong female characters

 Related Posts
Does Christopher Nolan Have a Woman Problem?
Sue Giveth, and Sue Taketh Away: Glee and Matriarchy
Winters Bone, Film Noir, and Feminism
Episode 136: Reprehensible and Not Even All That Sexy
The Awful, Sexist Plot of Starcraft 2
198 Comments on The Female Character Flowchart
Timothy J Swann on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 9:27 am

Expcetional work Ive been feeding a few of my female characters into it as it were.
glockblob on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 9:52 am

Really interesting setup, this is just too much fun to go through. Itd be also interesting to see the list of
the characters who are selected as archetypes for these categories and where you judged them to fall off
the top level. The questions up there (is three dimensional, can carry a story on her own) seem like
theyd be subject to more variation than some of the more specific ones.
Alex on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 11:59 am

Excellent and entertaining, but also a useful experiment: By measuring the number of Diggs we can
determine whether the internet nerd hegemonys love of charts outweighs its hatred of feminism.
Alex on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 12:36 pm

I love this flow chart. I do think that you think the male characters in, e.g., Christopher Nolan films are
more well-developed than they are, though. Take DiCaprios character in Inception: emotionally closed-
off, hyper-aggressive male who is secretly reliving a trauma. Or Batman: hyper-aggressive, emotionally
closed off male who is secretly reliving a trauma. Or Memento: hyper-aggressive, emotionally closed off
male (closed off even to himself) who is secretly reliving a trauma.
 Alex on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 12:37 pm

The 12:36 PM Alex is different from the 11:59 AM one, fyi

Sylvia on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 12:53 pm

Epic.
Chris on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 1:40 pm

Interesting, and with an appearance from a Lucy Liu-bot to boot. I certainly would be interested in seeing
a male character flowchart, just to see a breakdown of that as well. Although, I presume you felt going this
route would be more substantive as presumably your contention is that female stereotype characters are
more often the result of sexism than simply bad writing. And by more often I mean sexism resulting in
poorly crafted female characters more often than it does with male characters, which is of course a
reasonably safe assumption to make due to the vast majority of movies being written and directed by men,
not that bad female characters are more often a result of sexism than just simply bad writing.
Also, I balanced out the universe by listening to Lil Wayne while reading this. Homeostasis maintained!
Patrick on Tue, 19th Oct 2010 10:36 am

Agreed, bad writing is usually at fault for bad characters more than any other fact.
cat on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 1:54 pm

This is brilliant. I would say that the Mean Girl is sexualized, though. The organization is otherwise
inspired though Im deriving a great deal of amusement from how youve chosen to title each category.
cat on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 2:15 pm
 Conclusions That Seem Slightly Suspect
Why Isnt She Married Yet > Not Human > The Nymph
Changes Her Man > Are They From Different Cultures? -> Noble Squaw (I think you
have to specify that theres a reason one culture is considered more primitive/less civilized
and thus fits into the noble savage ideal.
Also, I dont think you can say that Lady Macbeth and the Evil Queen arent in some way
sexualized. True, they lose some of their sexuality unsex me here! in order to step into a
more commanding, aggressive role. Certainly, theyre not as feminine as the shy, sweet
female protagonists, but characters like the Evil Queen in Snow White and Maleficent are still
depicted in an attractive way with husky voices. They give up some of their sexuality but Lady
Macbeth still uses a bit of it to manipulate her husband.
One trend thats becoming apparent as you go through this flowchart is that as long as the
protagonist or audience believes that the female character is doing the right thing or the
protagonist doesnt resist any active behavior, the female character can be aggressive or
assertive while still being a good, likable character. Should this not be the case, you get the
shrew and the wet blanket and theyre labeled with adjectives like clingy and bitchy.
I think the stronger elements of the flowchart tend to be topics youve written about (not the
brown/orange section)thus, to improve the flowchart more articles on female characters
need to be written! :) I look forward to them.
spavis on Tue, 12th Oct 2010 2:43 pm

@cat
sexualization is (likely) supposed to be in terms of the main character. is this character
designed to be sexually attractive to the protagonist?
Darin on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 2:13 pm

awesomeful/awesomeness/full of awesome/great stuff

 I particularly like the isnt married yet due to emotional mood swings = Miss Piggy. Anything with the
use of Golden Girls + Muppets + The Fifth Element (Mira Sorvina) is a talented and insightful way is full
of awesome.
Valatan on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 3:56 pm

I cackled when I got to the what is her flaw in the lower right hand corner.
Aaron G on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 4:32 pm

are you going to do a similar flowchart for minorities? or is this just going to be another feminist-only-
caring-about-white-women thing?
sorry! didnt mean to be so snarky, GOD.
but since he was brought up yet again, ill address the chris nolan thing. hes stated that, for him, noir
films should be about addressing your biggest fears and one of his biggest fears is losing his spouse, hence
that recurring theme. even still, ariadne in inception is totally non-sexualized and not really subject to
much stereotyping. same with ramirez in the dark knight. rachel dawes is killed in the dark knight, but i
think that was more of a subversion of the damsel-in-distress trope, underscoring that batman cant save
everyone and that his mere existence is going to have very real costs.
my point is, its fun and whatever to make these sorts of lighthearted jaccuse posts and shit, but there
could be reasons that a writer does something that has nothing to do with gender issues. i could easily
say that youre just another feminist who doesnt care about minorities, thus you must be a racist. but that
wouldnt be true. would it?
fenzel on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 6:32 pm

You could always do the ethnic minority chart yourself as a guest post, and if its good, we
might publish it.
You could also do a white dude flowchart. There is nothing new under the sun, after all.
But none of these things take away from Shanas work, which I think is a lot of fun and
Carloss too.
As for me, Ill just repost this flowchart:
 http://wa3.images.onesite.com/capcom-unity.com/user/s-kill/large/kenflowchart.jpg?
v=234600
Isarix on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 8:10 pm

I followed Ariadne through the chart, and with one tiny bit of fudging on my part (calling her
role as architect on the inception team one of a leader, even though shes more vice-leader
after Cobb but come on, she *creates the world*. For a little while, shes like *god*.
Definitely a leader.) the chart gave me the stereotype I originally suspected she ought to be:
perfect girl. Shes a natural, better at architecting than Cobb was, and Michael Caines
character can tell before shes even *done* it. She is the real, pure good female foil to Mals
artificial, twisted, malevolent one. She is the one who can call out the male lead on his flaws
without inviting dislike, and be his confidant when his old friend cannot. Besides, what is to
dislike her for? She *has no flaws*. Shes a sweet, smart, pretty girl, and definitely on the
positive stereotype end, but shes still flat. An idea, not a person. Im not actually sure whether
she appeals to males or females more, though, so whether shes actually an Ideal Woman or a
Mary Sue remains undetermined. (After additional consideration, I cast my vote for Mary Sue.
But its a close call.)
r on Tue, 12th Oct 2010 5:30 am

Nolans Batman films are definitely problematic for women. Rachels death is an example of
the trope where the female character is killed/injured because of the mans conflicts and she
legitimises this by saying its okay. Shades of domestic abuse there. Rachel in fact uses those
very words when she tells Batman its ok that he didnt save her. Another example that springs
to mind is when Gordons wife and son are taken hostage. The wife may as well not be there,
all Gordons focus and worry are for the boy. It may seem like a small thing but it adds up to a
male-focus that make it very obvious this is a script written, directed and informed by men
who arent challenging this kind of male-dominated world view.
And that kind of male focus is exactly what leads to one-dimensional female characters.
SaintCynicism on Wed, 13th Oct 2010 9:02 pm
Rachel in fact uses those very words when she tells Batman its ok that he didnt
save her.
youyou do realize she was talking to HARVEY, right? Not Batman? Because
Harvey was freaking out that he was being saved instead of her? He worked with
law enforcement in Gotham City, he was probably prepared for his own death,
but not Rachels. In his mind, she should have been saved instead of him, as for
Harvey it was just a risk that came with the job. Additionally, Im not sure what
the priority is with hostage rescuing, but I think civilians are supposed to get
priority, which is another possible reason for the freak-out. I find it just a bit
mind boggling that just because she tried calming him down, its a sign of a
male-dominated world view. Out of curiousity, what would you have had her
reaction be?
Another example that springs to mind is when Gordons wife and son are taken
hostage. The wife may as well not be there, all Gordons focus and worry are for
the boy.
Frankly its far more likely that this is just a result of parental instinct than male
focus. One of the strongest drives for a parent, a good parent, of EITHER sex, is
to protect their child. Fathers can be mama bears too, you know. And it isnt
like he said Please Dent, kill my wife and let the boy go, he tried bartering for
the safety of ALL of them.
Stella Omega on Wed, 13th Oct 2010 9:16 pm

I would have been intrigued if her reaction had been REALLY

PISSED OFF.
See you can come up with a reason for one action, and you can
come up with a reason for another action, and Im sure that there
are good reasons to be found for every action
But when all of those actions, no matter how reasonable, result in
the dearth and death of many more female characters than male,
you have to admit that theres a possible pattern.
 SaintCynicism on Wed, 13th Oct 2010 9:35 pm

I assume you mean relative to their numbers in

regard to that last part, just because it would pose a
serious problem in an example like the Dark Knight
where a good deal more male characters wind up
dead than female ones. ([SPOILER ALERT!] Dent,
three crime bosses, a few prisoners thanks to a body
bomb, everyone on Jokers crew in the bank robbery,
one mob driver, the overseas money launderer, at
least one cop, etc.).
Im not saying that there isnt an annoying trend of
women dying / getting killed off for plot reasons in
most entertainment mediums, though I wouldnt say
that itself is a sign of sexism or a male dominated
view, though in my opinion it does count as an
indirect result. Kill the significant other is a pretty
thoroughly used plot device (though it definitely
would get to the main character), I just think that
women are usually the victims because of a general
reluctance to make (or the more likely scenario, to
accept) a female character as a protagonist. At least in
Dark Knight, Nolan was a bit limited with what he
could do, which should grant him at least some
reprieve. Not a total reprieve of course of course,
since now that I think about it, Alfred could have
merited just as severe a reaction from Batman as
Rachel did (as he was more or less an adopted father
figure), and I personally hated the movies take on
Two-Face and his origin (Waaah my girlfriend died
vs. long history of worsening mental illness ).
I mean, using the movies fandom of origin as an
example, in Batmans universe theres just an
 abundance of male characters, and the rare female
ones seem relegated to plot devices or the psychotic
villain role (and its getting a bit worse, since the
latest Ventriloquist actually has a sexual relationship
with Scarface, the puppet). I at least have to applaud
Nolan in the sense that he at least took a step in the
opposite direction of the previous Batman directors,
in that he actually kept Rachel for more than one
movie (remember all the ones that came before the
reboot? There was a new love interest every single
movie, and the previous one was lucky if they so
much as got a name drop in the sequel).
Stella Omega on Thu, 14th Oct 2010 6:52 pm

I cant reply to your reply!

first of all, youre right; when theres a cast of fifty men and ten are
killed there are still forty men in the cast. When there are two
women in the cast, should we feel grateful that one of them was
spared? Or should we try to get four women into the next film?
And I LOVE the idea that Albert gets fridged. I would get a vicious
but very sincere kick out of to watchseeing the ambulances arriving
at every local ER, full of fanboys who had fainted at the horror.
See, I dont care about Batman fandoms origins. Yall want to
celebrate the very primitive thought process that comics authors
undertook back in the day go for it. I dont care to promulgate it
now, though. I get killed before I can have any fun.
SaintCynicism on Thu, 14th Oct 2010 7:49 pm

And you probably cant reply to this one either! Mine

is an evil laugh! (seriously, this site couldnt just be
like LJ and collapse the replies when there gets to be
too many?)
Anyway. The answer to your first question is no, the
second is a it depends. If you can get more female
characters into the next few films (because you know
theres going to be more than one, this is Hollywood),
ones that actually have a reason for being there
beyond something pretty to put on the posters or
another disposable love interest, by all means go for
it. As much as I hated the series, The Batman did this
by adding Detective Yin to the roster, though she was
eventually removed. Not by death, surprisingly, but
promotion, and I was kind of sad to see her go after
two seasons. Its just something thatd have to be
done carefully, in my opinion, just because Im of the
belief that if youre going to make a movie based on
something, you should actually base it on the source
material rather than borrowing the names and going
nuts (see: Transformers). Same reason Id be against
unnecessary male characters thrown into the mix for
no reason, before that comes up. I didnt like a lot of
Dark Knight in general because of that; they meddled
too much, especially with Two-Face and Joker.
Though once I learned who the sole female cop was
supposed to be, I was definitely annoyed she didnt
have a bigger role (in both comics and the old
animated series, she started off as one of the most
frequently appearing GCPD characters, second only
to Gordon and possibly Bullock, and then actually
became the new Question). She was also one of the
uncorruptible ones, which also made it a little
annoying that they decided to have her be in on the
plot to kill Dent and Rachel. There was so much more
they could have done with her, and Bullock too (I
 believe his role was the unnamed detective Joker took
hostage to get out of the interrogation room).
Also, its Alfred, and surprisingly the old animated
series had the gumption to actually try to off him. He
didnt die, but Mr. Freeze did attempt to kill him, only
to be stopped by Batgirl before he could finish the old
guy off, so only the newer fanboys would be likely to
have a heart attack. Although, DC did actually kill the
first Robin at one point, after Joker beat him to near
death for a while, and dear lord the backlash was
awful against them. Id have kind of preferred he stay
dead, but they wound up bringing him back as a
villain, so, so much for that.
Stella Omega on Thu, 14th Oct 2010 7:57 pm

if youre on lj, click on my handle. This a funner convo than most

IMO, the worst problem with the Joker and Twoface was Jim
Carrey. I NEVER want to see Jimmy chew the scenery like that
again.
Lisa on Tue, 19th Oct 2010 5:47 pm

I found Rachel to be a fairly uninteresting character, so her death didnt really have a huge
impact on me. Of course, I was apparently watching a different movie than everybody else, so
I felt like Batmans choice to attempt to save her and its failure were actually the POINT of the
movie, and all the stuff that happened after that (which took a LONG TIME) was rather
pointless.
Hmm, I might take a crack at a minority stereotype flowchart. Though you get again at least
somewhat into the question of gender there, too. Yet it could be interesting. *puts on thinking
cap* I wonder if I have Visio at home
Chris on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 6:08 pm
You know, as I further ponder this I find myself finding issue with portions of it, though I feel that it is
most likely merely a matter of semantics more than anything else.
If a character avoids all the, lets say pitfalls, of your checklist, they end up in the category you call
Strong Female Character. This, naturally, indicates to me that you feel a couple of things:
A character must exhibit all of these characteristic to be a Strong Female Character.
None of these character types, or the characters you use to provide visual representation of them, are
Strong Female Characters.
More to the point, in your introduction you mention that this checklist can help you determine whether or
not your character is cliche, which would indicate you find all of these character types to be cliched.
However, what I disagree with is the notion that all of your characteristics must be met for a character to
be Strong which in this instance can only be taken as meaning Good but not necessarily in the sense
you enjoy the character but in the sense you feel the character is developed in such a way and to such a
degree as to be satisfactory.
For starters, a character can certainly die before the third act and still be a strong character. A character
could easily be developed fully and then die before the third act. A character can also represent an idea
and be fully developed. Even in the clumsier instances of a character being symbolic of something that
doesnt prevent the character from rising above that and still being a strong character. People cant even
agree on what, if anything, Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men represents, and hes not even
three dimensional, but the character is still tremendous and was substantive enough that Javier Bardem
was able to win an Oscar for the role, though his own acting prowess helped obviously.
Thats another issue I have with the notion that these criteria must be met for a character to be strong. A
character can be two dimensional and still provide plenty of substance within those two dimensions.
Characters can also certainly fit into your categories and still be strong characters. You cant dismiss a
characters merits simply for exhibiting some of these traits, many of which are actual traits that some
women have. Is there much substance to The Trophy? No, but I vehemently disagree with the notion
that Marge Simpson isnt a strong character simply for playing the role of the suffering wife.
Marge Simpson meets all the criteria for a Strong Female Character, yet you made her the symbolic
representation of the Suffering Wife archetype. You have a picture of what appears to be Ripley, a
female character who was the protagonist and hero of multiple films, under the title of The Final Girl.
Maybe Im ascribing more to your picture choices that what you intended, but you made the decision to
stick those photos where you did so it isnt like Im straining to make connections here.
While there is a lot of good, valid stuff in here, I feel that at the very least there may be some issues with
word choice here, unless you truly dont feel that any of these character types can be considered Strong
Female Characters. I think the word strong is inapt for what you are trying to say. Unfortunately, I cant
think of the right word for what I feel you are trying to communicate, and of course since I cant even say
with certainty what it is you are trying to say perhaps I shouldnt even hazard to do so. Substantive is the
only word I could think of to even approach when I feel the intention of this flowchart is.
Nevertheless, this is still interesting, and often funny.
Isarix on Mon, 11th Oct 2010 8:22 pm

1) SFC should not be disqualified if they represent an idea.

I agree, but I still see some value in the question; perhaps the divergence point does she
represent an idea that supercedes her personal identity would be more appropriate.
Obviously all kinds of well developed characters of both sexes can represent ideas, but a
female character who is actually just a stand in for innocence or sexual temptation is not the
same as a character who works on multiple levels.
2) Lots of the pictured characters are actually more complex and three dimensional.
I agree again; several of the pictured women are nigh iconic SFCs. I suspect Mlawski was
using the most well-known characters she could find that fit the archetypes, even if they
werent constrained by them, for illustrative purposes. Then again, if Mlawski actually thinks
Lady Macbeth, Zoe Washburn, Riply, and Sarah Conner and some others on the chart are
somehow *not* Strong (and complex, 3D, well-developed) Female Characters, then I may
have misinterpreted the term drastically.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Where are the strong women in fantasy?

Expert Answer (Posted by Holly Grande , Sci-Fi / Fantasy - General Expert)

In 1997, Buffy the Vampire Slayer promised a new kind of heroine in fantasy. She was no damsel in distress
Miss Summers was a tough, teenage hero who could stand her own in a fight with some of the nastiest villains
in primetime television. She was strong, smart and powerful, and her appeal crossed genders and generations.
Her character wasnt perfect. In fact, she was sometimes selfish, and oftentimes sarcastic, speaking in a faux-
teenage language that has become a calling card for series creator Joss Whedon. But it was these
imperfections, combined with her broad appeal, which set Buffy Summers apart from her predecessors and
ushered in a new era of strong women in fantasy in the form of Dark Angel, Charmed and many more.

Unfortunately, just over a decade later, that era seems to have already passed.

Television and movies have a big problem with women in leading roles, particularly women in fantasy and
science fiction. Advertisers argue that male protagonists draw in both genders, while female heroes attract only
 half of the population. If networks want the advertisement money, they have to cater to the expectations of
their investors, and those expectations call for a male lead, preferably young and attractive.

In some ways, they may be right: according to statistics collected by Melissa Silverstein, the blogger behind
Women in Hollywood, movies that focused on a female protagonist made up only three of the top 10 movies for
2010 and only eight of the top 50. The numbers are worse for network television, and only slightly better for
premium channels like HBO and Starz.

But according to Neilsen, women are watching more TV now than ever. In fact, women watch on average nine
minutes more of TV than their male counterparts, exposing them to at least three more minutes of
advertisements on basic cable and network television. Furthermore, they do more of the shopping and spend
more during each trip. Smart firms would place their ads in shows that appeal to the biggest spenders, not the
broadest audiences.

If the networks are producing series based on the wants of the highest-spending audience, why arent women
clamoring for strong heroines, throwing in their support for shows like Dollhouse or Wonderfalls, two quirky,
speculative series that featured great female leads but were canceled when ratings took a dive. Could the
answer be that female viewers dont want female heroines?

Or perhaps the answer isnt in looking at the type of heroes viewers want, and instead in the quality of writing
and storytelling. With women making up only 10% of film writers and 24% of producers, perhaps the focus
needs to be behind the scenes. Writers write what they know, and while women make up about half of all
science-fiction and fantasy fans, they are only represented at a fraction. The numbers are increasing, but at an
incredible slow rate. If women are better represented at the writing and production levels, female characters
are more likely to be writtenhopefully written well.

Science fiction and fantasy television has come a long way since damsels in distress, and although Buffy
promised strong female leads, the past few years have not held up to her promise. Women are not well
represented in leading roles, despite their significant viewership. There is some good news, however, as the
number of women behind-the-scenes in the roles of writers and producers is growing, and perhaps the number
of strong female leads is soon to follow.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Women Are Stronger Than Men!! 0diggsdigg

Okay, I Relize That Some Men Can Lift Extremly Heavy

Objects, And Bench Press Like 250 And More, But Let Me Ask
You This: CAN THEY GO THROUGH MONTHLY PERIODS?
HOLD A BABY IN THEIR STOMACH FOR 9 MONTHS? GIVE
BIRTH? NO!!I Mean Some Men Are Like,its Not That Hard, But
How The Hell Do They Know??SOME Girls May Not Be As
Physically Strong As Men, But The Sure Are Mentally!
For Against
by Anonymous
26 Sep 2007 00:29

Woman are good cleaners cookers their Depends. Women for me have an easy
smart think very good have awesome life. In social situations I the man am the
strategy and etc. While a lot of men are one who is in control, I am the one who has
something expected of him, I am the one
horrible cleaners,horrible cookers,are brutal
and think stupidly (I'm a man)but men can
endure more we were made first by god
said it(we also bit the apple we also wanted
power).my dad life around 500 pounds and
he is tough and were made to be
tough.weman are the ruler of are mind
mostly,if i loved a woman and she was
fixen to die i would happily die so she could
live and they live longer so they can take
care of children.we (MEN) have more
responsibility to get food and protect our
wives and children and i think we are made
to be the leaders by nature but with no
woman its like a a emperor with no
empire.with a woman we have nothing to
love and take care of,to hug love and help
us mentaly,to help us live threw this brute
world that men created.
20 May 2008 03:58

by Anonymous

It depends what you mean stronger.

Men are physically stronger and have
better muscular endurance. Testosterone.
(also as for the leg strength thing, this is
also men. Once again testosterone.) As for
those people that say that some women
are as strong as some men, this is untrue,
unless the man has a problem like low
testosterone he will almost always be
stronger, as long as he has gone completly
through puberty. But, overall women are
definatly tougher. When I was young I
always wondered, if men are stronger what
are women better at. The answer is most
likely toughness. Women are definatly
stronger in this way then men. (Baby)
Besides that, women need to stop crying
about the physical strenth thing and look
into the things they are proven better at.
They live longer, almost surely are tougher,
and there are more women in the world.
Overall, the sexes even out.
29 Oct 2007 21:42

by Anonymous

I have to believe that you are

approaching this from a physiolgical point
of view. In this instance, the female body
has not developed to possess the physical
strength of men. Even though body building
has gained some popularity with women,
men will most likely continue to have the
advantage in terms of sheer physical
strength.tolerate.

As for the mental aspect, women can be

every bit as ruthless and forceful as men.
One thing that many are probably unaware
of, is the fact that women can tolerate much
more pain than men can. It has been
demonstrated that women can edure
something in the neighborhood of 7 times
more pain than men. This gives the female
more durability than the male. It is doubtful
that, things being what they are today, men
could bear the physical trauma of child
birth. The fact that women do not possess
the brute strentgh of their male
counterparts does not support the notion
that men are stronger than women.
26 Sep 2007 05:17

by Anonymous

Physically, NO. Emotionally, YES!

10 Sep 2008 12:21

by It's Private Huh

One aspect not so far considered is that

women have experienced a greater degree
of increase in strength than men in the last
century because of social changes.
16 Jun 2008 15:22

by Anonymous

Yes they are!

18 May 2008 17:13

by Anonymous

If the male and female compliment each

other:) all is good. It takes two too make
"perfect, can be two of each sex or two of
the other.We all need someone.
08 May 2008 14:35

by Anonymous

My pt. Exactly. Women may not be as

physically strong, but psychologically, and
emotionally, we are the stronger of the
species, designed as we are to bear
children and survive. We seem to learn
natural coping skills in times of tragedy that
work, like 'tend and befriend'and we can be
like superheroes if our children are in
danger. I cleared a large lawn in 3 leaps to
prevent my toddler from getting hit in the
head by a swing, people standing around
said it looked like flash Gordon. I saved his
life at least twice.God is good.
08 May 2008 14:08

by Penny Kay

Woman are more stronger then men

cause when you get a woman mad then
are in a heap of trouble boy!!!!!!
23 Apr 2008 20:19

by Anonymous

Women are superior and inferior to men

in some ways,so yes SOMETIMES they
are
12 Feb 2008 13:30

by Anonymous

God made a woman and a man to

complement one another, not to compete
with each other. Each gender naturally has
our own weaknesses and strengths....that's
why we need each other to help the other.
12 Feb 2008 01:59

by Anonymous

I believe that each is strong in different

areas and weaker in others. That's why we
need one another. We complement each
other and we need one another. Each is
valuable to the other, both in society and in
the family.
09 Feb 2008 05:18

by Anonymous

Women are much stronger in the soul

and brain if I might add.
13 Jan 2008 11:27

by Anonymous

Yes we are stronger because no man

could put up with what we do from dealing
with a man
 30 Dec 2007 03:21

by Anonymous

Yes, though we must qualify the areas

where women are stronger than men.
However, in the over-all, women is really
stronger than men... Placing beside the
point physical, psychological and emotional
strength
involved during the pregnancy stage until
giving birth.
28 Dec 2007 03:40

by Anonymous

Women are not stronger than men nor

men are stronger than women. When our
first father and mother sinned, God gave
both each responsibility. Each responsibility
are equal. Nowadays women can do men's
activities and vice-versa. It is not which
gender is strong is how you handle yourself
through your own activities. Face it women
can be stronger than men in certain stuff
and vice-versa. Like I said is how you
handle it...
19 Dec 2007 18:48

by Anonymous

Yeah i agree with u they are mentally

prepared for everything and men are
nothing without the backup from a
woman .Men are physically sound but
when it cums to any pblms every guy wud
luk upon a lady be t his mother or wife for
suggestions cos he is ht good at takin
decisions by himself.If men were asked to
luk after their family for a single day,the day
wud end up worse as they l mess up things
and only women are capable of managin
their home tats y they turn out into eminent
administrators in companies
20 Oct 2007 17:39

by Anonymous

I don`t agree. All women are not

stronger. If they were stronger, there would
be no problems for women in the world.
26 Sep 2007 08:55

by Suman Kumar