Defining Strong: Why the "Strong Female Character" Trend is Actually Anti-Feminist
We're all familiar with the "Strong Female Character" issue. Aimee blogged about it here and CC blogged about it HERE and both posts are absolutely awesome and you should go check them out. NOW. Come back when you're done.
So, you're familiar with the stereotypical Strong Female Character. She's that hot fighter-girl in the skin tight suit, knocking out all the guys and doing a cool hair flip in her spare time. "Woooh!" we all shout. "You go, girl!"
But there's a problem with this. (There's actually a lot, but we're just going to talk about one, because Aimee and CC already covered all the others.) The problem lies in what we're using to define the word "Strong".
So something had to change. And the novel writers and the movie makers thought they'd found a solution to make everyone happy. They'd write "Strong" female characters. The question now was what really made a strong female character strong? And the writers and makers formed an answer based on years of the very root prejudice that the people who objected to the old stereotypes were actually objecting to-- namely, the idea that men are better than women.
How do we make a woman strong? We make her masculine! We give her traditionally masculine strengths like fighting, fixing cars, drinking a lot (don't ask me where they got that one), etc. We'll present a character who is physically, mentally, and emotionally strong in all the same ways men are. We'll make her masculine, and that will make her strong.
This is chauvanism. Men and women are equal. That means women, real women, the way they are, are (generally speaking) strong. That means men, real men, the way they are, are (generally speaking) also strong.
Creating masculine female characters and calling them strong because of their masculinity is degrading. It's saying that "strong" equals "male".
Now, don't get me wrong, it's okay sometimes for female characters to have abilities like fighting, fixing cars, and lifting weights. Real women do these things, especially in recent years, and do them well. But the reason these abilities were given to "Strong Female Characters" is because they are traditionally identified with men, and that's a problem. Not to mention a couple of fancy talents don't necessarily make you strong.
Think of all the women who can't do certain things that men can do. I can't fix a car. I don't know the first thing about cars. Does that mean I'm not strong? No. I can shoot a gun (I can't hit anything outside a range of two feet, if that much, but let's not mention that). Does that mean I am strong? No. Think of all the women who can't act or think or talk the way men do. They're still strong-- they're just women.
We shouldn't use men (or women either) as a standard of strength. If your character is a girl, she can be strong and be a girl. Taking care of little siblings, throwing girly parties, or running a sewing business are all admirable talents that some girls have and most guys don't. Who's to say that a mechanic is stronger than a seamstress? That a businessman or woman is stronger than a babysitter?
When we call a female character strong simply because she's better than a guy at something or other, particularly in a traditionally masculine areas, we're buying into the false idea that guys are usually better than girls. Write your women to be strong women-- not female men.
What's your take on the "Strong Female Character" trend? Do you think there are some business and societal roles that are "stronger" than others (mechanic vs. babysitter)? Comment away, but do try to keep it polite, as I know this is a controversial issue.
12 comments:
I adore comments! Just keep it clean and respectful...please no profanity and while I respect people's opinions and love a good argument, simply bashing my post is obviously not appreciated. :)