But - a hugeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee but - at the end of the day realistically there will always be more feminine women than masculine/tough ones. That is nature. So I don't mind seeing it either way (tough or feminine).
The issue isn't the need to show masculine women or feminine men. It's the need to show women as protagonists; as non-sexualized villains; as the rescuer of a man, not just waiting to be rescued by him; as a character demonstrating agency, for good or for ill, and not just the appendage to a man; in every functional role occupied by men. Female characters can be all these things and still be feminine, or not. The two are not linked.
I'm going to be kind of blunt here. I am sick and tired of hearing how there aren't enough strong female leads. Supergirl (a new series that I like - I paid to stream it on Amazon) was treated as if it were something new under the sun, that "finally" there was a female hero for women and girls to look up to. Same for Marvel's Agent Carter (which is sadly not being renewed
), where reviewers exclaim how it's nice to finally have a strong female lead.
It's not just a matter of female leads, it's how women overall are portrayed and cast. Sure, there are all the examples you cited, and more. But compared with the number of male counterexamples, their numbers are still rather small, both across the spectrum of movies, and within individual movies. Have you heard about the
Bechdel Test? It asks whether a movie (or book) features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. Supergirl passes with flying colors, as does Hunger Games, but many others do not. Of course, there is more to analyzing movies than this one criterion, but the answers are usually quite telling.
Interesting that you mentioned Lord of the Rings. I have seen that several times, and the dearth of not simply "strong women" but any women has always stood out like a sore thumb. Indeed, Eowyn is the token capable woman. Arwen, whose role was expanded beyond the books for the films, is defined almost entirely by her relationship to Aragorn. Other than helping to save Frodo, she mostly stands around looking pretty, worrying, and waiting for her man.
And don't start on video games. The vast majority are still very male-oriented, and the small number of women breaking into the genre as writers have occasionally attracted considerable harassment and threats online as they attempt to push the envelope. I do think things will change - they are changing already - but we are nowhere near parity when it comes to the depictions of men and women here.
So no, there is no dearth of strong female characters: that's a narrative you buy into (not your fault, the culture repeats it over and over). But if you look at what is popular and what sells, the public has NO objection to strong female leads who can kick ass.
Strong female leads? Just the fact that we have to specify that shows how differently female characters are viewed. We don't talk about "strong male characters", and no, that isn't because all male protagonists are assumed to be strong. See
this article for an interesting perspective.
No one ever asks if a male character is “strongâ€. Nor if he’s “feisty,†or “kick-ass†come to that.
The obvious thing to say here is that this is because he’s assumed to be “strong†by default. Part of the patronising promise of the Strong Female Character is that she’s anomalous. “Don’t worry!†that puff piece or interview is saying when it boasts the hero’s love interest is an SFC. “Of course, 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.†Sometimes the phrase “not your typical damsel in distress†will be used, as if the writing of pop culture heroines had not moved on even slightly since Disney’s Snow White and as if a goodly percentage of SFCs did not end up, in fact, needing to be rescued.
This is true, and yet it’s not all of the truth.
Are our best-loved male heroes Strong Male Characters? Is, say, Sherlock Holmes strong? In one sense, yes, of course. He faces danger and death in order to pursue justice. On the other hand, his physical strength is often unreliable – strong enough to bend an iron poker when on form, he nevertheless frequently has to rely on Watson to clobber his assailants, at least once because he’s neglected himself into a condition where he can’t even try to fight back. His mental and emotional resources also fluctuate. An addict and a depressive, he claims even his crime-fighting is a form of self-medication. Viewed this way, his willingness to place himself in physical danger might not be “strength†at all – it might be another form of self-destructiveness. Or on the other hand, perhaps his vulnerabilities make him all the stronger, as he succeeds in surviving and flourishing in spite of threats located within as well without.
Is Sherlock Holmes strong? It’s not just that the answer is “of courseâ€, it’s that it’s the wrong question.
You are right on the money about those fantasy romance novels, though. Yuck.
I'm referring more to how you don't tend to get couples where the woman is the less emotional one and the man is the more sensitive one and NOT have it played for comedy... the only thing that I can think of off the top of my head that I've seen that dynamic in recently is Southpaw
mostly if you get a more sensitive man he's an object to be laughed at and his wife is forever exasperated with him and that sort of dynamic annoys me as well... like if you have a stronger woman she should suddenly become a bit of a bitch towards others? a guy with those characteristics is perfectly accepting of a more emotional partner
Absolutely. This is just the sort of thing I notice. All. The. Time. There are exceptions - weren't Scully and Mulder one? You could argue Katniss and Peeta from Hunger Games, and possibly the two protagonists from DaVinci Code, though he seemed more the absent-minded professor sort.
