gender roles in movies

[miss fortune]

we watched the remake of poltergeist last night and it was surprisingly less of a shit on childhood memories than we were expecting it to be... one thing that really stood out to me though was the way it really reinforced the gender roles of "man must always be the strong protector and provider" and "woman must be the nurturer" though, which bugged me while watching it

after watching it, I mentioned that to the man and we started talking about how A LOT of movies reinforce those roles and how it kind of influences how people think about how they should be acting and how our household doesn't really fulfill those roles nearly as well as movie households do and that we had trouble thinking of any movies where our household roles were reflected in the couple involved and he pointed out that movies kind of make him feel a bit like a failure for being the emotional and more friendly one in the household (he throws dinner parties!) and I always end up identifying more with the male characters. this is all made worse by the fact that I'm going out for a rather uber-manly job (and currently work a more traditionally masculine job than he does). I don't think it helped that he'd cried several times during the previous movie while I was being logical about things and then we watch a movie where the men must be strong and the women are allowed to cry.

Do you think that movies subtly influence how you look at gender roles?

Do they ever make you feel that you've failed a bit?

Any movies that you can think of that DON'T fit this model?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Movies and action/drama series tend to portray male protagonists as the stoic protectors, whilst comedies and sitcoms tend to portray them as the bumbling dimwits who ruin everything for their wives and children.

Both portrayals are gross exaggerations, IMO, of how society views men, and I don't know which direction the causal relationship flows (art imitating life, vice versa, or perhaps a bit of both?)

In aforementioned genres, women seemed to be traditionally portrayed as delicate flowers (action/drama) or sexually/romantically frustrated, bossy taskmasters upset by their men's inability to "just get it" (comedies and sitcoms), although the "Ripley archetype" has become more popular in recent decades, displaying a type of woman who displays strength and leadership without sacrificing a certain femininity and sensitivity more traditionally associated with females in fiction.

Again, the portrayals are exaggerations. I can't say whether life influences art more, or vice versa, but I think the influence goes both ways in the case of both women and men in real life and movies.

I've seen some complaints recently of a new type of female protagonist archetype (particularly in action and science fiction) who is inherently flawless and badass from the start of the story. It's as if the old 80's Schwarzeneggar type character has been grafted on female characters now. I'm talking about the type of character who is immediately capable and kicks ass, and as a result suffers from a bit of one dimensionality; static characters that don't really learn or grow. We saw this with Rey in the latest Star Wars. It didn't seem like she really had to struggle too much...her success simply happened to her and fell into her lap. As much as I enjoyed Rey and many classic Schwarzeneggar characters, there is something boring about characters who learn nothing and grow little over the course of a film. The risk of the current trend of feminism influencing more capable female characters may be that many are being written as too static and flawless. I'm not advocating a return to the wispy, emotionally frail flower women in movies, but I like to see characters grow and struggle regardless of their genders. I love Ripley in the Alien series for these reasons, and her gender becomes an afterthought, at best.

Likewise, some guys complain and lament the disappearance of classically masculine male roles in films. I can understand their frustration to some extent, but I don't know if the static, nongrowing Rambo archetype was ever all that interesting (bad example though, since he does have some character development, at least in the first film in that series). A masculine character is nice, but just like Ripley, it's preferable when he has both strengths and flaws with which the audience can identify.

I guess if Ripley were my ideal female in films, then Mad Max would be my ideal male in films. He is the typically lone wolfish, stoic male who primarily looks out for himself, but when it counts, he shows compassion by helping the weak survive against the strong.

Ripley and Max may be outdated, but I don't watch a lot of films or TV these days, so they are strong examples from my own childhood.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Any movies that you can think of that DON'T fit this model?

One quick example comes to mind: American Beauty (1999, Kevin Spacey and Annette Bening, won a lot of Academy Awards). Husband has a mid-life crisis and decides to drop out of the rat race, so wife has to become the breadwinner to maintain their upscale lifestyle.

But the movie isn't about the role-switch necessarily. It's more about the husband: He's kind of a Jesus figure. His decision to drop out makes him a magnet for everyone's fears and troubles, and ultimately he is martyred. It's a cynical message: Try to do your own thing, and the world will nail you to a cross.

So I don't know if that's really the kind of movie you're asking for.

 

[Kas]

In the first place it’s how gender roles are seen in society that influences how it’s shown in movies.

Disney movies are good example: for a long time women were beautiful, fragile princesses, sometimes brave or hardworking but humble and waiting for help best example is Sleeping Beauty, but also Cinderella, Snow White. The male characters- they were saviors and usually didn’t change facial expressions to show some feelings. Then something changed in 90s Alladin princess is not very conventional, but really something breaks in Pocahontas where it’s the woman that is used to present cultural differences and promote acceptance and respect to other cultures and it’s the man that’s used to show having double thoughts about the world and being uncertain. Then Mulan shows that women can be as badass as men and not necessarily all feel happy serving tea.

Something I noticed recently is that in newest movies the princesses tend to have control all the time. And male characters tend to be slightly shallow and not interesting. E.g. Merida or the Princess and the Frog. It’s like now kids would need interesting male characters. Although maybe boys are just not watching this princess-something movies.


And the movies… (how did I got so far from subject) , they can strengthen the same stereotypes that created them I believe. Like a loop.


Oh and yes, I am an adult.

 

[Jeremy8419]

we watched the remake of poltergeist last night and it was surprisingly less of a shit on childhood memories than we were expecting it to be... one thing that really stood out to me though was the way it really reinforced the gender roles of "man must always be the strong protector and provider" and "woman must be the nurturer" though, which bugged me while watching it

after watching it, I mentioned that to the man and we started talking about how A LOT of movies reinforce those roles and how it kind of influences how people think about how they should be acting and how our household doesn't really fulfill those roles nearly as well as movie households do and that we had trouble thinking of any movies where our household roles were reflected in the couple involved and he pointed out that movies kind of make him feel a bit like a failure for being the emotional and more friendly one in the household (he throws dinner parties!) and I always end up identifying more with the male characters. this is all made worse by the fact that I'm going out for a rather uber-manly job (and currently work a more traditionally masculine job than he does). I don't think it helped that he'd cried several times during the previous movie while I was being logical about things and then we watch a movie where the men must be strong and the women are allowed to cry.

Do you think that movies subtly influence how you look at gender roles?

Do they ever make you feel that you've failed a bit?

Any movies that you can think of that DON'T fit this model?

It doesn't bother me, because I'm a pitcher. People that are bothered by it are typically people who want to switch things up.

Brokeback Mountain was pretty liberal with it's roles.

 

[Coriolis]

Do you think that movies subtly influence how you look at gender roles?

Do they ever make you feel that you've failed a bit?

Any movies that you can think of that DON'T fit this model?

I think movies mostly reinforce existing thought patterns and stereotypes. My personal take on gender roles is not affected by movies since it is generally at odds with what they portray. I do see much more gender, racial, and other diversity on television in recent years, as far as what kinds of roles people are shown in, and that is good. One reason I never got into Game of Thrones is that it strikes me as just another basically sexist fantasy world. (If it's fantasy, why can't we be more imaginative!) In contrast, consider Ursula LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness for real creativity, though I don't think that has ever been made into a movie.

I do take note when a good story departs from traditional gender roles. The Da Vinci Code does this at least in the book - never saw the movie. Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series does it, too, especially the later volumes. (Books again. I guess I read more books than I watch movies.) The Harry Potter movies do better at this than many, as do the more recent Star Trek movies. I haven't seen the latest two, and would not extend this estimation to the Star Wars universe.

I'm not advocating a return to the wispy, emotionally frail flower women in movies, but I like to see characters grow and struggle regardless of their genders. I love Ripley in the Alien series for these reasons, and her gender becomes an afterthought, at best.

I had heard (not sure if this is correct) that the Ripley character came about by chance. The original the story line started with a mixed gender squad, and which squad member was going to survive to carry out the remainder of the plot was randomly determined. It ended up being the female character Ripley. Perhaps more stories should be written that way, where character gender is chosen by flip of a coin, with only occasional adjustment when absolutely required by the plot.

Likewise, some guys complain and lament the disappearance of classically masculine male roles in films. I can understand their frustration to some extent, but I don't know if the static, nongrowing Rambo archetype was ever all that interesting (bad example though, since he does have some character development, at least in the first film in that series). A masculine character is nice, but just like Ripley, it's preferable when he has both strengths and flaws with which the audience can identify.

Yes, that is just a three-dimensional character, and is always more interesting. That being said, I have no objection to a classically masculine male character - now and then. It is a steady diet of them that is boring, unrealistic, and needlessly encouraging of stereotypes.

And the movies… (how did I got so far from subject) , they can strengthen the same stereotypes that created them I believe. Like a loop.

The attitudes came first, since movies are a relatively new invention compared with traditional gender roles. But movies, as art, can question these traditions, push the envelope, or totally stand them on end. If the story is good enough, even something very non-traditional can be successful. The loop gets bad when movie producers rely on the tried-and-true, fearing that audiences won't embrace something different. Well, audiences can't embrace what they are not shown.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I had heard (not sure if this is correct) that the Ripley character came about by chance. The original the story line started with a mixed gender squad, and which squad member was going to survive to carry out the remainder of the plot was randomly determined. It ended up being the female character Ripley. Perhaps more stories should be written that way, where character gender is chosen by flip of a coin, with only occasional adjustment when absolutely required by the plot.

I have read that as well. I'd read the characters were essentially gender neutral, so it wouldn't have mattered which gender they were. There isn't a ton of development in the original anyway, with each person filling a very basic role (engineer, doctor, etc). Ripley's major character development didn't seem to happen until the sequels. Incidentally, there's some deleted scenes in Aliens which really flesh her out even more as an interesting protagonist.

That's how I'd have approached the Ghostbusters remake. Flip a coin, then write the characters from there. They're basically just stereotypes anyway (the inventor, the everyman, the dopey one, and the class clown), as they were in the original film, but the total gender flip of nearly every character feels more forced. It may have seemed more organic if they'd gotten away from that and instead done a different thing altogether...perhaps make it a new franchise branch in a different city with the obligatory cameos by original cast members (AS THEIR ORIGINAL CHARACTERS) to "pass the torch" to the new team of ladies and gentleman. Instead it looks like we're getting a cut-and-paste remake where all the writers did was update the font.

Instead of a movie that might offer some interesting female leads, it looks like another "anything you can do I can do better" take on a remake which feels contrived and superficial and doesn't look like it will really do much to further empower women in cinema. The filmmakers were so concerned with a gender swap that they failed to consider how they might be reinforcing some ideas of racial stereotypes by keeping the black character as the "everyman"

 

[Kas]

The attitudes came first, since movies are a relatively new invention compared with traditional gender roles. But movies, as art, can question these traditions, push the envelope, or totally stand them on end. If the story is good enough, even something very non-traditional can be successful. The loop gets bad when movie producers rely on the tried-and-true, fearing that audiences won't embrace something different. Well, audiences can't embrace what they are not shown.

Yes, definately!
And even if movies repeat same patterns, we see so much more outside cinema, during our lives, there are so many things that shape our world view.

I've seen some complaints recently of a new type of female protagonist archetype (particularly in action and science fiction) who is inherently flawless and badass from the start of the story. It's as if the old 80's Schwarzeneggar type character has been grafted on female characters now. I'm talking about the type of character who is immediately capable and kicks ass, and as a result suffers from a bit of one dimensionality; static characters that don't really learn or grow. We saw this with Rey in the latest Star Wars. It didn't seem like she really had to struggle too much...her success simply happened to her and fell into her lap. As much as I enjoyed Rey and many classic Schwarzeneggar characters, there is something boring about characters who learn nothing and grow little over the course of a film. The risk of the current trend of feminism influencing more capable female characters may be that many are being written as too static and flawless. I'm not advocating a return to the wispy, emotionally frail flower women in movies, but I like to see characters grow and struggle regardless of their genders. I love Ripley in the Alien series for these reasons, and her gender becomes an afterthought, at best.

Yeah I liked Rey, but I had impression as well that it comes to easily to her. Especially during fight scene.
Same people said about Clara Oswald from Doctor Who, though I see her faults and I'm not sure if she is the best example. River Song would match this description better in my opinion.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Yes, definately!
And even if movies repeat same patterns, we see so much more outside cinema, during our lives, there are so many things that shape our world view.



Yeah I liked Rey, but I had impression as well that it comes to easily to her. Especially during fight scene.
Same people said about Clara Oswald from Doctor Who, though I see her faults and I'm not sure if she is the best example. River Song would match this description better in my opinion.

Right. Luke had to struggle to succeed--if you approach the originals from the point of view of having no knowledge of the story, there is a sense he could fail and turn to the darkside. Anakin, somewhat less, but there is still some sense of him struggling (and ultimately failing), although poor direction and an ultimate sense of predestination on the viewer's part (assuming they are familiar with the original trilogy backstory) kind of made him a boring character, IMO.

Rey suddenly just knows how to wield a lightsaber and fly the Millennium Falcon like a champ.

I want to see more struggle with Rey in the next film. There is so much potential there, considering she may be a Skywalker or Anakin reincarnated (the reincarnation thing could explain her ease in being able to kick ass so easily though).

Interestingly, Finn, who is more of the supporting character than a lead, was more interesting to me because he had to struggle a bit with his guilt over being an ex stormtrooper.

 

[Kas]

Interestingly, Finn, who is more of the supporting character than a lead, was more interesting to me because he had to struggle a bit with his guilt over being an ex stormtrooper.

Also Finn is something fresh. He is not replacing anyone from original trilogy, is not a similar type of character as there was before.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Also Finn is something fresh. He is not replacing anyone from original trilogy, is not a similar type of character as there was before.

Yeah. I liked him. I felt like his character was the one who allowed the audience to imagine themselves in the film.. For instance, when

Han and Finn capture Captain Phasma and Finn is basically acting like an excited fanboy about tossing her down the garbage chute.

I realize there will be people who still haven't seen the film.

 

[Totenkindly]

I just watched this fun movie called "A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night" -- I've seen reviewers refer to it later as the first Iranian vampire western noir movie. (Which makes sense, if you've seen it. And it's filmed in beautiful B&W.)

It's kind of a love story, although there's not so much as a kiss... it seems deeper, sensually and emotionally, than that in some ways.

The girl is the vampire, and she preys on those who take advantage of women but not necessarily the way an American film would handle it (where they often just feel like "chick revenge" flicks.) And she's very feminine in a way but represents some traditionally masculine traits (the distance, the stoicness, the focus on purpose of task, etc.) Even her presentation is feminine, yet not stereotypically so compared to two of the other female side characters.

It's the guy who is trying to work extra jobs, hold down the house for his dad who has become a drug addict, and who owns a cat. He ends up making the choices with emotional range to them, and he is the one who is more vulnerable emotionally as well as physically... and this makes her more vulnerable as well.

---

As far as Star Wars, I think a lot of Rey's past development occurred "before film." She's been living as an orphan and scavenger since a young girl, caring for herself; and you see her choose to not turn in a certain somebody for more reward than she's seen in her life, to feed her starving belly, and it's an OBVIOUS struggle even if she never says a word. It says she has wrestled with moral issues versus practicalities for a LONG time. We just did not see it unfold on film.

We also did not see her fighting abilities with the staff learned on-screen. It all happened over the course of long years defending herself against other scavengers and (you can probably assume) slavetraders and rapists and any other miscreant you might find trying to nab a young girl alone in a dusty outpost like that. I think it's too simple to claim "it all came too easily to her" if you bother to consider what backstory must have occurred if she is still alive.

In contrast, we happen to leap in right when Finn's moral awakening occurs. So of course he seems to change more over the course of the film.

I expect to see more struggle from Rey in Film VIII. We only really see that one moment when she's choosing to

not go Dark Side, but it's all internalized.

----

I liked Ripley immensely as a female hero and her tacit comparison to Vasquez (the macho action hero) in Aliens and to Lambert (the screamer) in Alien. She places somewhere in the middle and seems "normal" compared to their extremes... accessible and human. And then you have the whole "mother" nurturer who goes back after her adopted child theme as well, partly out of love and partly out of guilt. To be honest, it seemed to be less about "changing" the gender expectation and more reflecting what actual human beings already knew about being human. There were women who could identify with Ripley, and maybe even men as well (represented by Hicks); the two actually are great examples of more nuanced humans who are also gendered.

I think movies mostly reinforce existing thought patterns and stereotypes. My personal take on gender roles is not affected by movies since it is generally at odds with what they portray. I do see much more gender, racial, and other diversity on television in recent years, as far as what kinds of roles people are shown in, and that is good. One reason I never got into Game of Thrones is that it strikes me as just another basically sexist fantasy world. (If it's fantasy, why can't we be more imaginative!) In contrast, consider Ursula LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness for real creativity, though I don't think that has ever been made into a movie.

LeGuin's always been good for this kind of thing.

Her Earthsea stuff is really interesting, because she fully acknowledges the gender divide culturally and individually and explores how men and women's opportunities and thinking is filtered through cultural gender constructs, and yet none of the main characters are really "stereotypical." Ged develops aspects to his character that would be considered more feminine, especially after power no longer plays a role in his life; and Tenar is a very strong female character who engages men even if she isn't taken seriously because "she's just a woman" to many of them. LeGuin explores and seems to point out the ways that both men and women are limited by culture and upbringing, even if she seems to write very strong female characters.

Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series does it, too, especially the later volumes. (Books again. I guess I read more books than I watch movies.) The Harry Potter movies do better at this than many

I have to read the Third Chronicles, which I have now but have just felt kind of intimidated to read. (Plus, if I read it, then I'll reach the end and it'll be over.)

I really enjoyed a lot of things in the Second Chronicles, and there is a more nurturing aspect to Covenant that becomes apparent, while Linden (obviously the healer in Second Chronicles) finds a lot of strength. I like how gender is acknowledged and the role it plays culturally and psychologically, but the humanity (and the ability to learn and adopt areas normally restricted socially to the other gender) is what is most apparent. People just being who they are, and becoming who they need to become as part of the growth process.

I guess that is the similar pattern to the other things I've mentioned here.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Anyone see the movie In A World? It's about a female voice actor.

 

[Totenkindly]

Anyone see the movie In A World? It's about a female voice actor.

It's on my list due to decent reviews but I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Lark]

we watched the remake of poltergeist last night and it was surprisingly less of a shit on childhood memories than we were expecting it to be... one thing that really stood out to me though was the way it really reinforced the gender roles of "man must always be the strong protector and provider" and "woman must be the nurturer" though, which bugged me while watching it

after watching it, I mentioned that to the man and we started talking about how A LOT of movies reinforce those roles and how it kind of influences how people think about how they should be acting and how our household doesn't really fulfill those roles nearly as well as movie households do and that we had trouble thinking of any movies where our household roles were reflected in the couple involved and he pointed out that movies kind of make him feel a bit like a failure for being the emotional and more friendly one in the household (he throws dinner parties!) and I always end up identifying more with the male characters. this is all made worse by the fact that I'm going out for a rather uber-manly job (and currently work a more traditionally masculine job than he does). I don't think it helped that he'd cried several times during the previous movie while I was being logical about things and then we watch a movie where the men must be strong and the women are allowed to cry.

Do you think that movies subtly influence how you look at gender roles?

Do they ever make you feel that you've failed a bit?

Any movies that you can think of that DON'T fit this model?

Movies and everything else, games are more influential than movies though, have you ever thought about that?

Games today have most of the traits studied in movies, books, radio other media, and it can be more interactive when you consider some of the "extended mind" cognitivist thinking.

I'm reading Bioshock and philosophy at the minute, reviewed it on Amazon today, there's a good feminist account of Bioshock Infinite, I recommend that book BTW.

 

[Ingrid in grids]

I think representation on screen definitely shapes how we look at gender, sexuality, etc. There's studies to support the idea that different representations of race, gender, age, sexuality, etc. across media affect self esteem and public attitudes towards different groups (can't dig them up now, but can later). I also think that our exposure to different stories (or different formulas of stories) influences the way in which we use narrative to construct meaning in our lives.

These representations of different genders don't occur in a vacuum. As I think has already been touched in this thread, the representations are usually based on the shared experiences, attitudes, values, or cultural anxieties of a particular society.

Trends of gender representations go in all sorts of directions. Some good ones were mentioned by [MENTION=19700]Anaximander[/MENTION]. Like in the noughties, we saw all these representations of men as "manchildren" in comedies, e.g., Superbad, Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Shawn of the Dead, etc. In these comedies, the direction of the story is almost always the same: the "childish" male behaviour of the main protagonist eventually gives way to a more traditional masculinity, as defined by heterosexual relationships, family responsibility, adulthood, etc.

Comedy is quite powerful in addressing cultural anxieties. I think the anxiety addressed here is a post-feminist one/a crisis of masculinity. But it resolves it in a way that is not progressive at all.

Some of the stuff by Louis C.K. offers a more complex handling of these issues, I think.

Also, a lot of the stuff that came out over the past decade which was viewed as "positive" representations of LBGTIQ has also been kind of conservative and uncomplicated. Stories involving gay or trans characters frequently centre on the "coming out" narrative (e.g., Glee). Alternatively, they strive to show "good gays" who are partnered and living in nuclear families, sometimes with kids, upholding family values (e.g., Modern Family). Again, I think this is to do with addressing cultural anxieties about these groups.

Orange is the New Black does a fair job of complicating a lot of these trends. Another really great show is Transparent.

There's also a whole lot of tropes surrounding the working woman. It's a big topic that I won't do much justice to here. I might add some more later.

 

[Riva]

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] if you identify yourself as an ESTP if would explain why you aren't quite comfortable with traditional gender roles imposed on you. ESTPs are one of the most masculine types.

-----

Hollywood has moved away quite a bit from gender roles. You get to see women playing the hero or badass or villain quite often.

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).

*Hopes that feminazis wouldn't take offense at what I said*

If you are a feminazi and if you are reading this you should know that I think being caring, nurturing and loving (which are stereotypically attributed to women) are also STRONG characteristic traits; perhaps not by you, but definitely by me.

 

[uumlau]

we watched the remake of poltergeist last night and it was surprisingly less of a shit on childhood memories than we were expecting it to be... one thing that really stood out to me though was the way it really reinforced the gender roles of "man must always be the strong protector and provider" and "woman must be the nurturer" though, which bugged me while watching it

after watching it, I mentioned that to the man and we started talking about how A LOT of movies reinforce those roles and how it kind of influences how people think about how they should be acting and how our household doesn't really fulfill those roles nearly as well as movie households do and that we had trouble thinking of any movies where our household roles were reflected in the couple involved and he pointed out that movies kind of make him feel a bit like a failure for being the emotional and more friendly one in the household (he throws dinner parties!) and I always end up identifying more with the male characters. this is all made worse by the fact that I'm going out for a rather uber-manly job (and currently work a more traditionally masculine job than he does). I don't think it helped that he'd cried several times during the previous movie while I was being logical about things and then we watch a movie where the men must be strong and the women are allowed to cry.

Do you think that movies subtly influence how you look at gender roles?

Do they ever make you feel that you've failed a bit?

Any movies that you can think of that DON'T fit this model?

If you'll recall, Joss Whedon's original "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" movie (1992) was a direct reaction to that kind of movie. Why not have the cute blond cheerleader be able to kick vampire ass? They ended up making a series about it that lasted from 1997-2003, which counts as "wildly successful" in TV land.

More recently, we have movies like The Hunger Games (2012) and Divergent (2014), both of which had strong female leads and were wildly successful.

And let's not forget Xena Warrior Princess (1995-2001), another wildly successful TV series (that was a spin off of the Hercules TV show, but lasted even longer, since Hercules only ran from 1995-1999).

Or shall I go back to the 80s?

A babysitter takes on the Chicago mob and manages to get home in time so that her charges' parents are none the wiser.

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.

OMFG. Where have these people been?

You think I'm just cherrypicking? I can go on.

Other movies? "Kill Bill"

Video games? Two words: "Lara Croft"

And those are just the "badass" ones I can think of off the top of my head. Google for it and you'll find dozens of movies with strong female leads (not all "badass", but very strong characters who don't give up without a fight). Heck, if you just make a movie about Queen Elizabeth, you HAVE to have a strong female lead.

This has been a trope for decades: Action Girl - TV Tropes

In fact, in any story with a female action hero, that hero is not merely very skilled and capable with perhaps a few flaws, far too many are - as Anaximander notes - "Mary Sues", basically characters with lots of strengths and very few weaknesses. In fantasy literature/TV/movies, if you run into the stereotypical woman in bikini armor, you know based on the trope that she is capable of wiping the floor with every possible enemy except for the final boss battle.

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.

Oh, and just in case you thought this strong female idea was new, just in the recent decades, shall I recall The Lord of the Rings, where you not only have strong female elves (Galadriel) who are as powerful as Gandalf, you have Eowyn who manage to slay a Nazgul, who can be slain by "no man" and she declares, "I am no man" right before killing him.

The movie is modern, yes, but the book was written in stages between 1937 and 1949 and published in 1954.

So, yes, there are tropes where the woman is weak and needs to be saved (Damsel in Distress), but the opposite tropes are quite prevalent. Back in the 90s, when that sort of thing was kind of new, I thought it was pretty awesome, a great concept worth fleshing out. These days, it's just a trope, and the only way to make it not be a trope is to allow those heroes to have flaws to overcome: to be human, to have weaknesses, to realize that in spite of being a complete BadAss, you sometimes need help from your friends. (The Supergirl series is actually pretty good at this.)

So, now that that is over, can I please complain about how romance novels are infiltrating the fantasy/scifi genre? Please?! I mean, Twilight is only the most glaring example. You want to see how women are stereotyped in stories? Go look at how they stereotype themselves in these narcissistic tales of having sex with vampires and/or werewolves and/or genies and/or aliens and/or ... etc.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] You point here is absolutely brilliant.

I had heard (not sure if this is correct) that the Ripley character came about by chance. The original the story line started with a mixed gender squad, and which squad member was going to survive to carry out the remainder of the plot was randomly determined. It ended up being the female character Ripley. Perhaps more stories should be written that way, where character gender is chosen by flip of a coin, with only occasional adjustment when absolutely required by the plot.

I am tempted to do a writing experiment based on this line of thinking I wonder if I could make a character truly neutral and then adjust afterwards when the decision is arbitrarily made.

 

[Coriolis]

I am tempted to do a writing experiment based on this line of thinking I wonder if I could make a character truly neutral and then adjust afterwards when the decision is arbitrarily made.

But you wouldn't be making the character neutral at all. They would have strengths and flaws, likes and dislikes, habits and idiosyncrasies, personality, race, religion, culture, etc. All that would be missing at the outset is gender. You would write the story, then go back and tweak any necessary details. For instance, if the character is facing a possible cancer diagnosis, breast cancer would make more sense for a woman than a man (unless, of course, you want to take the opportunity to point out that men can get breast cancer, too, but that would be a subplot in and of itself).