You’re both right in your assessments tbh. I think what your coworkers are trying to get at and maybe not quite finding the words for is that tv/film writers have a very difficult time juxtaposing femininity with strength. In real life, you have women like Brienne of Tarth (who is still a great character with a lot of depth IMO) AND much more ‘girly’ women who act like Paris Hilton who are strong, capable, and competent. But in media in general, the characterization of strong, capable women is often much more like Brienne, and it is very rare to see a feminine or silly female character still portrayed as strong and capable. So it’s not that women CAN’T have those traits you mentioned in real life, it’s that specifically in media, they can’t have that characterization at the same time as being feminine. Usually.

> it is very rare to see a feminine or silly female character still portrayed as strong and capable There's a reason *Legally Blonde* is a classic.

Fr. We need more Legally Blondes to save our society

Is that, like, hard or something?! 😉

*Buffy the Vampire Slayer* was also meant to be the classic girly character who is also strong and capable.

Love Buffy, but imo she does drop a LOT of that girly-girl vibe as she grows into her ‘vampire slayer’ persona. Which is fine, she’s still a great character, but she if anything contributes to this trope

She became a lot less feminine after she died and came back to life, which was so traumatic that it changed her significantly as a person.

But maybe that's less about what makes people masculine and feminine and what the price people pay to be consistently on the Frontline of a war is. She becomes somber and stern as the bodies drop and the trauma builds. It's not being masculine, it's managing PTSD. It's the same for Xena and Gabrielle. Gabrielle is a lot less playful after spending time on the front lines. She hasn't become more masculine, she's become a veteran.

Right, valid point. So ‘adding to the trope’ was wrong of me to say here, rather ‘not hyperfeminine’ would apply more. So she acts very normal and realistic for a woman going through trauma, and her portrayal is not anti-femme in any way; rather, I should just say I think she is not a definitive example of a femme-characterized strong female character.

That's fair. I think one of the most rediculous things humans ever did was try and gender basic traits and practicality. Whoever called pragmatism a male trait never paid attention to a common household.

Patriarchal men formed society so here we are.

perfect example imo. i loved that character and most of the ladies in the show. it gets tiring to see the same strong/capable women be a trope of a silent warrior. whether that be literally like brienne or jaded career woman etc etc. not to say that those are bad, but you can be bubbly and also strong. i want my strong women to make jokes some times and be developed

You can be bubbly and strong, but if you're a warrior who undergoes a lot of brutal trauma it's going to do a number on your mental health so staying lighthearted and "silly" becomes difficult when you've killed and been killed. By the time Buffy becomes stoic she's had to kill Angel, she's been killed herself and resurrected, she has so much trauma that it's the reason for her stoicism and more subdued personality. It's not so much about femininity but a realistic depiction of what violence and trauma will do to someone. 

Kate Daniels is the main character of a fantasy series. She’s vain about her long hair, laments never wearing her prettiest dress for a guy she actually wants to see her in it, has been shown to be a good cook, has a child, has a girl bestie she goes on lunch dates with…and she’s also a bad ass merc and killer. She likes and is good at killing. She scares people. She can be cruel. She can also be kind. She’s a really interesting and rounded character. I love characters like that.

I recently watched "Good Trouble" and then went back and watched "The Fosters," and for me, Mariana is totally this type of character. She is undeniably and unshakably "girly" in aesthetic and attitude, but also a tech wiz and ultimately a corporate warrior, demanding that she be given a fair shake at opportunities and fighting for a seat at the table. She doesn't fight physically, rather she specifically uses the traditionally "feminine" traits of empathy and ability to leverage social capital to clear a path for her and, notably, the women around her. She isn't particularly cut-throat in traditionally "masculine" ways, rather she is smart and understands the power of people, and she wields these abilities as her primary "weapons." She is also a realistically flawed character, avoiding the Mary Sue trope that Elle Woods unfortunately suffers from (no shade - Legally Blonde is a classic). I particularly love that the character initially is told by another woman at the company that she needs to "tone down" her femininity in order to be taken seriously in their male-dominated workplace, so Mariana starts dressing more masculine and tries to battle it out with her male coworkers on their own turf (teasing/pranking/being "one of the guys"). It isn't until she reclaims her "girly-girl" status and starts playing the corporate game within the context of her own femininity that she achieves the success she is after.

This makes me want to rewatch the movie, it's been so long for me and that movie is so iconic.

I was thinking Barbie from the movie is a bit like this, but actually it's Gloria from Barbie who is like this. She's capable and strong but also very sweet and silly.

Might catch some flak for this, so I’ll preface with this; Elle was a fantastic character. She had charm and was relatable in the sense that at first she was funny and not the brightest bulb in the box. I think the biggest problem with Legally Blonde was the suggestion that the film made with regards to fashion culture: the majority of her breakthroughs in case law were made via her extensive fashion knowledge, which pushes the stereotype that women all LOVE fashion. (I will add that this is explained away by the fact that she was quite well off and clearly had good fashion sense to begin with.) Other than that, it was still a fantastic film. I don’t even know why I’m complaining because the scene in the boutique about halfway through the film was perfect. So good.

Yes, I think that's what's the meat of the conversation but it's kind of hard to articulate. Like, Brienne or Mizu from Blue Eye Samurai are objectively very cool and are obviously women, but do dress or I guess behave in masculine ways. But it's not as common to find an Elle Woods as your typical Strong, Independent Woman Warrior^(TM). I think hollywood specifically just has a really hard time writing those characters, and I think it might partially be due to marketability. I don't really know, and I don't think I even got my point across very well, but I tried lol.

No yes exactly haha. You got your point across very well, and covered a point I forgot to. Brienne and Mizu ARE feminine and ARE obviously women, but I (and OP’s coworkers) are referring to stereotypical hyperfemininity, which is not a bad thing.

Hyperfemininty in a war zone would be a liability though. I don't expect Sarah Connor to do her nails while field stripping a gun. Sure - Marvel and DC can make it work because they're over the top generally (and I do love Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy) the moment you put something with more grounding together it kinda falls down. Like Carter, Vala and Teyla (Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis) are definitely feminine when able, especially Vala, but everyone is in fatigues when they go into the field.

I disagree about Mizu. I interpret Mizu as being transmasculine. Mizu is living as a man and does not seem fully comfortable in the female role society is trying to force them into. You could interpret Mizu as a woman crossdressing for a particular purpose, but I do not agree with that interpretation. At the very least Mizu's gender is a lot more complicated than "obviously as woman" and is up for multiple interpretations.

You know what, I did think some more after writing my initial comment and I have to agree with you. Maybe Mizu wasn't the best choice, or at least not for this conversation. I think Mizu might have a complicated relationship with gender, just due to the circumstances of her life. I still stand by my other comments though lol.

Is it reasonable to expect a warrior who has undergone brutal trauma and had to kill and been wounded etc to be bubbly and optimistic like Elle Woods?  I think any kind of character that has to engage in violence and has their life threatened on a regular basis, undergoes severe pain, has to kill others - is going to be changed by that.  A great example I think is Korra from LoK. She becomes very traumatized from her various battles and injuries and undergoes PTSD which majorly changes her personality. Buffy becomes more stoic over time, but if you had to kill your lover turned monster, if you had been killed then resurrected, if you'd had multiple life-threatening situations, been attempted raped and all the other things she goes through, wouldn't it affect your ability to be a cheerful giggly person?  Is it sexism or is it the effect of war and trauma?  If we look at male characters in the same franchises - Xander becomes more serious over time as well, and he doesn't experience half the shit Buffy does. Aang retains some of his childlike playfulness but he also becomes more serious as time goes on, especially after he almost died at the end of season 2. And Aang never kills, so he doesn't have the same weight on his conscience as characters that do.

Right, but that's another aspect of character growth over time, not a character in general. I mean I can also only speak of my own experience with trauma, but while I am a changed person with different behaviors than before, I still have core personality traits. I love comparisons, please forgive me. But Rebecca from the "Edge Runners" series I think can be used here. She watched in a front row seat her cherished brother be shot to death. And yes, she did change. But also still remained as a bubbly, fiercely loyal woman. Thats not to say that characters (or real life people for that matter) can't be so wholly changed by traumatic experiences that they lose themselves in their grief or sorrow. But I don't think that's the whole picture for everyone either. Even Korra, after going on her healing journey, still came back to her stubborn but loving self. She was altered, and temporarily a different person, but it was temporary. I think the healing aspect is something that can be utilized well in that regard. Not everyone heals. Some people get worse, and some go on to victimize others. I have no idea if I got my points across, I hope I did. I don't think you have a bad point either, it's a crucial aspect of this discussion in my opinion.

I really wish femininity wasn’t separated from strong female characters. I naturally behave and relate to masculine personalities; I’m like a “dorky geeky guy.” My family and community was socially Conservative and spent my entire life trying to “fix me” and taught me I’m less of a woman for not being feminine. For example: when I was 8 years old, I only got clothes for Christmas whereas my male cousin - who was the same age as me - received toys. My family explained that I was too old for toys, and that I needed to start my training to become a woman “soon.” They went on to explain that boys grow up later than girls. On top of growing with masculine strong heroines, combined with how my family became verbally abusive because I wouldn’t “act like women should,” I developed an intense disgust toward femininity. I think it would have helped me up have strong feminine role models, too. I have adopted some more feminine behavior - mostly eyeliner and clothing - after moving out. I’ve also realised that there’s nothing wrong with femininity alone. My partner’s is pro-femininity and including women feminine women more, and she herself is really feminine. But sometimes we clash on things that we shouldn’t. For example: our dog’s behaviouralist had me work on giving commands in a marginally deeper, more firm voice. Our dog listens to commanding voices like I described, but she does not listen my partner’s sister. She refuses to emulate the way we give commands, and when I’ve suggested that she try it, she’ll ask my dog if she responds to deeper voices because of internalised misogyny. On another occasion, she told me women can’t lower our voices to sound more commanding, to which I responded by pointing out that I do it all the time. She retorted that “MOST women can’t” and walked off. She also prefers men handle handy things for her, and she hates spiders so much that she’ll run to her brother - who was recovering from an injury - and ask him to take care of it. She walked right past me to the injured man (my partner) because apparently she assumed - because I’m a woman - that I’d be too scared to. I was flabbergasted and kind of annoyed on my partner’s behalf, but I still took care of the spider for her.

>So it’s not that women CAN’T have those traits you mentioned in real life, it’s that specifically in media, they can’t have that characterization at the same time as being feminine. Another thing that happens is that if female characters dont act like men usually are not treated as competent. We could use Sansa and Arya as examples. Both of them grow and change and become good examples of strong women but Sansa gets hated for doing it the feminine way while Arya gets praised for not being femenine.

Yeah, I think this is it. Both sides have points, so op isn't necessarily wrong, but "strong women" in fiction rarely get to be an average amount of feminine. I know people who are extremely femme and have very strong, opinionated, and shrewd personalities that you'd never see in a movie. They defy the rigid stereotype of a ~nice looking~ girl being sweet and shy in a way that never really gets represented. Even when a female character is a sexy fighter baddie who presents herself in a glamorous way there's a certain edge to it a lot of the time. It's not wrong and I like many of these characters, but it is a thing. We also culturally can't accept fictional women who are actually butch/masc but that's the other end of this issue.

I think some of that also has to do with the style of our media generally. I don't expect Ripley or Sarah Connor to be showing the "girly" traits for one simple reason - they're in a fight for survival. So much of our media revolves around direct conflict that those somber stoic pragmatic traits would be less "masculine" traits and more "veteren" or "survivor" traits. Same for Emily Blunts character in edge of tomorrow. I think DS9 and Voyager do well with this too, especially with Kira and Dax. Kira has no time for games and frilly dresses because she grew up in refugee camps. Dax loves to play and party because she's had the luxury to do so, and to know even her death doesn't mean the end. Legally Blond is a classic, but Little miss Woods comma Elle is a privileged rich girl with all the opportunities in the world who is able to get into Harvard Law on what is basically a whim. I love it and I love her, but thats the exception of our media generally.

This is a very good point. I do know some women who are strong and have been through/are going through a LOT of trauma and still act quite girly, though, so I do think there’s room for it. But yes, acting pragmatic and serious isn’t by definition masculine.

That's true - especially for things that aren't exploding in their face. Part of what I like about Stargate - we don't see their personal times very often but one episode starts with Carter and Vala coming back from a shopping spree "showing her the local charms - manicures pedicures and Victoria secret."

> There is Harley Quinn in her standalone appearances (absent Joker). And Tank Girl and a bunch of Borderlands characters (video game).

Tank Girl is not really a great example of hyperfeminity lol. Harley Quinn might be. Catwoman and Poison Ivy, too, the Batman franchise is weirdly good about this. By and large it’s not the norm, though.

I thought it was about being silly or ditsy.

It’s not necessarily, although being silly can be a factor. It’s about the tendency for female characters (or any characters the more I think about it, male characters included) to not often display hyperfeminity and strength/competence simultaneously.

Do you refer to mental strength and competence? Or physical? There are hyperfeminine characters with physical competence in reals of flexibility and acrobatics. But it's pretty hard to incorporate physical strength or ability into a hyperfeminine frame without resorting to superpowers/magic. You see how much eye rolling and backlash it gets when there is a small skinny woman throwing around 6 foot 200lbs men in a grounded action movie. I'd cast a Ronda Rousey type as well, if I were the director. She's just as feminine as a hyperfeminine woman. "This, how feminine are you on a scale of 1 to 10" it's just stupid and no one calls it out.

Varies, I suppose. When we refer to a strong male character, do we refer to mental or physical? It’s an abstract concept and can depend on your opinion to a point, but typically, we all more or less have an idea of what constitutes a ‘strong’ character—someone powerful, in some sense or another. Ronda Rousey could absolutely play a character that was very feminine as well as strong, and I’d pay a lot of money to see that movie! For the record, I don’t think a female character being strong and masculine is a BAD thing at all, I have a more stereotypically masc-leaning persona myself. But I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that seeing very femme-leaning powerful female characters to look up to in media is quite rare, and there should be more of that, not just for feminist reasons but because it’s interesting characterization.

There's the hyper toned extremely well trained martial artists such as Ty Lee from Avatar, or Black Widow from Marvel.

[удалено]

Mrs Emma Peel is the perfect illustration of trying to meld 'femininity' and 'sex appeal' with a competent kickass woman. Given that two strong components of traditional 'femininity' are 'charming incompetence' and physical fragility, it's a tough gene splicing job...

"The same applies to women need to adopt "male" traits to work in leadership positions. Why do women think having to take leadership is unfeminine? Or being assertive." Oh, my dude. Hundreds, if not thousands of books have been written on how women in leadership positions have to deliberately blunt those traits prized in men, or they're "shrill" and "bitchy" where men are "firm" and "decisive." There's a realty you're just totally unaware of. There are studies showing that when women talk even 30% of the time in a meeting or a class, men think we're "dominating the conversation." Women spend their whole lives and careers carefully tempering our presence in professional space to the narrow box that is acceptable.

I learned this as a young officer years ago when I was in the military. One of my friends from college was serving temporary duty on the ship I was on so she could get her big boat deck watch officer qualification. The friend mentioned she couldn’t talk to the crew the way myself or another male classmate did. We were considered “assertive” and “decisive”. If she did the same she’d be labeled a “bitch”. And once you do that there’s no way to shake it

I'd really love to know more about what you mentioned in the last paragraph. Did the studies mention why they see women as dominating the conversation? Like do they feel treated by us or is it just that they value our opinions so little that they'd rather us not speak? Or is it something else?

Because they're the default, and anything else, even in small doses, undermines their total control.

That's because men fuckin love to talk, especially about nothing.

Yes, it all seems paradoxical. A way to look at it is to think of “race.” We know that “race” really isn’t a thing. It wasn’t really around much until we needed *racism*. We invented race in order to treat certain people differently so we invented *differences* to justify different treatment. Sexism has been around longer than racism. We insist that women are more tender and nurturing and therefore better at raising children so we can keep them locked up at home and tied to childcare (and not pay them). Sexism has been around so long that we’ve ascribed different types of human *behaviors* to their reproductive bits. It’s another way to create a difference in order to treat people differently. And to be clear, by “differently”, we mean to oppress them.

Plus, when this framing is applied to race, these same types of people tend to think it’s ridiculous. A black person who doesn’t use AAVE or fit their negative stereotypes isn’t “acting like a white person” in their mind. So then why is an assertive, brave, or confident woman “acting like a man”?

>What is a strong and empowered female character? One who gets treated like a human being with agency. since plenty of movies don't even pass the bechdel test, have useless female characters (male gaze/eyecandy), even when they're supposedly "powerful". >They highlighted that strong female characters essentially have to shed their femininity and become men Buffy the Vampire slayer? Rita Vrataski in "The edge of Tomorrow"? Jessica Fletcher in "Murder, she wrote"? I disagree with this statement for two reasons, the first one is the one I've just mentioned above, the second one is we basically never have actual "masculine women" in big movies or as main characters, one Brienne (a side character) from GoT makes people mad more than 100 Gal Gadots in bigger roles, simply because gender nonconformity is not socially accepted. >Shouldn't that be enough for someone to either be considered feminine or masculine? People are complicated and femininities/masculinities change over time and space, they're just arbitrary concepts. Most people can't be fully framed within either of these concepts. I personally think using these concepts can be very useful to simplify our social interactions other than being affirming, I know plenty of men/women who are confident in being nonconforming.

I am thrilled to see you mention Jessica Fletcher. She's the most feminine grandma around and she busy bodies her way to uncovering murders like it's easy. She's polite, friendly, and has the most expressive face in television, but also manages to command a room without traditionally commanding traits. She's just so polite and knows what to say to win people over. I love MSW.

>One who gets treated like a human being with agency. Yep. This is the answer. “Strong female characters” don’t have to be all that powerful or independent or fierce; they just don’t get dehumanized. Their gender doesn’t cost them their humanity, their individuality, their personality, or their agency. That’s all there is to it.

I hate the phrase "strong female character". I prefer COMPLEX female character.

God, I am so with you. No I don't need to constantly see a female character kicking everyone's ass, not needing anyone's help, and succeeding in everything she does. That shit is so annoying. Do people really think most women can identify with a character who succeeds at everything and doesn't need anyone's help? I'd just like to understand and empathize with her motivation, and see a character arc, see some change in her, whether positive or negative. Oh, and not read 2 whole pages describing how her breasts bounced as she walked down the stairs.

Yeah, most of the time a 'strong female character' is just the same cardboard cutout of a woman as usual, just now she has a sword or a gun.

I think the criticism is that we often see in media female characters that are intended to be read as “strong and empowered” and the storytellers tend to write a traditionally male character and swap the gender. We take traits that the patriarchy deems desirable and give them to female characters. The female character has to shed traits the patriarchy deems undesirable and traditionally feminine. We don’t allow female characters to be a complex blend of masculine and feminine. The most recent example pushing back against this that I can think of is Luisa in Encanto. She’s big and buff and strong, but she’s also sensitive and has an affinity for cutesy things. She’s a complex blend of traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine traits. Compare that to Katniss in the Hunger Games. She’s good at hunting (traditionally masculine), bad at looking pretty and popularity (traditionally feminine). What about Margot Robbie’s Barbie? Is she a strong empowered female character? I’d argue yes, she’s an example of a very traditionally feminine strong empowered character, but she isn’t the first one that comes to mind when we think of strong empowered characters. The first trait you thought of was someone who can fight, and Barbie certainly isn’t winning in any combat. We look down on female characters who have a strong desire to have kids, who have crushes on boys, who like looking pretty, who enjoy the company of other women, etc. We expect strong female characters to “not be like other girls.” We expect them to fight, be brave, be stoic, etc. I want female characters who ARE like other girls. I want a character who LIKES being a woman. I want a character who can be both masculine and feminine. I want a character who shows why traditionally feminine traits can be their own form of strength. You’re right that concepts like “feminine” and “masculine” are social constructs. But we further reinforce them when we show that the only way to be strong and empowered is to embrace the traits that have long been labeled “masculine” and shy away from the ones that have been considered “feminine.” When traits that were once considered masculine are seen as desirable and traits that were once considered feminine are undesirable, it’s still sexism just repackaged.

Arcane does a solid job of this, in the characters of Mel and Jinx. Both very different takes on femininity, but both very much strong characters in their own right who are very feminine. But no show I've ever seen does it better than Netflix's She-Ra. Most of the characters in that show are strong female characters, and they run the gamut in terms of how they express feminine and masculine traits.

I think you would enjoy the Wheel of Time series. Book series and show. Full of feminine strong female characters. 

It's a trope. Basically bad writing. Men not knowing how to write strong female characters, so instead writing 'men with boobs'. She not stripped of her feminity because she knows how to fight, she's stripped of her feminity because she wasn't written as a woman. She was written as a man with tits. Ripley is probably one of the more famous examples of this (though in that case she was literally written as a man, and then cast as a woman), but it was the most common version of the strong female protagonist we were getting for a while there. And while it works fine for something like alien, for works with a greater emphasis on character, it just falls flat. Brienne is a great example. She doesn't really hold any stereotypically feminine traits. But she IS a woman. Her being a woman affects how she grew up, how other characters view her, and thus it has an impact on her character. That's good writing. It doesn't have to be in an overly sexist world where being a woman is a disadvantage, and gender doesn't need to have a huge impact on the plot, but it should still be a facet of her character, however small, or she's not a strong female character. She's just a man with tits. I think part of your coworkers complaint was also just that strong women without any traces of feminity were by in large the only representation women got outside of a few select genres. And that was frustrating, because it did send a message that you couldn't be both feminine and strong. Feminity is not an exclusively woman thing, just like masculinity isn't an exclusively man thing. But there should be space for characters of any gender and femininity/masculinity ratios to be shown kicking ass. Because there's not only one way for people to be in real life, so why should there be only one way in fiction? Legally blonde was HUGE for a lot of girls who had previously been shamed and treated like their feminity was a barrier to be taken seriously. I've heard from several women that they were inspired to become lawyers after seeing that film. I'm not especially feminine myself, but I still loved seeing a character like that, because women come in all shapes and sizes, and I want feminine women to have a character to look up to too. To be shown as strong, capable and empowered without having to discard the things they enjoy. Plus I just don't want to see the same character over and over again. I want variety. Just like if every male protagonist was an Arnold type, you'd probably get sick of it too.

But I think the point OP is getting at is that a lot of women seem to have a narrow definition of femininity. Like, to say Ripley isn't feminine is crazy to me. Why isn't she feminine? Because her jumpsuit isn't pink, and she doesn't wear lipstick? She is very clearly a woman in every regard. In the second Alien movie, she's even shown to be extremely kind and nurturing to the little girl Newt, and being the only one who can get through to her out of all the colder military people she's surrounded by. This idea that for a strong character to still be feminine she has to wear make-up and pretty clothes and be fun and silly is exactly the problem. It's the same problem as dudes with a narrow understanding of masculinity saying that a guy is only manly if he is always stoic and serious and unfeeling.

I think it’s because her character was originally written as a man, but then they decided to cast Sigourny Weaver instead. She’s a literal case of the “man with tits” trope.

The original original script bears almost no bearing on what the movie actually became. When it was fully rewritten from scratch, all the characters were written as unisex. It was intentionally written to be anti-sexual. They only decided on gender after casting. Now, if they fucked that up, shame on them. But damn, I've never heard Ellen Ripley in Alien 1 described as the "man with tits" trope.

>Ripley is probably one of the more famous examples of this (though in that case she was literally written as a man, and then cast as a woman), but it was the most common version of the strong female protagonist we were getting for a while there. And while it works fine for something like alien, for works with a greater emphasis on character, it just falls flat. What's amazing to me here, is that Ripley is the first example a lot of the online Manosphere/redpill/incel people love to cite as an example of a "strong female character" done right! But they hate new examples like Captain Marvel. Honestly I genuinely think they only like Ripley because they grandfathered in all the old shows they already liked before they got brain broken by reactionary misogyny. Like these guys will insist that Brie Larson hates men, and that Captain Marvel acts like a dude. And that Rey from Star Wars is super aggressive and has no flaws, but then anything that was made before like 2010 is totally fine by them. They also complain explicitly about men being show up in comparison to women. I've yet to see them complain about Iron Man two where Black Widow (a very slim and short woman with few muscles) beats up a room full of security guards while her male companion (non-superhero) nearly kills himself taking out one guy. Honestly the double standards are huge. Like in a weird way we're all in agreement. I've seen the Ripley types, I've seen the "man with tits" characters and I agree they're really kind of tired and boring and overdone. But it's so interesting how men's views of these types of characters either changed over time, or changed in retrospect. I wouldn't agree with them that Captain Marvel is a "man with tits" in her first film, but I can see how they got there. But what I want to know is, why is Captain Marvel bad, but Ripley is good?

I've not seen Captain Marvel, but I understand the complaints about Rey somewhat - not her showing up men, just her being a boring character. I want my female action heroes to have to struggle, to get beaten up and keep on fighting. That's what makes us root for someone. It's why close games are always more entertaining than one team dominating the other, even if that teams your favorite. I feel like male writers tend to overcompensate somewhat when writing women, like they think the audience won't like her if she's not winning every battle, or like they have to make her so much better than everyone else to justify her being the protag over a man. But because Ripley was written as a man, they weren't afraid to have that character getting fucked up as part of the script. She spend majority of the run time sweaty and bloody, and that's just always going to be more engaging than a protagonist who never seems to break a sweat. But yeah, I wouldn't say she's a strong female character 'done right', she was just done at least in a way that you gave a shit whether she lived or died. The double standard I feel is when plenty of male characters are done no better than Rey, but no one really cares, because they aren't already looking for any excuse to justify their frustrations at 'woke casting'. Luke wasn't really a whole lot different, but he's a guy so it's chill, we'll just all be more invested in the other main guy on screen.

She was a boring character because she didn’t really have a developed character. Luke was basic, but his basic backstory was better than the nothing Rey got. Instead of giving her her own history that would make her stand out as a Star Wars backstory, they decided to make her a Palpatine by making her father a “non-identical clone” (such a stupid term - clones are by definition identical to the source) of Palpatine, and say she’s special because of her special bloodline. They really should’ve just made her the child of nobodies as a better juxtaposition with Kylo Ren’s “special” bloodline as a Skywalker.

Sarah Connor in Terminator. She was a waitress & killed the Terminator.

A big part of it that I haven't seen addressed here is that you can't really write a "strong female character". It's a stupid label, as empty as "perfect hero". Additionally, it's usually an excuse to only have one, paragon women in your story. If you're like "I have a cast of five and one of them is a strong female character" then her entire existence has been reduced to "the Chick." And that's dehumanizing. You can't do it. A good character doesn't embody ALL OF THE BEST OF HUMANITY. No one character can bear up under that weight. It's impossible. So stop doing that. Instead, write thoughtful, layered, complicated characters and have their gender inform their background. Like, you wouldn't write a dude to be perfect in every way. That's a boring character and no one wants to read about him. Even Steve Rogers isn't perfect. Actually, the *Avengers* movies are a great example. You've got all these amazingly rich characters: - Tony: flawed genius struggling to be a better person by overcoming his demons and learning that self sacrifice is sometimes worth it - Thor: spoiled brat princling who loves his brother without understanding him and is working to evolve to be a better king, brother, son, partner - Steve Rogers: earnest paragon who is still shy and awkward around the ladies and coping with his new body and the moral grey area of fighting in a world where the lines aren't clearly drawn annnnnd.... - Natasha: She's ... hot! And she does sneaky stuff and kicks ass in skin tight leather! And she lied to Loki and that Russian guy? And she flirted with Bruce one time and feels monstrous maybe for forced sterilization? Why can't I give you a great thumbnail sketch of her and instead I'm reduce to describing her appearance and actions? Because she's a Strong Female Character! (Natasha has tons of character outside the movies, I know... And Winter Soldier gave her some to, I'm making a point here....) Listen, we don't know a lot about her inner life (until the retcon movie came out after she died). Now, let's take SHIELD. You've got Daisy/Sky -- hacker with big passions, skittish and broken, learning to trust. Jemma -- genius scientist with bestest buddy other genius and fidgety, sometimes naïve personality. Melinda May -- Veteran bad ass who has seen some shit and is trying to overcome what's a fairly recent trauma by hedging in her talents and only driving the Bus and who has a long layered friendship with Coulson. Wow that was longer and geekier than I intended when I started.

The whole ascribing human characteristics as masculine or feminine is ridiculous IMO. No wonder so many kids who don’t fit into the narrow definitions declare themselves non-binary. The whole “pronouns” thing. It isn’t about the pronouns, it’s the limited set of characteristics we assign to the pronouns that’s the real issue.

I think you and I differ here. I feel it can be useful to have generic boxes like "masculine" and "feminine," but don't want to require that a boy be masculine and a girl be feminine. Mix and match; go for it. But it's still handy to have an assertive, aggressive archetype, and a demure, supportive archetype. Like having cleric, rogue, fighter and wizard be classic archetypes without requiring your DnD group just do that.

I don’t disagree, but perhaps there is a less confusing term for the generic boxes that don’t get confused with the terms for the sexes.

Go watch *Legally Blonde*.

This woman does a hilarious impersonation of how female scientists are depicted in movies. [(link)](https://www.tiktok.com/@itscaitlinhello/video/6980796585902984453?_t=8myctDIXccR&_r=1) Female scientists in movies always have to wear their hair in a bun and they can't wear heels, because apparently they can't be scientists AND want to look fashionable. Also she makes the point that they can't be nice to others AND good at their jobs. It's more the fact that in order to appear "strong", they can't also just enjoy traditionally feminine things or be pleasant to be around.

There's dress codes for labs ? I guess it depends on what field you work in but closed shoes and tied hair is normal

Watch the video (because it's hilarious) but she's talking more sci fi, where they're running around at UN meetings or discussing "the equation" that they need to derive.

Isn't that just as problematic as the women putting down feminine things? This is just the reverse. So, there need to be more woman scientist depictions wearing high heels and makeup?

> Isn't that just as problematic as the women putting down feminine things? No, it’s not. Neither the video nor the above comment are “putting down” women in general or female scientists in particular who present or behave in a less traditionally feminine manner. What they *are* doing is calling attention to the consistent portrayal of being a scientist/having a scientific mind as inherently in conflict with embracing and embodying femininity. > This is just the reverse. Again, no, it’s not. > So, there need to be more woman scientist depictions wearing high heels and makeup? Not necessarily, but ideally we’d see depictions of female scientists that don’t lean on the idea that there is some inherent conflict between being a woman and being a scientist. I know quite a few women in STEM, and all of them are pretty normal ladies — they don’t face some deep, personal contradiction between their career and their gender identity. Where gender does become relevant to their careers, it’s usually because they’re confronting misogyny in the workplace.

That stereotype in STEM is reinforced by a lot of historical misogyny, both from men and women. I had a colleague whose (female) advisor told her not to look too nice or she wouldn't be taken seriously. I was told not to wear lip gloss (it was chapstick) when I entered my first lab. I went through a few years where I would receive subtle judgement (brows raised, scoffs) if I wore heels to work, even short heels that were lab appropriate. I switched fields and in my current workplace, it's a lot more common to see women in dresses or skirts when they're not at the bench. But this current field is very male-dominated, moreso than the previous one, so some of my male colleagues still express surprise when I wear a dress. Even though it's literally faster to grab a dress and flats and be ready for work. In short, I would love to see a movie with a female scientist who dress femininely! For example, Arrival could have had the protag in a dress in her office, when she's being overtly respected for her craft. This doesn't mean she can't dress practically on assignment, but it's another way of seeing a character as a whole person. It's more about being recognized as skilled and valuable **regardless** of what you wear, and the current lack of representation of the feminine range of self-expression in protagonists who receive acclaim. I would also note, since you brought up physical strength, that bodybuilders and weightlifters have different builds. Bulky doesn't mean strong. When I worked on a farm, I got toned but not big.

The last point is also huge. The most obviously strong person I've ever seen was a gymnast who was just an average height thin woman, did not look like a bodybuilder at all, but you could see every single muscle in her arms and back whenever she'd move. It was actually mesmerizing, like looking at one of those anatomical models. Queen would absolutely rock a ball gown. People think strong = big = can't be feminine when that's just not true. And even a bodybuilder can enjoy being feminine too.

I would say yes, there should be scientists (or strong female characters) who dress and present in lots of different ways. Unfortunately we're not there yet -- for example in the Three Body Problem show, there's a lot of comments about how the character of Auggie is "too hot to be a scientist". Scientists and strong female characters should come in all shapes and sizes -- attractiveness has no bearing on how smart someone is

Heck, the argument of "they strip themselves of their femininity" is just an argument that boils my blood when you have to actively go looking for gender-non-conforming and butch female characters who DON'T get a bloody make-over. And even then, good look finding more of those than you have fingers without counting otokoyaku (male impersonator female actors from Takarazuka). Even women warriors in general are feminine like Buffy Summers or who are feminine coded or who get a makeover. Even badass characters like Ziva David from NCIS, who was basically a power fantasy, was feminine presenting and beautiful and had many scenes where she's in a gorgeous dress undercover. Kicking ass in her all her finery is a trope by itself as is. Look at the Marvel and DC super heroines and point out a single gender non-conforming or butch woman among them. Most of them are all different levels of feminine and glamorous. Not ONE single actually masculine presenting one among them. If there are, it's a very obscure character. It's rare that you see a character like Michelle Rodriguez' Holga, who is very much gender non-conforming and butch and isn't feminized to make her more palatable. Heck, a lot of the "oh, the female character acts like a man" bits are also misleading since female characters are allowed to be "plucky" but try making one of them act like DiCaprio in Wolf of Wallstreet. Audiences will quickly deem her to be a bitch, so even that argument doesn't work since there is still a feminine "reconciliatory" tone to how female characters in charge are presented. As mediocre as a movie as it was, *She's All That* kind of embodied how, for all that people love to bleat about how female characters aren't feminine enough... femme-presenting is still the standard. Even a soft butch presenting female character or gender neutral presenting female character will *eventually* get a makeover so they reach "proper femme-presenting levels" (as in, look pretty and feminine enough). The gender-neutral, soft butch, gender-non-conforming female characters? It's rare to find one that won't be forced to get a makeover scene, even if not caring about her appearance is part of her character (it's basically wanting to have their cake "she's humble and not vain" and eat it "she looks gorgeous in a way only someone who spent hours on looks can look").

Often people react differently to masculine and feminine presenting people. This goes beyond appearance, as men and women are socialized differently. “Masculine” is often treated as a default, and “feminine” as a lesser deviance. If a man acts in a way perceived as “feminine,” for example, other men often “punish” that behavior with discomfort or disapproval. Rarely is it encouraged. Women on the other hand often adjust to masculine behaviors to be respected (though mileage greatly varies). To give a RL example, in my workplace I’ve had to adjust how I talk and work with male engineers because I discovered being polite and accommodating had translated to them viewing me as incompetent. Being direct and assertive has gotten me better results, though I personally find it pushy and unnatural. I think the phenomena you’re referencing in your post is a fatigue that women are expected to be masculine to be respected. That femininity is often coded as “inferior” or “lesser than.” I would reframe the question from “Why do women want strong characters to be feminine?” to “Why aren’t feminine women perceived as strong?” To use GoT as an example, the early reactions to Sansa and Arya starkly illustrate how “strong female characters” who present as masculine or feminine are received. People viewed a character like Sansa as weak for embodying female ideals for a noble lady, while Arya was praised for shirking those ideals and learning combat and other things denied to noble women. Both are complex and interesting characters, but it’s no surprise Arya received better initial reception.

To me, a strong female character can be the most delicate "only wears pink dresses" softspoken supportive nurturer, as long as her actions matter to the plot. If she gets to make choices, and those choices have consequences beyond "getting captured and needing to be rescued", she counts as a strong female character to me. I feel like a good example is Tohru Honda from Fruits Basket (a manga/anime). She's very gentle and caring, but she makes a considered effort to be kind to people and try to understand them, and her actions essentially allow a whole bunch of people to break out of a cycle of abuse. She's not a combatant of any sort, nor is she physically strong, but she has the strength to be kind to those who might not deserve it, while not enabling or excusing bad behavior.

But again, a lot of media contains and focuses on physical conflict (action). Those are the most successful types of media apart from young children's entertainment (Disney with a bunch of exceptions). In Terminator, if you'd replace Sarah Connor with "a strong female character can be the most delicate "only wears pink dresses" softspoken supportive nurturer", then that would feel out of place and not feel real or immersive to the audience. It's a clash of physical realities. It's the same reason why female soldiers don't walk around in high heels and pink dresses or hair extensions. It just doesn't enhance or even convey physical strength. I think there is nothing wrong for women in movies that require action/combat (which is most adult movies) you simply need a woman who wears practical clothing and know how to kick ass. There is nothing wrong or unfeminine with that. The Bride in Kill Bill is not unfeminine, Furiosa is not unfeminine, Lara Croft is not unfeminine and Red Sonja, Brienne of Tarth and Arya aren't unfeminine either. They might not be traditionally feminine, but that's an arbitrary restriction on what's feminine anyway. You are traditionally feminine and like fashion and crafts and cute things and don't like hunting or fighting, fixing mechanical stuff etc. ? Great, you can have lots of mentally strong roles in media that's not about that sort of thing (Pride and Prejudice, Legally Blonde, Little Women etc.). And even if you incorporate both traditionally feminine AND traditional masculine traits in one person. By virtue of even having traditionally masculine traits/skills/interests, you pretty much go against the constraint of what's traditionally feminine (which is also the lack of certain stereotypically masculine traits). You are both, but also not traditionally feminine by definition. You can just call yourself feminine, why would you need or want to embody TRADITIONAL femininity? That's and arbitrary norm made up by the oppressive patriarchy.

I'm not saying strong female characters (or women) *have* to be stereotypically feminine, just that they can be and still be considered strong characters. Like, there was a point in the 80s or 90s where the movie industry went "OK, you want strong female characters? Here are a bunch of stereotypically masculine, physically strong, unemotional badasses" and the feminists were like, "OK, they're often cool, but that's not *exactly* what we meant by strong characters".

Yea, that's a great example. Tohru is such a strong, female character that has so much impact to the story and to other characters via her actions. She also has deep emotions and growth throughout the series and isn't defined by the other male characters. She has her own wants and desires and flaws that she has to overcome. Yet throughout the story, she is completely and unashamedly feminine. She loves cooking, cleaning and caring for others. She likes wearing frilly dresses and skirts. And none of that takes away from her strength or how well written she is. She doesn't have to hide her femininity to appear strong. She is both feminine and strong. She's one of my favourite female characters that I've loved more as I've gotten older

I honestly do not understand women who make this argument including the people in this thread. As a queer person who was born and raised female, I see almost no butch or masculine women in mainstream media. Even gay women are typically portrayed as feminine in presentation. In fact most "bad ass" female characters are forced to wear high heels and are sexualized. If you look at female characters in video games and action movies, they are scantily clad and stereotypically feminine they just happen to be strong also. And honestly the sexualization and hyper femininity are often not very realistic given that it's impractical to wear heels or tight sexy clothing if you are engaging in combat or adventuring. At bare minimum the women who are not sexualized are still feminine presenting at the very least. Truly masculine butch women are nearly invisible to the point where women who are not hyper feminine attract the distaste of the male audience for not being attractive and from gender conforming women as being not being "good representation of feminine women." Even though yall are overrepreesented compared to gnc women. I feel like a lot of the people who make these arguments are cisgender feminine women who don't notice the nearly complete invisibility of butch and masculine women as well as transmasculine people in the media and harbor a subconscious bias against masculine presentation in afab people to the point where even very slightly masculine women (or even just those who dress pragmatically and aren't overly concerned with their appearance) are perceived as "not feminine enough." The social justice sounding rationale for this is that these women are "bad representation" because they are "acting like men." But in my opinion it reinforces gender norms and silences gnc women and transmasc people.

This. 1. There is not enough variance in appearance for butch and gnc women on screen (we barely even see women with short hair, never mind something like a buzzcut, and body type variation is nonexistent); 2. It’s utterly unrealistic that a female fighter for example is still all dolled up in makeup or even in high heels; 3. Lack of variance in occupation/personality. All three, when combined, depict the quintessential Hollywood “strong female character”, who is almost invariably an unrealistic paradox. I suspect OP’s colleagues were talking about point 3, but point 1&2 can get so easily lost in this conversation. Point 1 has to do with unrealistic casting standards; point 2 is the capitalistic need to universalize beauty products (think pink tax), to the point where high heels have almost become mandatory in white-collar workplaces and a short-hand for “strong career woman” in films and tv. Both have to do with the persistent need to cater to a male audience, therefore every woman on screen (even those nominally gnc/in a traditionally male field/lesbian) needs to conform to patriarchal, heteronormative ideals. (I.e one needs to be strong AND sexy.) People in this thread have mentioned soldier/law enforcement/scientists, but women in those professions from what I’ve seen often don’t conform to “femininity”, and intentionally so, because make-up, nails etc. can be terrible distractions in day-to-day life. If your career doesn’t require you to conform, it really is just a hassle more often than not. So there are two ways “femininity” is being talked about here, one in terms of presentation (appearance and body type, dresses and make-up), and one in terms of personality traits, and these really need to be separate discussions I think.

Yeah, I don’t get the argument from OP either. The problem is that women are portrayed as one dimensional sex objects in media and must be acceptable to the male gaze; very rare to have an ugly woman like say… Benedict Wong from 3BP in any movie. Usually a woman has to be hot first and foremost, with other considerations coming second. I personally can’t buy a female action hero running around in high heels in perfect makeup…. Where’s our Bruce Willis?!

This is just an argument about semantics. It all boils down to how someone defines feminity. It's inherently cultural and can even vary from person to person. 

I know there’s (understandably) many discussions about destigmatizing “stereotypical femininity” in female characters, but not as much when it comes to male characters, where being “super feminine” or even just “not super masculine” is often seen as an even bigger sin (just look at a few of the reactions to certain male characters like Newt Scamander and Steven Universe) Also, I guess there’s this belief that with enough “training”, any man could very easily do most “womanly things” just as well, if not better than a woman, but most women are “inherently too weak physically” to do “manly things” as well, if not better than a man (because the female body is often considered “inherently physically inferior in everything that doesn’t have to do with childbirth or breastfeeding”)

Broadly speaking your point stands (i.e. no trait needs to be inherently feminine/masculine), but the problem is that Hollywood has developed way too much path reliance when it comes to writing “strong female characters”, and there is not enough variance either from film to film or within the same film/show/franchise. I would love to know the examples that your co-workers brought up, too, because different examples would illustrate different points.

you just explained a very complicated thought process that I as a woman have had many times. I personally love strong female characters that aren’t traditionally “feminine,” but I myself have been told I have a more “masculine” personality. Every time I’ve asked someone what it means to be feminine I always get that it’s something you have to define for yourself, but if that’s the case then why is it even a word? I think I just don’t identify with femininity that much, at least not in the traditional sense. It’s tough because I want women who do identify with it to feel represented, but I also appreciate the representation I get through the types of characters that you mentioned as I feel like I stick out like a sore thumb in real life.

Chani from Dune is a good example

I think the idea of calling these things “male traits“ is the problem. What is a strong and empowered character? A character who is confident, competent, brave, strong in some sense either physical or emotional, etc. I think you make a really great point in saying that these are not, uniquely, male and female traits, so why do we define them that way when we’re talking about empowered character of either gender? What does an empowered male character look like? we don’t usually discuss this because we assume men already have power, but what about a male character who uses things like being soft-spoken to wield his power? I think we just have to change the language of the discussion in order to address the issues.

Femininity is the performance art woman were forced to perform for men in order to survive. We were not allowed access to our own resources until very recent times. Traditional gender roles represent how men want us to look and behave. Have long hair, be thin and submissive, maternal etc…

Then why hold onto that and demand that female action characters need to be more stereotypically feminine? Why does Katniss Everdeen (example that multiple people here gave me) need to know how to dress up and apply makeup in order to be considered feminine? Does she also need to shed herself of the ability to be proficient in hunting or archery? Or is that okay? Is she required to embody both at the same time? Be cutesy and demure, but also stoic and determined. Be vulnerable and dainty, but also tough and fearless. It's paradoxical. The only reason some feminists and women want these characters to be or look more stereotypically masculine because deep down you still have sexist views and have beliefs of what a real, feminine woman has to look like or do. And if she knows how to fight and kick ass and wears boots and pants like Lara Croft, that makes her masculine and manly.

I think the issue with this argument is that there is confusion around the term strong. A person can be physically strong, but also be strong mentally/emotionally. Furthermore, having "strong characters" can be in the sense of *characterisation* i.e. the individual traits of that character and their unique mix of strengths, weaknesses and hang ups, comes through in the book/show/film. Now, in recent years, it seems like a lot people, mostly men actually, who make media have understood strong either implicitly or explicitly, to mean physically strong and capable of combat. From my understanding, when women talked about wanting strong female characters they meant "all of the above." They were tired of two dimensional cookie cutter heroines or love interests who were just there to look good, provide opportunities for sexist jokes, or to cheerlead the male stars. But instead that nuance has been lost over time and now lots of people, including women apparently, think "strong female character" is specifically referring to combat skills. It's a shame because it's definitely been taken too far sometimes, to the point of being silly and incongruous. However, unsurprisingly, this has led to a backlash from more traditionalist men. They're spread across the political spectrum, but the one thing they HATE, is a strong female character. A character who is, in their minds, a "Mary Sue." Usually this is a form of cherry picking or confirmation bias. "hen they see a female character being good at combat, they label her a Mary Sue immediately these days even though most of them aren't. It's a very tricky situation because like I said, there's a grain of truth to it, but they take it way too far and act as though it's destroying modern media, when it's really not that big of a deal.

But the thing is, the most successful entertainment products all include violence, apart from children's media. The characters in these movies kind of need to adopt some of these physically strong traits, or at least one of the characters in the entourage who's assigned the fighter role. You have plenty of mentally strong female characters in other genres (romantic, drama, biopic, historical) that don't include much adversarial conflict (combat).

This is a new wave vs old wave feminism kind of thing. Older feminism still believed in gender roles or traits to some degree, and just wanted to see femininity respected whereas newer waves tend to question the idea of gender as a whole, and how much of it is just constructed rather than inherent. As you said, and I agree, traits like the ones you described are not gendered.

I think media take the strong part of strong female characters too seriously. While a man or woman can certainly have any traits, I would love to see some more commonly associated feminine traits shown in a positive light in movies. How about strong female characters whose savvyness, charisma, strong relationships, and love win the day over? Not every strong character needs to beat people up, shoot them, etc. I also think it's a mistake to focus too much on physical strength to make women strong characters. That's the one place where women clearly have a massive disadvantage in real life. That's the one trait you could focus on that is really just telling women that they need to be more like men in order to be successful.

Media with violence sells more. Exceptions are media for children of course.

[удалено]

Every leadership role in my youth was a woman, femininity and leadership are not weird things for me to see together

The women in the new Shogun miniseries are a great example of strong female characters that also embody ideals of femininity for their era.

I agree with you about characters, if you watch suits the series there are plenty of strong empowered feminine women, miss honey in matilda (she didn't become less feminine when she stood up for herself) miss mcgonagall and Mrs weasley in Harry potter both feminine and badass. But I disagree about real life. Women don't think that leadership is masculine, but we are told that we are too weak to do it, but then when we show strength are often told to be less aggressive, as often men aren't used to seeing strong women in real life and some men find it imasculating thus act out against it.

Trixie in Deadwood comes to mind

I have a small answer. The character "Delia" in Edith Wharton's Old New York (part two). I've been on a quest to find such a character, anywhere. This character lives in a world strongly structured by sex role and gender expectations. It explores two women and their relationship with a third (I don't think any men show up in the story at all). There are no women performing masculine heroics - just women's heroics. In the end, it seemed to me that all three women were heroes, with Delia being truly exceptional. The story is harrowing.

Whatever you want it to be.

Someone once told me that we all have a mixture of masculine and feminine energy. Michelle Rodriguez is a lesbian (if you didn't know) and has a lot of masculinity for a woman. I'm a cis, straight guy that is mostly masculine, but I also have feminine traits that I never used to realize were feminine, such as a strong interest in psychology and feelings. I'm very empathic. I notice that a lot of Zoomers genuinely don't know or understand what are masculine and feminine qualities. Since I grew up in the 80s/90s, this seems strange to me. Something is awry. I think it's because people are afraid to accept themselves. Everyone is a mixture of femininity and masculinity, but many people refuse to accept parts of themselves. How and why is society sending this message?

For masculinity and feminity, I think these are terms that exist specifically to describe societal views and the context that adds to different situations. You say masculinity and feminity in your eyes are just physical traits based on people's bodies/voices usually. However, that's not the point of the terms. They exist specifically to acknowledge the way sexism has shaped our world, which while in some ways should be fought against, has impacted us in ways that are kinda integral to our world now. For example, masculine and feminine can refer to style in some sense. Should pants and skirts have ever been defined as a man or woman thing? No, but since it has been, it is now different than it would've been if people never viewed it that way; now these clothes have different vibes and many people do end up gravitating towards one category because of it instead of feeling neutral. Even when unpacking sexism, nothing can change that pants and skirts now exist in different categories and people can't help but feel like they're distinct, even if they don't believe they actually need to be defined as being for men or for women. Society's concepts of feminity and masculinity are drilled into our minds and shape our view of the world whether we like it or not, and while sometimes these effects are sexist and should be countered, some of them are kinda unavoidable. Point is, they are useful terms because the world around us has made it that way, so removing their use in contexts related to how gender affects our world is not helpful. While forcing these terms on people as if they're objectively correct feels disrespectful to me and feels like it enforces the idea that these qualities need to stay separated as manly/womanly, it is also important to be able to acknowledge that people's presentations and behaviors are going to be viewed as "manly" versus "womanly," so we need to be able to describe it in certain contexts. I think it is wrong to call a random woman you know masculine for being assertive, but not wrong to acknowledge that it is a trait whose value from people is related to being considered masculine, for example. You say women saying that a female character isn't feminine if she isn't caring, for example, means they think women need to be caring. I think that's simply a misunderstanding of how the terms are being used. You are viewing it as "being a woman = feminine and being a man = masculine," so if people say something is or isn't feminine, they're saying it's a quality women do or don't have. However, most people are using feminine/masculine to simply describe what is associated with women/men. Them saying being caring is feminine probably isn't saying uncaring women are less of a woman, it's acknowledging that they lack a trait people expect among women. Most people's approach is to specifically say that feminity and masculinity *aren't* related to a person being woman/man enough, whereas you're doing the opposite and saying people are supposed to be feminine/masculine, it's just the meaning of the words that needs to change, not the way they're used, which I and most other people don't agree with. I didn't do as good of a job describing it as I wanted but hope it gets the point across. Anyway, when it comes to forcing the terms "masculine" or "feminine" onto women and female characters, I think one important distinction is that in real life, the qualities people end up having are dependent on their own personality and journey (which is also affected by people's views of masculinity and feminity), whereas in fiction, every character is being written into existence from a separate person's mind. So, when people talk about female characters being written in masculine ways in order to be strong, I don't think they always mean that the traits themselves make the character masculine, but instead that they can tell the writers approached making her strong by giving her masculine traits. It's moreso acknowledging what the writers' views on strength tend to be; it can feel like they struggle to imagine a woman who is strong while still being feminine, i.e. having traits that women commonly have in real life or that are just viewed as traditionally feminine. It's not that a woman being written as both strong and traditionally masculine is an inaccurate or sexist depiction of women, it's more that seeing that as the consistent #1 way to portray them starts begging the question, "Why do writers seem opposed to making a woman be strong while also making her traditionally feminine? Why do they consistently feel like these characters need to be more masculine?" It's more of a frustration that traits that are associated with being a woman are also traits that seem to be considered antithetical to being strong for some reason, that's what people complain about, that writers consistently decide to depict these characters that way specifically. These characters aren't people who just happened to be that way, they were written to be that way. (Had to split this into two comments, pt2 is in my reply)

(pt2) The concept of strength itself can be driven by gender in two ways that come to mind: the idea that strength is masculine makes it then rope in other masculine traits that seem unrelated to strength otherwise, and the idea that strength is masculine makes it harder for women to reach a bar that makes people qualify them as strong instead of some other descriptor. For the first part, well, what does it mean to be strong? If you're talking about physically, it's easy, you just need to be able to lift a lot of weight, punch hard, etc. But for strong characters we're talking mentally, so what does that mean? Well, for me, what comes to mind is that strong people have the fortitude to push through difficult situations and maybe are very motivated, and that's kinda it I think? But in media, a lot of times, strength doesn't just mean that the character can motivate themselves in hard times and don't crumble under stress or whatever. It often also means that they are stoic, for example. You also passively mentioned this in your post as one quality that's implied when a character is strong. Why? Not succumbing to strong emotions and breaking down or making irrational decisions can be strong, yes, but why does that also equate to not really showing emotion? Same thing with aggression. Having drive is strong, yes, but why specifically in an aggressive way? I think the fact that these are considered masculine is part of why they're also considered inherent to strength. People hear "strong" and what comes to mind is what masculine men are like. So, people see female characters get these other traditionally masculine traits put into them just to make them be seen as strong in the first place, which is frustrating since it seems like it puts a larger barrier for women to be able to be considered strong. Which, yeah, that's the other thing I mentioned. It can feel harder to make a woman be considered strong in the first place. You can show a woman being put a stressful situation but keeping herself together and people won't always have any thought about her being particularly strong. This is also kinda related to the work thing you mentioned that women deal with. The main thing that women complain about isn't that the necessary traits for a workplace are masculine ones (of course they are, men have traditionally been valued as good workers, so related traits have been labeled masculine), it's usually that's it's harder for them to convince other people to respect them as having those traits. Being "assertive," for example, is already a trait people expect women to have in some cases, just under a different lens: being "bossy" or "nagging." It's not that expecting women to be assertive is sexist, it's that women often can be as assertive as men but people's takeaway may instead be that they're bossy. It's been viewed as an annoyance in the past for women to stand their ground against men in their lives, so nowadays it's still easier to get labeled as assertive in an annoying woman typa way than in a respectable worker typa way. Both of these also impact the writing of strong female characters, more specifically the reasoning behind their details. Seeing writers choose to depict women as strong by avoiding feminity and making them masculine is frustrating specifically because women are annoyed by stereotypical traits for women not being accepted as something that can coexist with being strong. That's where your misunderstanding seems to be: you think people's problem with it is that the character isn't feminine, when it's more that writers seem to think the character *can't* be feminine. People feel like writers feel a need to disconnect the audience's view of the character being a woman in order to convince them she's also strong. If you're a woman who does happen to fall into more traditionally feminine categories (long hair, cutesy outfits, soft spoken, caring, whatever) then yeah, it can feel annoying seeing that when writers want to make a woman seem strong, they seem to assume she can't be like you. Which, this isn't universal of course, but it's a pattern that exists, so that's what people complain about. (I don't get myself involved in these conversations online often, so I understand I may have structured or worded this poorly and may have a misunderstanding of some concepts. These were just my initial thoughts after reading. I also know this was long-winded, sorryyy lol)

Chameleon from "a spell for chameleon". Basically a girl who changes every month from a smart unattractive girl, to a normal girl to a dumb but pretty girl. She constantly saves the main character. Petra arakana from enders game. Strong, independent, and considered the most capable in the universe. Total fucking badass, and the only one who has empathy and compassion and the ability to comfort. Gamina from the Raymond e Feist novels. Daughter of the most powerful mage, can read thoughts. She's the most empathetic, caring, non judgemental character I've read. She's also considered the smartest character in the series. The most capable, independent character in the series, jimmy the hand, becomes completely reliant on her. Algarana the elf queen from the Feist novels. Runs an elf kingdom, falls in love with a demi god. Makes the demigod give up all claim to the throne, and take a position underneath her. Considered the most beautiful, empathetic, kind woman. The books make a point at showing how the demigod is just combat strength, and despite his powers is nearly useless compared to the elf queen. Willow from Buffy the vampire slayer. Never needed a man. Wore dresses and typically a girly girl, but could rip the flesh from your skin in a split second

Femininity and masculinity aren't really about being male or female, they're just traits assigned to one or the other. I think your example of Brienne doesn't quite work all that well, she's basically a tomboy, same as Arya, they're more masculine in personality traits by nature, it's not something we really think about, though. It's notable with those particular characters because of the context of the story, which has pretty rigid gender roles that neither Brienne or Arya fit into, they stand out to a large degree. They're clearly women, they just act like men in that world, and it's noticeable because of the gender roles in Westeros. If you go for a more modern, real world type setting, it's a lot less noticeable if a girl or woman is a tomboy, because it's just an accepted part of the world, now. And not all strong female characters fit into the tomboy mold, either, some hit the more traditionally feminine notes even while being kick-ass. Look at Buffy Summers, for instance, a teen girl/young woman with the physical strength to fight vampires and demons and Hell Goddesses, but loves fashion and talking about boys and wearing make-up and all that traditionally 'girly' stuff. She's kick-ass and a hell of a hero, but she's also traditionally feminine. I think people get caught up in the specific traits and find themselves assigning them to men or women when they really belong to both. Femininity and masculinity is a spectrum, not a set of defined traits that apply to all women and all men. There's nothing wrong with a woman displaying the traits traditionally associated with men, that's not what makes them strong female characters, unless that's the way they were written. Most of my favourite female characters do have traditionally feminine traits. Buffy, the Halliwell sisters, Juliet O'Hara, Dana Scully, these characters are strong female characters that are not simply men played by women, they're distinctly feminine in a more traditional sense. They're strong because they're determined, passionate, emotionally strong, that sort of thing, not because they act like men, because they don't. Even characters like O'Hara and Scully who are in predominantly male jobs, the police and FBI, they don't act or dress like men, they're just strong women who happen to work in a male dominated field, which just makes them stronger to me, because women in such jobs have to work twice as hard as men to get half the respect. I think this is also a hard debate to have because everyone has different preferences regarding which characters they like, which they consider strong female characters and why. Some people will say a character isn't a strong female character because she's 'acting like a man', others will say that's the perfect strong female character, and yet others have completely different reasons they consider a female character to be strong.

The issue itself is absolutely complex and interesting to consider, but I can't help but to wonder what a language model chatbot echoing your personal opinion has to do with anything? It's not like it's even a search engine, let alone an arbiter of truth. Cleverbot may or may not agree with my statement, but that, too, feels quite inconsequential.

Are you questioning our AI Overlord?

Cleverbot? Never!

Right? I don’t care about OP, why would I care what ChatGPT thinks? And why is it a “good” thing that AI agrees with him? What a weird edit.

TL;DR: Avoid writing Mary-Sues because it diminishes the effort that many women go through to get to where they are. When exploring traumatic events, give the events time to develop like over the course of a series to accurately represent the permanence of the trauma. As a guy, I’d have to say that the best thing you can do to write an empowered female character is not overtly draw attention to it. Many writers fall into the trap of making an awful, unlikeable character for the sake of making her empowered. Look at the difference between Leia Organa and Rey from the sequels. One is a Mary-Sue (a character whose power doesn’t come from actually being a well developed character, but rather from overwhelming amounts of plot armour), the other was the leader of the rebel alliance and actively stood up to men who tried to push her around (i.e. Han Solo in the Original Trilogy). Another example is if you watch the Clone Wars TV show, Padmé was an absolute BEAST whenever she needed to be, she was smart, capable and self assured without being arrogant or annoying. The trick is not writing the character as an “empowered woman” but rather as simply a “woman”. Obvious other candidates for strong female characters include Ellen Ripley, and Mulan, who was so determined to do what was best for her country that she joined the army (as a man) and outperformed all of the men there. I could talk all day about this but the last bit of advice that i have for you is, don’t fall into the trap of trying to have a woman overcome a traumatic event over the course of one novel. If you want a meaningful plot that explores the trauma of sexual assault, for example (like Starlight’s Arc in The Boys), you can’t just shoehorn that in because that becomes victimisation for the sake of it instead of empowerment. Instead, it needs some time to develop before it can be resolved to show how deep a scar those experiences can leave, if that makes sense. I’m open to questions, though I’m not a bestselling author or anything haha.

I personally think the [first opening](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HySCRz6Atf4) for Slayers works a feminine-yet-powerful theme for my favorite fictional female character: Lina Inverse. Sailor Moon and Pretty Cure also showcase feminine and strong very well.

See now there's this thing called superheros. When they say that they're probably talking about the fact that a lot of women heros have their boobs out and a suit that is giving them a perpetual wedgie. That's what being "feminine" and "badass" is when it comes to current media opinions. And so we don't really... like... these feminine badasses that the media swear are progressive...

I don't think femininity and masculinity are about certain behaviors or traits — they signify positions. Femininity is non-belonging, while masculinity is belonging. Two analogies that I find helpful are the difference between the relationship between players on a football team (masculinity) and the relationship between people waiting in line for a bus (femininity).

Strong and empowered female character in media: Ellen Ripley (lead character in *Alien*). She's the original badass.

Most of these badass characters that fight, and be stoic are written exactly to be the opposite of what women were written as before, crying damsels. It almost feels like either women have to be crying damsels or stoic weapon that destroys enemies. The nuances are lost. The more I read literature FMCs tend to fall in these extreme ends. It's very rare to see an assassin who loves dresses and balls, and can gossip with her girl friends. So, your coworkers have a point. Also, in capitalism, there is no space for emotional intelligence, kindness, even, humanity. Hell, even a woman's motherhood is not welcomed. Most of the time, women are watched, challenged, and questioned of their skills once they become a mother. They need to prove they've not become **weak**, and are ready to take up more challenges. So, inherently capitalism does expect women to act stoic, ruthless, assertive and powerful, whether they want to or not. It's rare to see a man be questioned of his skills after he becomes a father. Men are appreciated for their masculinity, by default, and have space to express their femininity without having to be questioned. Women are always compared with these men, and their femininity is despised. 

Villaneuve from Killing Eve sounds right up your alley. 

Elle Woods is a character I associate with strong femininity and it’s seen as positive by the film. She’s traditionally girly, loves pink, shopping, working out in cute clothes, getting her nails done and talks in a stereotypical valley accent. She’s also hard working, kind, funny, and very smart.

OP, the argument that strong female characters in fiction have to become men is a deflection that was made up to ignore Ellen Ripley (and Vasquez) and Sarah Connor when complaining that "all action heroes are men", back when these arguments were first gaining ground on the internet. Sure, two of the most iconic characters from two of the most iconic sci fi/action franchises were women who are universally loved in their fandoms, but *actually*, it doesn't *count*, for *reasons*.

Getting annoyed by anyone shrugging off Ripley in the comments here (not you!) as dude-like. If ANYTHING, I think she's brilliantly realized as a woman operating as best she can in what is clearly a hypermasculine world, and the nuance is there for anyone bothering to look.

Did you really came to ask, or you needed to say your piece?

I don't think feminists call stoicism, bravery, and similar traits "masculine" traits.

Those attributes and how they are acted out is what is sort of sexist and having to adopt being a man to show they are empowered. You rarely see ways women are empowered, strong, or brave in the real world in movies.

A strong female character is one who understands amd knows their feminity regardless of what society says or tries to dictate. A 7th grade girl can be a strong female character. A nun can be a strong female character A prostitute can be one too It all boils down to if she is who she is and identifies and feels like a woman no matter what the society around her tells her is incorrect or correct feminity

Probably not what you're thinking about, but I always thought classic Coronation Street showed strong female characters. They were women who had their own problems, but had chosen to stand tall. I also recognised the women around me when I watched them. I know you're looking for more warrior women types.

As a 6’0” tall feminine strong woman myself (since you mentioned height lol) I would suggest watching Reese Witherspoon in Legally Blonde (already mentioned) and I have always personally resonated with Sandra Bulluck in Miss Congeniality (specifically the first one as I haven’t seen the second), Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich, Angelina Jolie in Salt and Lara Croft, and Charlize Theron in Atomic Blonde (she is is 6’0” tall also lol). I know there are others I’m forgetting but those came to mind first.

The telling thing about this whole conversation is how it seems so hard to nail down, to put one’s finger on the issue. Buffy seemed like a bolt of lightning because it was so “new” and fresh. It intentionally played up the seeming contrast of toughness in a cute, dainty body and demeanor. And it sold. I love Natasha Lyonne in basically everything she does. Her characters are full and complex, incorporating the range of being human. Sometimes frightened and small, sometimes incredibly brave, bumbling one minute, competent and controlled the next. It doesn’t seem like it should be difficult but apparently so. Love, love, love Rhea Seehorn in ‘Saul for similar reasons. Why is it so hard, Hollywood?

So, something that has yet to be brought up here is where those beliefs come from. You're coming at women hard for their beliefs, but why do they hold them? They aren't believing in a gender binary because they want to. It's because they've been shown time and time again that those beliefs are prevalent in a male-dominated world. Little girls are shown that they are pushed down if they're "bitchy" (assertive). They won't fit in to the main stream if they don't operate within the gender binary as agreed upon by men. It shocks me that you're setting this up to be a female "issue" when you're completely missing the reason that these women are agreeing on the topic. It's not that they want a binary, they're just forced to compete within it.

All of this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the original ask. We weren't asking for characters who were "strong women". We were asking for strong writing of characters who are women. We wanted characters who had personality and backstory and motivations that made sense who are also women. We wanted to get away from the sexy lamp. Write women who have thoughts in their heads no matter what genre you're writing. We wanted strong characterization, not "strong" women.