# A thread I made on Reddit regarding stock (overaggressive) "strong" female characters



## glutton (Apr 22, 2017)

Some hype for "baeness" as I perceive it in regards to fictional female characters of course, but some interesting discussion too I think:

A thought on the very aggressive type of "strong" female character people complain about being overused : Fantasy

My main theory on why this archetype is overused (moreso in western fiction) is that many writers are concerned their female characters won't seem convincingly strong enough without it. If they are "really" impressive though (not necessarily in power, it could also just be awesome confidence or boldness in certain situations), they'll hardly come off as weak just because they cry or display a nurturing personality. Let them shine as brightly as male characters and they won't need the crutch of acting mean and angry all the time to seem strong.


----------



## pmmg (Apr 22, 2017)

Just a short while ago there were no good movie roles for women, not it seems they are overly aggressive. Fact is, the current trend is for kick ass babes in fiction, and that trend will seem to continue. The poster on the other thread is asking why? I think to that lies along the lines of just some type of mass group understanding that all of sudden we need more women in these roles in front of our audiences. Maybe it will pass, maybe not.

I will say, I am not sure I agree with the poster from reddit in that there is an over abundance of overly aggressive women. I wish he would have said some of the characters he had in mind when he was inspired to post. I do think there are a number that have me as a viewer saying things like 'only in hollywood'. I guess the issue I would raise for some of them is they are just not real. Kick ass babes are cool, for sure, but I do feel they are a little over played, and more than a few are not credible. 

But occasionally, as I see in all things really, some things are credible and that when it becomes super cool.

Most recent example in my mind is wonder woman from the Batman vs Superman movie. DC has always done a good job, I felt, of showing where characters fell along the lines of who was more powerful than who, and nothing is more powerful than Superman that I can tell expect maybe God. (Yes, it was not a great movie). Here we have a scene where Superman is fighting Doomsday, and doomsday is supposed to be a character that is so unstoppable that Superman must give up his life to defeat him. Superman, just as matter of fact, is way more powerful than Wonder Woman (and WW is pretty powerful, granted). But then we see Wonder Woman slice off Doomsday's arm with her sword. That scene was to show that she is bad ass too, but that should never have happened. If WW can cut off his arm, she can cut off his head. And if she can cut off his head there is no need for Superman to make the ultimate sacrifice. So, in an effort to give WW some cred, we weakened the whole Superman vs Doomsday theme. I wish would have thought that through.


If I compare the portrayal of WW to Vasquez in Aliens, Vasquez was bad ass, and they did not have to contrive some action where she gets to do something just for sake of it to make that show.


----------



## glutton (Apr 22, 2017)

pmmg said:


> Superman, just as matter of fact, is way more powerful than Wonder Woman



Depending on the writer (since comics are written by numerous writers with different interpretations) this is not always supposed to be the case, for example Gail Simone considered her Wonder Woman to be a 9 to Superman's 10 in strength and a peer of him in combat due to superior skill (and had her defeat a mind controlled Superman). With regard to Doomsday in the movie it was made to look like the kryptonite was needed to beat him, Wonder Woman sliced off his arm but he regrew it so it's not clear he couldn't have grown another head assuming she managed to take it.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Apr 22, 2017)

Reminded me of this: 

Iron Fist and Slapping the Joker: How Not to Write Strong Female Characters


----------



## pmmg (Apr 22, 2017)

Well, I am going to stick to the argument that if Doomsday can be cut to pieces, he can be defeated, and superman's sacrifice is not required, arguably, superman's sacrifice does not work in that movie and is part of the reason why it is not really a good movie. The power of Superman's sacrifice comes from the necessity that he make it, and that he makes the choice to do so to save everyone else.

I would add list just about every warrior babe in Once upon a Time. I don't find any of those women credible. Their combat scenes are mostly set up to make them all look better, but to do so it requires that all the male characters behave somewhat unmanly. Its a chick show, so that's what its for, I guess. 

Next to them, I would put up the example of Katnis. I think she is for the most part credible. Maybe a little too skilled with a bow, but that don't bother me. Both the male characters in her life did not have to shrink to let her have her scenes. They just had their own issues which can happen.


----------



## glutton (Apr 22, 2017)

pmmg said:


> Well, I am going to stick to the argument that if Doomsday can be cut to pieces, he can be defeated, and superman's sacrifice is not required, arguably, superman's sacrifice does not work in that movie and is part of the reason why it is not really a good movie. The power of Superman's sacrifice comes from the necessity that he make it, and that he makes the choice to do so to save everyone else.
> 
> I would add list just about every warrior babe in Once upon a Time. I don't find any of those women credible. Their combat scenes are mostly set up to make them all look better, but to do so it requires that all the male characters behave somewhat unmanly. Its a chick show, so that's what its for, I guess.
> 
> Next to them, I would put up the example of Katnis. I think she is for the most part credible. Maybe a little too skilled with a bow, but that don't bother me. Both the male characters in her life did not have to shrink to let her have her scenes. They just had their own issues which can happen.



I would guess that my own female characters would probably be considered un-credible for you, but that's what they are meant for after all. They are supposed to be exaggerated hyper-badass "cuties" who are often stronger than almost any guy in their worlds (and the few guys who might be stronger than them, it's not by enough that the girls' skill, resilience etc. is not enough to let them cope).


----------



## pmmg (Apr 22, 2017)

I would not know, I have not looked at your characters. But it sounds like the world has been created around such a reality, so....I will accept if that is how it is. You know, the last Anime I watched was called...(okay, I could not find it, something to do with Ice). Anyway, the idea was all the girls were in a school training to be the protectors of the planet, and all of them had some male counterpart who could enhance their powers but not really fight anything of the scale the girls could. Yes, the anime had a lot of risque stuff in it, and that was part of the appeal. It is true, I am sure, that none of that could ever possibly happen, but I went with it cause they had created the world such that that was their reality. For whatever reason, the girls were all super-warrior killers. So, yes, I can accept. 

Reading the Slap the Joker article, I feel I want to drift into his comments on racism, but not the purpose to this thread. I think his comment is probably right in that it was written by men who knew that needed not to have a shrinking violet, and they could not really come up with anything else. The Rachel Dawes scene did not bother me, but until I read the article, I had no memory of it either, so...I guess it did kind of amount to nothing. Meh, I like the 60's batman best anyway. Yvonne Craig may kick people with a big Ka-Pow on the screen, but I bought it. It worked for me.


----------



## glutton (Apr 22, 2017)

pmmg said:


> But it sounds like the world has been created around such a reality, so....I will accept if that is how it is.



Yeah one of the first things established in most of my books is that female humans can be top of top tier, elite champion level physical fighters... usually by the MC or a major supporting character showing it XD

BTW since I used the term "cuties" without explaining I use that term in a tongue in cheek fashion to describe my heroines who usually have multiple out of the following traits:

-covered in scars
-usually filthy
-built like a tank
-wielding a massive weapon
-wearing bulky armor

So "cutie" translates more to "intimidating presence." They're cuties to me though! 

PS. I think the anime you're referring to is Freezing.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 22, 2017)

I object to your use of the word bae. 

Notwithstanding my objection, I find this tripe maddening. No one would say that Mr. Smith in Mr Smith goes to Washington is a weak character. Why can't we have a strong female like that. Why feel the need to constantly make the woman punch a person. Why not outsmart him. Why not out plan? 

I think the over aggressive female is steeped in laziness and misunderstanding. Punching is easy to write and immediate and the sign of a lazy writer. Further, when a person hears strength they think physical not emotional or mental. A truly strong character can be physically weak but strong in spirit and mind and still be a strong character.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 22, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Reminded me of this:
> 
> Iron Fist and Slapping the Joker: How Not to Write Strong Female Characters



Well, this line seemed ridiculous to me, and very objectionable:

"I named this trope after a scene in 2008’s *inexplicably beloved* _The Dark Knight_."

But otherwise the article was spot-on, I think. At least, the point was well made, and I have difficulty objecting to _that_.

It makes me wish even more for a superhero movie staring a gay superhero, where we could have his male love interest "Slap the Joker," heh. (But please don't read too much into this comment, heh.)


----------



## Annoyingkid (Apr 22, 2017)

> Why feel the need to constantly make the woman punch a person. Why not outsmart him. Why not out plan?



Why not both?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 22, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Why not both?



This post is useless without the meme.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Apr 22, 2017)

The reason they are overaggressive and have chips on their shoulders  is because  they're  faux action  girls. But the writer has to still sell their cred as warriors or whatever so has her being rude to allies with a chip on her shoulder to force the message that shes as tough as any man, because lord knows it won't get shown through legit, plot driving feats. 

When one writes their character with the mindset of properly showing  why a character is respected, the need to compensate by having her punch men left and right and call herself a "Badass bitch" and "Not like other girls" disappears.


----------



## valiant12 (Apr 22, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> This post is useless without the meme.



Why one meme when you can have


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 22, 2017)

valiant12 said:


> Why one meme when you can have



No me gusta.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Apr 22, 2017)

valiant12 said:


> Why one meme when you can have



This makes me inexplicably uncomfortable


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Apr 22, 2017)

I think one of the reasons this trope is so relevant in fantasy has to do with a misunderstanding of what agency is compounded with the modern setting of most fantasy. Feudal settings don't really lend themselves to gender equality (I'm not saying you can't do it, we are writing fantasy after all, but the idea that all people are equal is a pretty modern one)

 In my opinion some of the problem coming from the idea that if a woman is happy with her place in a sexist society then she must be a weak character. This is simply not true. In fact the female characters I respect most aren't the ones that rebel, but the ones who learn to play the game so well they end up with all the power and no one even realizes it (extra points if she works her way to the top using her mind instead of her body).


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 22, 2017)

I don't know if it's overused, maybe just over noticed, just like the character that tells too many lame jokes and is trying too hard to be funny. Or the character that wears glasses and is always quoting science and math as it relates to the current situation is trying too hard to be smart. 

These things have always been around, and we're taking notice more because of people are paying more attention to this specific aspect. 

Doing stuff like this can be lazy writing. But it's also a form of short hand for establishing character types when there isn't a lot of room or need for character development. Short hand has it's place, but when you use it in place of character development for important characters, that's when it becomes an issue. Because if that's all their is to the character then IMHO they don't have any dimension, which, like I said, can be fine if that's all they character is meant to be.

For me, characters can have any combination of traits, how ever many there are. And I find some of the most interesting ones to be ones that have traits that vary and in some cases are incongruent with their archetypes. To me, it gives them more dimension. After all humans are a bag of contradictions. 

There's no reason one can't have a butch female detective, who swears like a sailor, and can punch like a ton of bricks, but likes to dress in frilly pink dresses on days off and collects porcine unicorns. None of these things, to me, establishes a character as strong or weak. How the character deals with adversity and everything thrown their way determines that. And sometimes the answer is not one or the other, but a mixture.

You can have a burly male detective who's completely in charge at work, kicks ass because he's all out of bubblegum, but goes home and gets physically and mentally abused by his wife.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Apr 22, 2017)

When I think of the stock "strong female character" I think of the Black Widow-type warrior badass who's beating up a dozen badguys at once. The Action Girl trope. Or else, a girl who is snarky and tough-acting but never...actually...does...anything? 

Nothing wrong with being able to beat up a dozen badguys at once (as long as you're not overly concerned with realism, those are difficult odds for even the best warriors), or with being snarky,  but characters like that really often end up having no development. That is to say, a lot of variations on the "strong female character" are one-dimensional stock characters that end up in stories because they're easy to plug into a story. I guess. I don't really know. 

Edit: all this to say, a lot of the problem is lack of depth and character development. A more complex character would have multiple sides to her...

Every discussion of strong female characters seems to get contentious. Why? Also, why is "strong female character" such a common term to hear? Do we know exactly what it means? What do we mean by strong?


----------



## Chessie (Apr 22, 2017)

^ The Black Widow trope is different than the action-girl one. Black Widow characters use their sex appeal to kill and outsmart. They act like assassins, basically. Action-girls use combat. One is more feminine while the other is tomboyish. (A simple explanation)


----------



## glutton (Apr 22, 2017)

Chessie said:


> ^ The Black Widow trope is different than the action-girl one. Black Widow characters use their sex appeal to kill and outsmart. They act like assassins, basically. Action-girls use combat. One is more feminine while the other is tomboyish. (A simple explanation)



She means like Black Widow the Marvel superhero I believe, not the femme fatale trope.


----------



## Vaporo (Apr 22, 2017)

To me, the problem is that these characters are so often just a token character so that the writers can tell everyone that they're not sexist. Or, worse, they're just pandering to a female audience. Bad writing affects both men and women characters. Plus, I don't know how many game covers I see where there's 2 or 3 generic-looking men and then one generic-looking woman off to the side.

In my opinion, if you're going out of your way to make a woman seem "strong," then you're probably going to come out with this kind of flat character with a chip on her shoulder. The character I always hear talked about as a good example of a strong female character is Ripley from Alien. The reason that I think she works was because she was probably conceived as, then written as throughout production, a woman. The writers didn't need to force any personality onto her. They just wrote a character that they thought made sense as a woman working on the crew of a small ship and then forced into a terrible situation.


----------



## glutton (Apr 22, 2017)

Vaporo said:


> In my opinion, if you're going out of your way to make a woman seem "strong," then you're probably going to come out with this kind of flat character with a chip on her shoulder.



I know you said "probably" but I go out of my way to make my female characters seem strong and it never occurred to me that they should have to be mean with a chip on their shoulder to seem so. If you're overflowing enough with power, confidence and/or courage you hardly need to also act mean to come off strong, I think it's more that writers who go with this stock trope tend not to want to give the character sufficient "real" (ie. consequential) badassness to seem strong without the abrasive attitude.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Apr 23, 2017)

Chessie said:


> ^ The Black Widow trope is different than the action-girl one. Black Widow characters use their sex appeal to kill and outsmart. They act like assassins, basically. Action-girls use combat. One is more feminine while the other is tomboyish. (A simple explanation)



Oops, referring to the character the Black Widow, as in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. She's kinda like the ultimate example of an action girl to me.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 23, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Oops, referring to the character the Black Widow, as in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. She's kinda like the ultimate example of an action girl to me.



Ah, ok! Totally the wrong thing then.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 23, 2017)

Vaporo said:


> In my opinion, if you're going out of your way to make a woman seem "strong," then you're probably going to come out with this kind of flat character with a chip on her shoulder. The character I always hear talked about as a good example of a strong female character is Ripley from Alien. The reason that I think she works was because she was probably conceived as, then written as throughout production, a woman. The writers didn't need to force any personality onto her. They just wrote a character that they thought made sense as a woman working on the crew of a small ship and then forced into a terrible situation.



Actually, Ripley was originally intended to be a man.

Ellen Ripley | Xenopedia | Fandom powered by Wikia

Here's the relevant text from that wiki link. 



> Ripley was originally a male character named "Martin Roby".[26] While the majority of the characters in the original Alien script were written so that they could be either male or female, Roby was always intended to be a man.



I think this kind of shows a well written character is a well written character, regardless of the sex someone decides to assign them. And to me at least, don't focus on the sex of the character, focus on making them good characters with dimension.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 23, 2017)

While I do appreciate the increasing instances of female action heroes (even if, as people have pointed out, there are far too many of them who are one-dimensional and dull), I always find it very fascinating to look, not at them, but at _the people they're beating up_. As much as there are more female action heroes than there ever have been in the past, I'm forced to wonder: where are all the female grunts, the nameless henchwomen who the heroes cut their way through like tissue paper? With few exceptions, it always seems to be men, doesn't it? This brings me to tokenism; various writers, in an effort to be inclusive, create a Strong Female Character to be part of their main cast, while forgetting that background characters are also incredibly important. But I would call this superficial inclusivity. This suggests to me that women doing action is still on some level regarded as a gimmick; female fighters currently aren't allowed to be _unimportant_. But this unimportance is essential, I feel, for genuinely altering the gender imbalance in action narratives.

Nowadays the only times when I can look past this exclusion of nameless female grunts is either in historical stories where we have definitive knowledge that, say, women in that period weren't allowed to enlist in the army, or in stories like _Mad Max Fury Road_, where the gender of the nameless bad guys is actually an essential part of the story's thematic statement. Otherwise, if a fantasy/sci-fi setting doesn't have overt sexism, I see no reason why women wouldn't number the ranks of the nameless hero-fodder.


----------



## Russ (Apr 23, 2017)

I must be reading the wrong books.  I very rarely see "tank" female characters in the novels I read.

I see a few in comics, but they don't bother me any more than the hyper-aggressive male characters in that medium.

The hyper-strong female characters I have seen in major films I have quite enjoyed.  I thought Kill Bill was awesome, and I eagerly await the release of Atomic Blonde. I like Blade Runner and enjoy Resident Evil for what it is.  But the way characters are chosen and written for many major films is based on things other than literary, story or character merit.


----------



## pmmg (Apr 23, 2017)

Penpilot said:


> Actually, Ripley was originally intended to be a man.



Well, I am glad they decided to change that up. That story would not have worked if Ripley was male.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Apr 23, 2017)

If an aggressive MC SFC  falls in love with the main male lead gives up fighting and becomes a soft, submissive housewife, while her husband who surpassed her decades of training quickly (chosen one), went on heroic adventures with their son, leaving her behind. She says "I'll be with you in spirit"

:showoff: Is that empowering if the writer says that's what she really wants in life, or is it not.  From one perspective, her character was tamed and domesticated into a less prestigous role, but some might say he allowed her to chase her dream of homemaking and that calling it less prestigious is because of historically feminine work being devalued, and that as a housewife she's still a SFC. Just strong in nonviolent ways.


----------



## glutton (Apr 23, 2017)

Russ said:


> I must be reading the wrong books.  I very rarely see "tank" female characters in the novels I read.
> 
> I see a few in comics, but they don't bother me any more than the hyper-aggressive male characters in that medium.
> 
> The hyper-strong female characters I have seen in major films I have quite enjoyed.  I thought Kill Bill was awesome, and I eagerly await the release of Atomic Blonde. I like Blade Runner and enjoy Resident Evil for what it is.  But the way characters are chosen and written for many major films is based on things other than literary, story or character merit.



We're not talking about strength, but unjustified aggression... I love hyper-strong female characters and they are almost always my MCs, I'm referring to the stock character type that always has a chip on their shoulder and is quick to resort to hitting or verbally abusing strangers or allies who have not done or threatened to do similar to them (often because they can't show their "strength" in plot-relevant ways, so they have to show it by harming "innocent" victims instead). It seems silly that this is so often identified with being a "strong" female character when a male character who acted in a similar fashion would just be seen as a jerk.


----------



## glutton (Apr 23, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> If an aggressive MC SFC  falls in love with the main male lead gives up fighting and becomes a soft, submissive housewife, while her husband who surpassed her decades of training quickly (chosen one), went on heroic adventures with their son, leaving her behind. She says "I'll be with you in spirit"
> 
> :showoff: Is that empowering if the writer says that's what she really wants in life, or is it not.  From one perspective, her character was tamed and domesticated into a less prestigous role, but some might say he allowed her to chase her dream of homemaking and that calling it less prestigious is because of historically feminine work being devalued, and that as a housewife she's still a SFC. Just strong in nonviolent ways.



Objectively it would be empowering if it was natural to her character and that was what she really wanted, but OTOH I would probably hate it because I dislike noobish chosen ones who surpass their awesome experienced female love interests quickly.  Especially when often after no more than one or two years after learning of their powers, they are already more competent and important than literally almost everyone in the world who has worked for much longer to be strong/skilled.

If the female warrior met another experienced male warrior and after that decided she wanted to be a stay-at-home mom to their kids while he continued adventuring, that might be cool and would not hit my pet peeve lol.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Apr 23, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> If an aggressive MC SFC  falls in love with the main male lead gives up fighting and becomes a soft, submissive housewife, while her husband who surpassed her decades of training quickly (chosen one), went on heroic adventures with their son, leaving her behind. She says "I'll be with you in spirit"
> 
> :showoff: Is that empowering if the writer says that's what she really wants in life, or is it not.  From one perspective, her character was tamed and domesticated into a less prestigous role, but some might say he allowed her to chase her dream of homemaking and that calling it less prestigious is because of historically feminine work being devalued, and that as a housewife she's still a SFC. Just strong in nonviolent ways.



Molly Weasley, anyone?


----------



## valiant12 (Apr 23, 2017)

> Otherwise, if a fantasy/sci-fi setting doesn't have overt sexism, I see no reason why women wouldn't number the ranks of the nameless hero-fodder.




 -The average man is taller , bigger and stronger than the avrege woman. Men are also tipicaly more agresive due to  testosteron. 

- Most societies view men as expendable.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 23, 2017)

You and me both. I see this stuff in movies, but not in any book I read... although I assume they must exist following the movie trend. Like most everything with me, if it's done well (to my taste) I don't have a problem with much of anything... the key being to my taste, if not then it's just gibberish junk, LOL.



Russ said:


> I must be reading the wrong books.  I very rarely see "tank" female characters in the novels I read.
> 
> I see a few in comics, but they don't bother me any more than the hyper-aggressive male characters in that medium.
> 
> The hyper-strong female characters I have seen in major films I have quite enjoyed.  I thought Kill Bill was awesome, and I eagerly await the release of Atomic Blonde. I like Blade Runner and enjoy Resident Evil for what it is.  But the way characters are chosen and written for many major films is based on things other than literary, story or character merit.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Apr 23, 2017)

Arya from Paolini's IC is like this. Calling out human women for being weak cowards and shoving an ally who wanted an update on his wife's pregnancy.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Apr 23, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Arya from Paolini's IC is like this. Calling out human women for being weak cowards and shoving an ally who wanted an update on his wife's pregnancy.



The trope of "heroines who are 'not like other girls' and raise themselves up by denigrating every other female around them" deserves mentioning.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Apr 23, 2017)

^Yes indeed-y. I'm a bit sick of those kinds of heroines, not to mention how kind, gentle heroines frequently get mocked or criticized for being their natural, sweet selves, or seen as 'weak' somehow.


----------



## glutton (Apr 23, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> The trope of "heroines who are 'not like other girls' and raise themselves up by denigrating every other female around them" deserves mentioning.



That comes off as insecurity to me because it implies they feel they are in a competition with all other females. If most of mine were looking for competition it would not be in the general female population or even male population, but among other elite warriors and um, powerful monsters. 

I mean, if they perceive other females as being weaker than themselves yet try to pick on those they view as weaker, that comes off pretty... weak.


----------



## glutton (Apr 23, 2017)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> ^Yes indeed-y. I'm a bit sick of those kinds of heroines, not to mention how kind, gentle heroines frequently get mocked or criticized for being their natural, sweet selves, or seen as 'weak' somehow.



Many of mine tend to be kind and gentle under peaceful circumstances, I can imagine one of the overaggressive supposed badasses mocking them only to realize when actual enemies attack...


----------



## Annoyingkid (Apr 23, 2017)

Eragon and Eldest Omnibus - Christopher Paolini - Google Books

She's a 100+ year old elite elf royalty acting that butthurt sensitive over a 16 year old's idea that its too dangerous for her to fight.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Apr 24, 2017)

^Oh, don't talk to me about that series. I have bad memories.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 26, 2017)

I remember a lot of people didn't like Korra from Nickelodeon's _The Legend of Korra_ because she was too conflicted and scared so much of the time, despite her aggressive attitude. They perceived her as weak and said it made women seem like weak characters. But really, she didn't have that much more conflict than her predecessor Aang, from the previous series _Avatar: The Last Airbender_. I do think this is an example of people perpetuating this idea that if a woman isn't completely badass all the time, or if she shows emotion or fear, it's weak--yet when male characters do this, it shows depth of character. It is unfair--and I think maybe a little sexist. (By the way, if you haven't seen these US made anime shows, they are worth watching.) 

Personally, I love conflicted characters of either gender. I like characters to be weak, eventually discovering their strength. I think a great example of a female character in this model is in Donaldson's _The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever_. Linden Avery is strong in her own way, but also weak and conflicted inside. She is never what I would call a 'badass', though she does engage occasionally in what might be called 'badass' behavior as her character arc unfolds. Then, in _The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever_, she really unfolds as this super kick-butt character...yet she is still nurturing and caring. 

I think the biggest problem with overly aggressive female characters is that they are one-note, just like the stereotypical male jock character. If it doesn't work for men, it won't work for women. 

But that's just me.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 26, 2017)

deilaitha said:


> I think the biggest problem with overly aggressive female characters is that they are one-note, just like the stereotypical male jock character. If it doesn't work for men, it won't work for women.



Recently I've been listening to old Writing Excuses episodes. One addressed the subject of melodrama, and the crew gave the classical description:  it's where every character in the tale has only one emotion. So you might have your fretful character, your angry character, your lustful character, your sad character....And the character reacts to _everything_ from that one emotional state.  I don't know if that is truly the classical definition (as opposed to what we usually mean by melodrama now), but it fits what you are saying.

*Edit: In case anyone's interested: Writing Excuses 5.7: Avoiding Melodrama | Writing Excuses

Not terribly sure this would relate. I haven't encountered many one-note aggressive female characters in my own reading; so I'm curious enough to pose a survey question. Do those writers tend to make other characters in the novel one-note as well?


----------



## Annoyingkid (Apr 26, 2017)

deilaitha said:


> I remember a lot of people didn't like Korra from Nickelodeon's _The Legend of Korra_ because she was too conflicted and scared so much of the time, despite her aggressive attitude. They perceived her as weak and said it made women seem like weak characters. But really, she didn't have that much more conflict than her predecessor Aang, from the previous series _Avatar: The Last Airbender_. .



Isn't Korra alot older than Aang? I haven't seen the show but she certainly appears so. If her conflict and fear is comparable to Aang, I can see why there would be a problem there. In general, while male characters have conflict and fear and cry at times one notices that they don't stay in that state for very long. Assertiveness takes over quickly. When women are the leads or at least the subject, because the writer has a vague idea of women being more emotional and less proactive, there's a tendency to belabor the point that she's scared and vulnerable.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 26, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Isn't Korra alot older than Aang? I haven't seen the show but she certainly appears so. If her conflict and fear is comparable to Aang, I can see why there would be a problem there. In general, while male characters have conflict and fear and cry at times one notices that they don't stay in that state for very long. Assertiveness takes over quickly. When women are the leads or at least the subject, because the writer has a vague idea of women being more emotional and less proactive, there's a tendency to belabor the point that she's scared and vulnerable.



I want to say that Korra is 15 or 16 in season 1. It's been a while since I watched it. So yeah, with Aang being eleven...that's a difference of four or five years. They definitely make Korra a lot moodier--playing up the teenager thing, I suppose. Her conflict is also different from Aang's, and more appropriate to her age. I thought she was a believable character, personally. 

I suppose it depends upon the writer whether to belabor the point of being scared and vulnerable. I've read some stories where the male character is just as scared. I think the difference is that men are culturally trained to express fear through anger, which comes across as assertiveness, rather than an expression of fear, which is what it actually is. Women are taught that fear is an acceptable emotion, whereas men are not.


----------



## Seira (Apr 26, 2017)

Just my opinion but I don't think how fast a girl can run or how many guys she can beat up makes her strong. I don't think giving a girl an attitude makes her strong. My sister is like a mouse. She's so meek, and gentle and timid, she wouldn't say boo to a goose yet she has endured so much crap and I can't believe how after nine years of what she's been through she hasn't broken yet. She is the strongest person I know because she keeps her hope, and can look death in the face and just keep pushing past it. I don't know where she gets it from. So with that in mind I don't know what to say about this article. It seems to be male writers writing women.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Apr 26, 2017)

Seira said:


> Just my opinion but I don't think how fast a girl can run or how many guys she can beat up makes her strong. I don't think giving a girl an attitude makes her strong. My sister is like a mouse. She's so meek, and gentle and timid, she wouldn't say boo to a goose yet she has endured so much crap and I can't believe how after nine years of what she's been through she hasn't broken yet. She is the strongest person I know because she keeps her hope, and can look death in the face and just keep pushing past it. I don't know where she gets it from. So with that in mind I don't know what to say about this article. It seems to be male writers writing women.



Sounds like the traditional  fairytales, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, A Little Princess, The Little Matchstick Girl, Rapunzel, these are all stories with leads who endure a great deal of misfortune with quiet nobility with no ability to effect change themselves. That is left to the men. But is strength additive? Is a character who can impose driving change on the plot and endure not stronger than a character that can just endure things with a noble spirit? I believe the answer's yes. Powers and abilities are tools to impose change on the world. How fast one can run or how many guys she can beat up doesn't inherently signal strength, but it does if it's used in a way that drives story forward. Bonus if it's done in a creative and entertaining way.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Apr 28, 2017)

But...the little match girl is just a little girl. Her father beats her, her mother and beloved grandmother are dead, she doesn't even have shoes, and she dies alone in the snow. She doesn't so much endure as fade away. No dashing prince comes to the rescue. Also, have you ever read the original version [or one of the original versions of] Sleeping Beauty? The prince basically rapes her while she's asleep, so I guess he did change her from a certain perspective. In the Grimm version of Snow White, the prince's kiss doesn't awaken her; when he lifts her coffin to take with him [does that mean he's a necrophiliac?], a bit of the poisoned apple falls out of her throat. A Little Princess was written in 1905, though I suppose it could be a traditional fairytale. 
But, then, what do I know? Everything in the above paragraph could be completely wrong.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Apr 28, 2017)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> But...the little match girl is just a little girl. Her father beats her, her mother and beloved grandmother are dead, she doesn't even have shoes, and she dies alone in the snow. She doesn't so much endure as fade away. No dashing prince comes to the rescue. Also, have you ever read the original version [or one of the original versions of] Sleeping Beauty? The prince basically rapes her while she's asleep, so I guess he did change her from a certain perspective. In the Grimm version of Snow White, the prince's kiss doesn't awaken her; when he lifts her coffin to take with him [does that mean he's a necrophiliac?], a bit of the poisoned apple falls out of her throat. A Little Princess was written in 1905, though I suppose it could be a traditional fairytale.
> But, then, what do I know? Everything in the above paragraph could be completely wrong.



The little match girl isn't much of a 'story' imo. Nothing really happens, except that she dies.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Apr 28, 2017)

Some interpret it [such as in the fascinating book Women Who Run With The Wolves] as the matches being the girl's precious creativity or something very precious that she burns away in an effort to stay alive, literally sacrificing her vital force just to live a tiny bit longer. The fantasies that she constructs around the flames are the last sparks [no pun intended] of her creativity flashing for an exhausting moment, and then gone.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Apr 30, 2017)

The Batman treats his allies like dumb children and everybody loves that. But when a woman acts half as aggressive towards allies thats a no go apparently. Dr House , Sherlock Holmes, hell Eric Cartman, lovable jerkasses that as a role seem off limits to females. The open question is if writers should shy away from the portrayal because of current attitudes in an attempt to find success, or instead take up a form of social activism as creative people to find ways for it to work even though we really don't have to. It'd be the writer's choice.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 30, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> The Batman treats his allies like dumb children and everybody loves that. But when a woman acts half as aggressive towards allies thats a no go apparently. Dr House , Sherlock Holmes, hell Eric Cartman, lovable jerkasses that as a role seem off limits to females. The open question is if writers should shy away from the portrayal because of current attitudes in an attempt to find success, or instead take up a form of social activism as creative people to find ways for it to work even though we really don't have to. It'd be the writer's choice.



Not necessarily. If the woman was consistent it would be different. Often times it's s to e off incident. Like Peggy Csrter in captain America shooting at Cap fir being sexually assaulted. Never had she shown a propensity for that kind of mania before that incident and never had she shown it again.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 30, 2017)

I've always loved Glenn Close's role in _Damages_. I've fantasized about a crossover movie:  her going head to head with Dr. House, some kind of doctor-lawyer confrontation, tied to her having a serious illness and his troubles with a malpractice suit.


----------



## TheKillerBs (May 1, 2017)

Eric Cartman is lovable? The kid is a flipping psychopath.


----------



## Annoyingkid (May 1, 2017)

TheKillerBs said:


> Eric Cartman is lovable? The kid is a flipping psychopath.



So is Darth Vader. Culturally beloved. Not loved as in you'd want a relationship of any kind with them.


----------



## RedAngel (May 1, 2017)

Gillian Anderson's character Stella Gibson in The Fall was by far my favorite "Strong" female character.


----------



## Trick (May 2, 2017)

FifthView said:


> It makes me wish even more for a superhero movie staring a gay superhero, where we could have his male love interest "Slap the Joker," heh. (But please don't read too much into this comment, heh.)



Don't know if you're familiar with Dave Chappelle's recent two piece special on Netflix but he has a joke about a gay superhero, really more of a story but since he's a comedian, I guess it's still technically a joke or a bit, and it is excellent. In fact, in the setup for the joke, he's pitching it as a movie idea to a producer and I totally saw potential in it as a TV/online series.


----------



## FifthView (May 3, 2017)

Trick said:


> Don't know if you're familiar with Dave Chappelle's recent two piece special on Netflix but he has a joke about a gay superhero, really more of a story but since he's a comedian, I guess it's still technically a joke or a bit, and it is excellent. In fact, in the setup for the joke, he's pitching it as a movie idea to a producer and I totally saw potential in it as a TV/online series.



I'm not familiar with that.

Well, there is Deadpool, who is a kind of pansexual, but maybe more of a......fluxsexual? The co-creator said, "DP brain cells are in CONSTANT FLUX. He can be gay one minute, hetero the next, etc. ALL ARE VALID." This is due to the way his body constantly regenerates; his brain cells are in flux. I wonder if any of that will appear in the movies.

My earlier comment just sprang from the idea that the type of character needing to be saved, or who might "slap the Joker" in a way the writers/directors might use to show spunkiness (albeit ineffectual), is not incredibly uncommon in cinema and isn't tied to only female characters. So if a gay guy could be shown doing that and need to be saved by a gay hero....heh.

I think there's a group example of it also. In the first Tobey Maguire Spider-man movie, there's that scene where he's dangling near a bridge and the crowd of "normals" on the bridge start throwing rocks and debris at Green Goblin. Huzzah! Common, unpowered people can show guts too! (I think it's slightly funny that this scene might have arisen for the same reason that "slapping the Joker" is sometimes used for female characters in movies. People have complained about weak female characters, so show them having guts. But people have also complained about too much focus on superheroes, where the little people exist only to be saved.)

But in other movies, the trope is used for comedic effect. Some silly character who's been hiding from all the danger picks up a rock, frying pan, or whatever and tries hurting the bad guy(s), for laughs.

But I added in my previous comment that I didn't want too much read into it, because I don't want to make light of an issue that a) does really exist, and that b) does upset people.


----------



## Trick (May 3, 2017)

FifthView said:


> because I don't want to make light of an issue that a) does really exist, and that b) does upset people.



I think I can identify with this one a bit and would be offended by it should I feel it was directed at a group I'm a part of so I completely agree. In fact, I even think I've seen that happen now that I'm thinking about it (I'm just a plain old hetero white male so I don't tend to actually have experiences with this kind of thing but in this case it would have been a religious thing - can't think of the movie though...) but I really do agree that it is, at best, lazy writing and, at worst, an intentional shot at the person or group.

While it's true that some people cower, some people fight but are ineffective, and some people fight back effectively, there seems to be no logic in any of those traits belonging to a specific group. Developing characters better would eliminate this as a negative trope and probably eliminate it from movies almost entirely.


----------



## FifthView (May 4, 2017)

Trick said:


> While it's true that some people cower, some people fight but are ineffective, and some people fight back effectively, there seems to be no logic in any of those traits belonging to a specific group. Developing characters better would eliminate this as a negative trope and probably eliminate it from movies almost entirely.



The problem seems to arise naturally when dealing with characters who are significantly more powerful than other characters and involves how we communicate the power differential. Interestingly, this issue plays into the concept of "chosen ones" also, judging by the nearby thread on that topic. Weakness and strength may be real issues, the relative disparity may be an important element in the story, but either weakness or strength and the disparity can be drawn in a ridiculous way.

Sometimes, maybe, the power difference is truly ridiculous. Any normal person in an action-filled scene with Superman is simply going to pale in comparison. Unless of course the director throws a block of Kryptonite into the scene, allowing the woman/man an opportunity to save him.

There are some good examples however. 

I think that Merry and Pippin in the first LOTR movie, cornered along with the much stronger Boromir, were handled well. Their rock-throwing had some effect, the situation was impossible not only for them but also Boromir, and picking up swords at the end to charge the Uruk-hai may have been ineffectual, but they were limited on options and had a very effective emotional reaction to Boromir's death. (Effective for the viewer, heh.)

The end of _Stranger Things_ worked also, for at least two identical reasons. The monster was already shown to be quite powerful, and the situation was impossible already. 



Spoiler: Relevant but spoilery conclusion to thought



Fortunately, their weak slingshot defense had a more powerful, erm, backup. (Rerverse situation: weakling boys being saved by a strong female character.)



At those moments, I felt dread for the two sets of characters, particular at that moment in _Stranger Things_. The power differential was absurd, and this made it frightening.

I do think one problem with some other scenarios might be the fact that _whoever_ is the weaker character might just happen to fall into a particular religious or ethnic class, or might be one sex or sexual orientation, or whatever. This could trigger some readers/viewers, and not without cause if the general setup and writing is bad. So being more creative in setting up the characters and situations, while being conscientious, can only be a good thing, I think.


----------



## Trick (May 4, 2017)

FifthView said:


> The problem seems to arise naturally when dealing with characters who are significantly more powerful than other characters and involves how we communicate the power differential. Interestingly, this issue plays into the concept of "chosen ones" also ... I do think one problem with some other scenarios might be the fact that _whoever_ is the weaker character might just happen to fall into a particular religious or ethnic class, or might be one sex or sexual orientation, or whatever. This could trigger some readers/viewers, and not without cause if the general setup and writing is bad. So being more creative in setting up the characters and situations, while being conscientious, can only be a good thing, I think.



Couldn't agree more. I think Batman stands out because he is merely human, though highly skilled. Iron Fist also; yes, he has a fist that punches through walls blah blah, but he's basically just a master martial artist. Batman has devices that could do what his fist does so... they're pretty similar. 

Perhaps the power differential isn't great enough in those situations and so the Slap the Joker moments seem patronizing and belittling instead of being demonstrative of the futility of fighting supers when you're not a super.


----------



## pmmg (May 4, 2017)

Just want to go on record and say, I did not really find Rachel Dawes slapping of the joker to be patronizing. Though, in the movie I think she actually punches him, and he seems affected by it. The part that bothered me is Christian Bale's gruff voice trying cutting in. In activity prior, she actually seems quite frightened of the joker. Anyway...

I guess I would ask, how many of you approach your characters with thoughts like "Uh, if I don't change this scene the women readers will think I write weak female characters?" Just write them as they are. Some are weak. No need to apologize.


----------



## RedAngel (May 4, 2017)

I think that especially since Rachel finds out that Batman is Bruce in Batman Begins. She had to of known that He would be there at the party when the Joker arrived. And rather than letting the old man get his throat slit she bought bruce some time by speaking up. She does get more fearful as the scene goes on. But I think that as the tension grows that is the last thing she can do to distance herself from the Joker until Batman finally arrives. 

It did not bother me the first time I saw the scene. But after rewatching it I still did not mind her outburst as the plasuability of her and the actions she takes does make some sense as it seems out of character for her.


----------



## Annoyingkid (May 7, 2017)

I don't like the idea if romance or sex makes her no longer act aggressive. Makes it seem like she was just sexually frustrated this whole time. If she develops out of that aggression, it has to be carefully and slowly done I think. I would not want to see her go from one of the few willing to call out the MC's flaws, to someone vacuous and just there to be lovey dovey with the MC. And how come she-elves can't seem to find dudes their own damn species? Maybe that's why so many interpretations of elves are fading? The females seem to go after humans, dwarves (Tauriel WHY) and everything in between before those poor elf males!


----------



## RedAngel (May 7, 2017)

Lol you bring up a good point about the Elves. Maybe the men started that trend and the women don't want to keep the species going and have a fancy for mortals? You never hear about the male elvish conquests on other races. funny.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (May 7, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> dwarves (Tauriel WHY)


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (May 8, 2017)

^That made me laugh.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (May 8, 2017)

Speaking of elves, The Tale of Beren and Luthien is one of my favourite stories, especially since Luthien basically saves Beren all by herself, and does most of the work on the Silmaril quest.


----------



## Ewolf20 (May 14, 2018)

when i hear the term strong, it has this connotation that the character has to be strong in the sense of skills rather than their merits of the characterization. I mostly hate the term as it limits the potential of an author to write different female characters. they don't all have to be badass warriors wielding bows and arrows or swords, they should be characters with agency, flaws, and motives. that's what a lot of people are missing when it comes to writing female characters in fiction.


----------



## X Equestris (May 15, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> The Batman treats his allies like dumb children and everybody loves that.



I don't think I'd say "everybody loves" that.  Not if you're using love in the sense of considering it good behavior.  It's pretty consistently portrayed as one of his biggest flaws.  Refusing to trust his allies to perform competently gets Bruce unmasked at the end of Arkham Knight, and sees each of them individually captured during _Death of the Family._  Batman seems to have learned from that one by the time of _Endgame_, since he ropes them in once he actually has a plan.  

To address the larger point of this behavior toward allies being looked more harshly upon in female characters, I'd broadly agree.  There are a few exceptions, though.  Jessica Jones in her Netflix series is the most prominent one that comes to mind.  

On a side note, I just realized how old this thread was before it got necro'd.


----------



## Annoyingkid (May 15, 2018)

X Equestris said:


> I don't think I'd say "everybody loves" that.  Not if you're using love in the sense of considering it good behavior.  It's pretty consistently portrayed as one of his biggest flaws.  Refusing to trust his allies to perform competently gets Bruce unmasked at the end of Arkham Knight, and sees each of them individually captured during _Death of the Family._  Batman seems to have learned from that one by the time of _Endgame_, since he ropes them in once he actually has a plan.
> 
> To address the larger point of this behavior toward allies being looked more harshly upon in female characters, I'd broadly agree.  There are a few exceptions, though.  Jessica Jones in her Netflix series is the most prominent one that comes to mind.
> 
> On a side note, I just realized how old this thread was before it got necro'd.



I meant fans love it. The same people who'd call a female who tried it a bossy Mary Sue.


----------



## X Equestris (May 15, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> I meant fans love it. The same people who'd call a female who tried it a bossy Mary Sue.



Every time I see Batman fans talk about the shutting out of allies and such, it's almost universally agreed to be the most frustrating/annoying thing about him.  If they love it, they love it because it's a good flaw.

No doubt there are some fans, and even some writers, that like it and actually consider it a positive.  And no doubt some of them have double standards along gender lines.  But I can't say I've found them very common.


----------



## Annoyingkid (May 15, 2018)

X Equestris said:


> Every time I see Batman fans talk about the shutting out of allies and such, it's almost universally agreed to be the most frustrating/annoying thing about him.  If they love it, they love it because it's a good flaw.
> 
> No doubt there are some fans, and even some writers, that like it and actually consider it a positive.  And no doubt some of them have double standards along gender lines.  But I can't say I've found them very common.



It's not a flaw. They like him being the most dominant, smartest person in the room and flaunting it against superpowered heroes as well as villains. Which is why DC keep doing it and why he keeps selling. 

Often the more accomplished the female character the more violent the response: 

_Well unless her clothing is invincible, you could show that there is some realism.
It can be used against them as it is a grab-able thing that they can be tossed around
by, so pull all the stops out and make it as gritty and nasty as you seem to want to
portray it. Hell you even show how much they don't care by using her breasts against
her, by thrashing her around by them.g. Get freaking gruesome and
have one of these horrible beings actually tear them off. It would definitely
be one hell of a twist, that no one would see coming._
_
- Poster about my story's main character on another writing forum.
_
How Dragonball fans reacted to Kale and Caulifla, two female super saiyans on Kanzenshuu.com:

_Poster 1 : It would be nice if Frieza could cut off Caulifla's head to make Kale angry and then, kill Kale as well by ripping her heart off. That would be a cool scene__. 
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





Poster 2: If Freeza does get to romp about tearing the U6 Saiyans limb from proverbially bloody limb then it will have been facilitated in-part by Jiren's lack of attentiveness._
_
Poster 3: Freeza being sadistic is where Nakao's performance shines the most. So seeing him torture and curb stomp the U6 Saiyans would be the ultimate form of fan service for me_

Three different posters, same topic. All actual quotes.


----------



## X Equestris (May 15, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> It's not a flaw. They like him being the most dominant, smartest person in the room and flaunting it against superpowered heroes as well as villains. Which is why DC keep doing it and why he keeps selling.
> 
> Often the more accomplished the female character the more violent the response:
> 
> ...



I'm not sure which Batman media you've been consuming, because the whole "pushing out allies" thing has been very clearly portrayed as a major flaw throughout both Scott Snyder and Tom King's runs.  You can find similar sentiments all the way back to Dark Victory and Hush, where it wreaks havoc with Bruce's love life.  DC's position on that character trait is obvious.  

And in the few female character's I've seen with the trait, it is likewise portrayed as a flaw.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (May 15, 2018)

Strong means different things to different people.


----------



## X Equestris (May 15, 2018)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> Strong means different things to different people.



Indeed.  I'd agree with Ewolf's definition.  It's about agency, flaws, and motives, not just physical prowess.


----------



## Annoyingkid (May 15, 2018)

X Equestris said:


> I'm not sure which Batman media you've been consuming, because the whole "pushing out allies" thing has been very clearly portrayed as a major flaw throughout both Scott Snyder and Tom King's runs.  You can find similar sentiments all the way back to Dark Victory and Hush, where it wreaks havoc with Bruce's love life.  DC's position on that character trait is obvious.
> 
> And in the few female character's I've seen with the trait, it is likewise portrayed as a flaw.



Again you miss my point. We're told it's a "flaw" in the story, but to readers it's actually something they find cool, appealing and edgy about the character. 

Darth Vader choking people out is also a "flaw" but it's a major part of his popularity. 

The point I'm making is the fans don't see it as a flaw as they would never want it to change. Whereas when a female character does it, she gets seen by these fans as an unlikeable Mary Sue.


----------



## X Equestris (May 15, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> Again you miss my point. We're told it's a "flaw" in the story, but to readers it's actually something they find cool, appealing and edgy about the character.
> 
> Darth Vader choking people out is also a "flaw" but it's a major part of his popularity.
> 
> The point I'm making is the fans don't see it as a flaw as they would never want it to change. Whereas when a female character does it, she gets seen by these fans as an unlikeable Mary Sue.



As I already said, every Batman fan I've ever seen mention the trait in question considers it a flaw, and one of the his biggest ones at that.  Are there some that miss the point?  Probably, but they're certainly not the majority.  

Never seen anyone list "choking people" as a reason they liked Vader.  His popularity tends to rest on his imposing presence and effectiveness.  

The crowd that cries Mary Sue at a hint of an active female character can mostly be ignored.  Sales and ratings figures make it pretty clear they're fringe at best.


----------



## Annoyingkid (May 15, 2018)

X Equestris said:


> As I already said, every Batman fan I've ever seen mention the trait in question considers it a flaw, and one of the his biggest ones at that.  Are there some that miss the point?  Probably, but they're certainly not the majority.
> 
> Never seen anyone list "choking people" as a reason they liked Vader.  His popularity tends to rest on his imposing presence and effectiveness.
> 
> The crowd that cries Mary Sue at a hint of an active female character can mostly be ignored.  Sales and ratings figures make it pretty clear they're fringe at best.



Because those Batman fans are telling you it's a flaw in universe. But fictional characters aren't buying books. So all that matters is if it's well received or not. And among mainstream culture it's very well received. Period. No debate. Whereas the female characters who act like that get denigrated with labels like "Man with breasts" or "Mary Sue" or "Strong Female Character".

I don't see how you can call their voices "fringe" when it's been the dominant voice in Hollywood until recently. It also remains to be seen if the high sales of  these diversity "firsts"  like Wonder Woman can be replicated. The first feature length WW movie ever was always going to have high sales. The real test is in repeating it. Star Wars The Last Jedi could not come close to repeating the success of the first disney Star Wars film.  The new Tomb Raider film is running at a loss, the all female Ghostbusters tanked, the Black Widow film is a no show, the new Oceans 8 remains to be seen.

You'll forgive me if I don't follow your advice of sticking my head in the sand.


----------



## X Equestris (May 15, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> Because those Batman fans are telling you it's a flaw in universe. But fictional characters aren't buying books. So all that matters is if it's well received or not. And among mainstream culture it's very well received. Period. No debate. Whereas the female characters who act like that get denigrated with labels like "Man with breasts" or "Mary Sue" or "Strong Female Character".
> 
> I don't see how you can call their voices "fringe" when it's been the dominant voice in Hollywood until recently. It also remains to be seen if the high sales of  these diversity "firsts"  like Wonder Woman can be replicated. The first feature length WW movie ever was always going to have high sales. The real test is in repeating it. Star Wars The Last Jedi could not come close to repeating the success of the first disney Star Wars film.  The new Tomb Raider film is running at a loss, the all female Ghostbusters tanked, the Black Widow film is a no show, the new Oceans 8 remains to be seen.
> 
> You'll forgive me if I don't follow your advice of sticking my head in the sand.



No, they're saying it's a flaw in and out of universe.  Part of why King's run has been so well received is because he's having Batman develop past it and let people in.  You're acting like this character trait is the single reason for the high sales, rather than people buying Batman media in _spite_ of his more abrasive traits.  I shouldn't have to tell you that's fallacious.

"Mary Sue" has never appeared in any Hollywood exec's justification for not making more female led action movies that I've seen, so I'll need a source for that.  It all comes down to 1) historical attitudes about what women should be doing, and in the present, 2) the belief that women don't want to watch action movies and men don't want to watch female leads.  

TLJ came pretty close to TFA, especially when you consider that TFA was a massive phenomenon and sequels almost always perform more poorly than their predecessors.  Tomb Raider and Ghostbusters didn't do as well because they were poorly made, not because they were female led.  

Talk about sticking heads in the sand all you like.  Just remember that correlation doesn't equal causation.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 16, 2018)

Tomb Raider had its day... it passed. The Ghostbusters remake... damn, I don’t recall ever seeing a trailer in the theater that made me so certain I didn’t want to see a movie that I would normally say I’d like to see before said trailer. And from what I saw of the movie by accident, it met all the hideous promises made by the ads and trailer. And they managed that in about 2 minutes of viewing. Wow. Tortuous.

Anyone in H’Wood that previewed that flick and thought they had a success on their hands was under the influence of H’Wood stupid cloud... see Rossio and Elliot’s discussion on H’Wood for an explanation of that... but, basically, groupthink. Delusion. heh heh.


----------



## Ewolf20 (May 16, 2018)

at first, i really did think people hating on female led works were a minority that had no effect in sales...but i was wrong.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (May 16, 2018)

Ewolf20 said:


> at first, i really did think people hating on female led works were a minority that had no effect in sales...but i was wrong.


How so?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 16, 2018)

Personally, I hate bad movies. I don’t care who the lead is. Witness anything with Will Farrell as the lead.

The original Tomb Raider was ok, Atomic Blonde I like.

The lead’s sex doesn’t kill movies... most folks are even star power agnostic these days (which just burns H’Wood’s butt, can’t count on a name to cover a 200 million dollar flop) what kills is shitty story/humor/writing/acting, etc etc.


----------



## pmmg (May 16, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> It's not a flaw. They like him being the most dominant, smartest person in the room and flaunting it against superpowered heroes as well as villains. Which is why DC keep doing it and why he keeps selling.
> 
> Often the more accomplished the female character the more violent the response:



I am sorry, AK. I don't know that I am with you on that. And without seeing the conversations from which the samples were taken, I don't really know the context. I suppose I would say, if women are going to be fighting, at times they are going to get messed up, and if we are trying to be gritty and real, well...bosoms tend to be in the target zone. I've not really gone there in my own writing, but I would think it a likely occurrence in a medium trying to be 'real'. (Course, I would never want too see that happen to bosoms. WTH? I fear I would be defeated too easily if I was to battle women).

Putting aside the examples, I think you are saying that Batman gets a pass as a moody capable loner because he is male, and a female character would not get the same pass.

I am not sure this is true. I think the character sells themselves. I think what you are up against is not hatred of women in these roles, but the suspension of disbelief for women in these roles. I would find such a role unlikely for a female. While I have no doubt that Wonder Woman could kick Batman's fanny, and would do just fine as a moody loner type, her character has never really stepped into the that role. So, what's at stake here is not that I cannot buy that women can be tough characters, I am perfectly willing to believe that, its that I don't typically see women take on these roles, and would find it unlikely in a diverse society. So, if there is going to be one (or many), I have to be sold on how and why they become that way, and in their ability to be that way and continue to thrive.

I have seen plenty of Batman where I go 'No way, Batman cannot do that'. Throw Superman for example. Without Kryptonite, I don't think there is anyway Batman could make Superman move even a fraction of in inch. But I am pretty sure Wonder Woman could. And the more they show Batman contending with Superman (being strong enough, being fast enough, being durable enough) they more I say Uh Uh. Batman's whole character is having thought ahead and always being prepared. So, I am willing to buy it a little if Batman is shown to be out playing him. But really...if Batman wants to hurt Superman, he'd do well to get Wonder Woman to help him.

I've no doubt someone can write such a female character. Suppose Wonder Woman gets fed up with people and decides to put on the cowl? She could probably be a more believable Batman, than Batman himself--least with her, I can believe she can move faster than bullets. But if this is just about lets have a really tough and moody one and break the mold and make her female, meh...I'd rather just have a good character.

But I think the issue here is we don't have characters in a vacuum. People become who they are in a world full of other people and other people also have notions of how things should be. So, while I can point to some instances in history where women took on the leadership roles, and even some where they were appropriately tough, I cannot point to many, and certainly not many when compared to males doing the same thing. And if a moody capable loner woman was to show up, I don't expect the male characters would be very accepting of that without convincing reason. So, its got be sold. And when it is, it will speak for itself. I think Xena pulled it off.

Speaking for myself, I don't need to see women who can beat up the bad guys better than the males (get ready Thanos, Mrs. Marvel is coming). I need to see women being women. And like all the rest of us, contending against whatever trials without being something else.


I feel I should also point out that Batman is a really old comic and has come from the POW, BAM, ZAP, and 'Good Job Ol' Chum' period. He's not always been a moody loner and he did just fine. DC is evolving, and they keep selling cause they keep making something people want.


----------



## Annoyingkid (May 22, 2018)

pmmg said:


> I am sorry, AK. I don't know that I am with you on that. And without seeing the conversations from which the samples were taken, I don't really know the context. I suppose I would say, if women are going to be fighting, at times they are going to get messed up, and if we are trying to be gritty and real, well...bosoms tend to be in the target zone. I've not really gone there in my own writing, but I would think it a likely occurrence in a medium trying to be 'real'. (Course, I would never want too see that happen to bosoms. WTH? I fear I would be defeated too easily if I was to battle women).
> 
> Putting aside the examples, I think you are saying that Batman gets a pass as a moody capable loner because he is male, and a female character would not get the same pass.
> 
> ...



 "Women being women?" "Woman" is a noun not an adjective, therefore something they just are, so I don't know what "women being women" means in real life, let alone fantasy.  Does it mean doing the cooking and cleaning, being sexual release for a man, only fighting when her children are endangered and then hitting enemies with a frying pan and rolling pin?

Never heard people advocating for dicks to be ripped off in the name of "realism". It's the same rubbish as those who say a captured female hero would realistically get raped - they never ever advocate that for male characters. Despite the fact that if one includes male prisoners, more men than women get raped in real life.



> its that I don't typically see women take on these roles, and would find it unlikely in a diverse society.



What role? A role that's clearly fantasy and doesn't exist in real life man or woman? The role of a realistic soldier, which objectively did, and does exist? Unlike things like trolls and orcs - which people have no problem including in fantasy in great numbers. See any of those around?



X Equestris said:


> No, they're saying it's a flaw in and out of universe. Part of why King's run has been so well received is because he's having Batman develop past it and let people in. You're acting like this character trait is the single reason for the high sales, rather than people buying Batman media in _spite_ of his more abrasive traits. I shouldn't have to tell you that's fallacious.



No, they are saying it's a flaw IN universe. This dominant masculinity acts as wish fulfillment to his fanboys. King's run is not relevant at all. The fact is, when Batman is portrayed with such dominance, he is well received and not notably called a Gary Stu.



> "Mary Sue" has never appeared in any Hollywood exec's justification for not making more female led action movies that I've seen, so I'll need a source for that. It all comes down to 1) historical attitudes about what women should be doing, and in the present, 2) the belief that women don't want to watch action movies and men don't want to watch female leads.



I'm talking about the attitudes about what women should be doing. It's the reason why women who step into asskicking roles are much more likely to be denigrated as "Mary Sue" and passed over by Hollywood. Obviously Hollywood doesn't use the term itself, as it's an internet based term that isn't used in professional literary or creative writing theory.



> Talk about sticking heads in the sand all you like. Just remember that correlation doesn't equal causation.



That's what you were doing by citing "sales and ratings" as evidence thats sexism is "fringe". So you argue against yourself here.


----------



## Vaporo (May 22, 2018)

AnnoyingKid, it looks like you're going to be offended by anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with you, but I'm going to throw my two cents in anyways.

In this day and age, I doubt anyone but a few noisy internet trolls are actually against women taking main roles in action movies. I think that it's extremely unlikely that Hollywood, a place known to be extremely left-leaning, actively denies women these roles based solely on the fact that they're women. It's, as X Equestris said, because women are generally not thought to want to see action movies and that most people want to see characters that they can easily identify with. In this case, "most people" means "men," so producers tend to pick male actors for their roles. It's a business decision, nothing more. It may be a business decision based on faulty reasoning, but it's still just a business decision. (Note the word "may." It could be totally true that most women actively dislike action movies. Or not. I don't know.)



Annoyingkid said:


> Never heard people advocating for dicks to be ripped off in the name of "realism".



Well, some writers actually do that. I recently read a book where a male character was forcibly castrated, then eventually went insane and went on a rampage through the countryside castrating any other man he could find. Horrible? Yes, but people write that sort of thing for the sake of being "gritty" and "realistic."

Yes, people throw around the "Mary Sue" accusation far too often. Those people are usually just looking for some excuse to justify their distaste for a particular work and can be safely ignored.

Also...



Annoyingkid said:


> "Women being women?" "Woman" is a noun not an adjective, therefore something they just are, so I don't know what "women being women" means in real life, let alone fantasy. Does it mean doing the cooking and cleaning, being sexual release for a man, only fighting when her children are endangered and then hitting enemies with a frying pan and rolling pin?



I think you know that's not what he meant. There are generally going to be behavioral differences between men and women, cultural or not. Are they consistent differences? No. Will I ever try to quantify those differences? No, but you have to at least acknowledge that they exist. You usually can't just swap out "he" for "she" and be left with a character that still makes total sense.

An phrase that I've seen thrown around is "Instead of writing strong female characters, why don't we just write strong characters?" I think he means something along the same lines. It's good to write women where the fact that they are a woman is important (a la Ripley from Alien), but it's bad to write women that are women just for the sake of being women and being a "strong female character."

Honestly, it seems like you're just looking for an excuse to be offended, and no matter what I say other than a total agreement you're going to get mad, so I'm just going to post this.


----------



## X Equestris (May 22, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> "No, they are saying it's a flaw IN universe. This dominant masculinity acts as wish fulfillment to his fanboys. King's run is not relevant at all. The fact is, when Batman is portrayed with such dominance, he is well received and not notably called a Gary Stu.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't presume to put words in the mouths of people I've talked to.  Again, when that characteristic is brought up in fan conversations, it's consistently considered the most grating aspect of Batman OUT OF UNIVERSE.  Many who don't like the character consider it a principal reason why.  

And to circle back to the very beginning of this conversation, there are some female characters who behave the same way, distrusting and pushing away allies.  I named Jessica Jones as an example, and I've never seen anyone call her a Mary Sue.  And the reason, for both of these characters, is simple: despite all their talents, their personal lives are absolute train wrecks.  Nobody could consider that perfect.

And why isn't King's run relevant?  Because you say so?  Your central argument is that this one characteristic (pushing away allies) is a driving force for the character's popularity.  Rolling this back should negatively impact sales.  But it hasn't.  _Batman_ _(Rebirth) _consistently tops the sales charts, and is financially outperforming Snyder's run during the New 52.  The character has opened up to the point that he proposed to Catwoman; they're getting married.  Contrast that with _Hush, _where Batman's distrust cuts short a budding romance between the two.  Your augment would suggest this engagement and marriage plot would be unpopular; it has been very well received, to the point physical copies of issues focused on it sometimes sell out completely.

Hollywood's focus is on profits and little more.  I already laid out their misconceptions about female led movies being bad for business.  Interestingly, you made the same mistake they did, saying female led action movies failed because they were female led, rather than because they were just flat out bad movies.  And this misidentification of the cause of failure happens in other arenas too.  The failure of Ryan Reynolds's Green Lantern has made WB pretty skittish about any movie version of the character.  

I never said a thing about sexism in general.  Don't strawman me.  I was talking specifically about people who shout Mary Sue at every female character who shows a hint of being active, and you will see this if you go back and read my post.  They are a fringe, even on the Internet, and I dare anyone to prove otherwise.  If they weren't fiction like Hunger Games, an original IP with a female lead, wouldn't have been the literary and cinematic success it was.  If they weren't a fringe, the little boycott they set up against Rogue One would've worked.


----------



## skip.knox (May 22, 2018)

I remind folks on this thread that using "I" and "you" is characteristic of an _ad hominem_ argument, which violates the rules of conduct for this forum. It's an objectionable argument in part because it's so often unnecessary. 

Stick to the issues of the original post. Violators will be issued warnings directly.


----------



## pmmg (May 22, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> What role? A role that's clearly fantasy and doesn't exist in real life man or woman? The role of a realistic soldier, which objectively did, and does exist? Unlike things like trolls and orcs - which people have no problem including in fantasy in great numbers. See any of those around?



Well, I thought the role I was talking about was this one:



pmmg said:


> I think you are saying that Batman gets a pass as a moody capable loner because he is male, and a female character would not get the same pass



Which I extrapolated from this comment:



Annoyingkid said:


> It's not a flaw. They like him being the most dominant, smartest person in the room and flaunting it against superpowered heroes as well as villains.



Fair enough if you want to say they are roles that do not exist in the real world, but I do kind of think they do. Maybe not so much as on display as with Batman, but...I think the issue is one of belief and disbelief. Even with orcs, I am still writing to be believed. And orcs are generally man shaped, and seem to have the same needs. So, while I admit my orc brain is entirely made up, I don't think it is really a stretch to imagine how a brutish culture full of wicked creatures might function. If I was to add genders to it, which has been done in many venues as well, I think there would still likely be gender roles within such races. They may be quite different. Do Orc's love their children too? Well if they don't, that leaves a lot of room to play. But if they do, well...I might start to extrapolate how Orcish parents might behave and how that might play out between genders. Could be what we come up with is very different from what we see in the examples around us, but it would still have to meet some level of reason, or it risks being unable to sell.



Annoyingkid said:


> Never heard people advocating for dicks to be ripped off in the name of "realism". It's the same rubbish as those who say a captured female hero would realistically get raped - they never ever advocate that for male characters. Despite the fact that if one includes male prisoners, more men than women get raped in real life.



Well, I have not heard it in such terms, and likely would not be reading something with such graphic efforts, rape of male prisoners and getting ones balls ripped off does come up more than one might think in conversations I have been in. I don’t see myself as advocating for more of it in media, but it has happened, and I can/could quite vividly name some instances of it. I don’t think rape is as likely for males in general, but in the context of a prison, well...I would expect it would be frequent.

However, in the context of a story, where I am trying to capture the things I think real and likely in my efforts to capture a world that meets up with what I think a real world (albeit fantasy) would be like. I know I can write them in many fantastical ways. But even then, I still have to apply the likely differences as how I think those differences would most likely play out. If I invented a world where all the women were all 12 feet tall, well, that would make quite a different reality for our two beleaguered genders. Maybe some roles would change. But I if I change it in ways that just are not real, women are 12 feet tall, and can now flap their arms with enough force to fly, it just won’t sell.

This is all about the suspension of disbelief. I am willing to suspend it up the to the point where I just don’t really believe it. And if the suspension of disbelief is lost, the whole story fails.

So, I think, as I said above, what you are encountering is difficulty in suspending disbelief, and not hatred towards women in those roles. A moody loner woman character arrives on scene, what is likely to happen? If she appears and wins acceptance, however that happens, its got to be believed. I think most likely, if there is no reason to think otherwise, she will not achieve a leadership role without some challenge from other male characters. That’s just the nature of the beast. If she whoops all their butts, but I have no reason to expect that she could, I won’t buy it. Its got to be sold.



Annoyingkid said:


> "Women being women?" "Woman" is a noun not an adjective



Yeah...at any rate...

I could have said 'Men being men', 'boys being boys', 'dogs being dogs', or 'bunnies being bunnies'. It all kind of means the same thing. There are differences between the genders, it is more than just physical, and often it shows. If you give me characters who are meant to show that somehow in this or another world that is not true, I will not likely believe it. And if we are asking the question, why does this not sell? then I am looking for an answer that is seeking to be true, it does not help to add extra baggage to it. No one has to accept what I take as true or not true. But when the question is posed, I am offering what I hope is an objective approach to arriving at a truthful answer. Truth is elusive, so...assess as you like.

The comment I was trying to address was about Batman winning acceptance for behaving in a way that women would not win acceptance for. I still don’t think I agree with that statement. I think a moody capable loner type can be sold, you just have to sell it. I think a good example of this is Xena, who was kind of like Batman, only she wandered about more.




Annoyingkid said:


> The point I'm making is the fans don't see it as a flaw as they would never want it to change. Whereas when a female character does it, she gets seen by these fans as an unlikeable Mary Sue.




Last bit, I think every character is a Mary Sue of sorts, and every character is better with flaws.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (May 24, 2018)

AK, I would run from a forum where people posted stuff like that.
Yes, the public is sexist, and Hollywood (like everyone else) does what the public aka consumer wants.
I have nothing against Mary Sue, and understand that she can be male. 
Male on male rape happens, but somehow does not get the attention as m on f. Why? I don't know. Usually victims want not to be known, but I imagine it's the same in all such situations. Maybe we need a male version of #metoo. For some reason, in our society, commenting loudly on a woman's sexuality is okay, even sometimes expected for a man. Maybe this is part of it?
 I'm not sure how rape counts as entertainment. I refuse to watch or read GoT because of this, but GoT hauls in nearly a billion dollars a year, so plenty of people must not be bothered.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jul 30, 2018)

_"AnnoyingKid, it looks like you're going to be offended by anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with you, but I'm going to throw my two cents in anyways."_

Stereotyping ad hominem fallacy designed to imply irrationality where there is none.

_"I think you know that's not what he meant. There are generally going to be behavioral differences between men and women, cultural or not. "
_
No, he meant what he said. That he doesn't want to see  "women who can beat up the bad guys better than the males" , he wants to see women being women. aka, expressing the non dominant behaviour of a woman stereotype.



X Equestris said:


> Don't presume to put words in the mouths of people I've talked to.  Again, when that characteristic is brought up in fan conversations, it's consistently considered the most grating aspect of Batman OUT OF UNIVERSE.  Many who don't like the character consider it a principal reason why.
> 
> And to circle back to the very beginning of this conversation, there are some female characters who behave the same way, distrusting and pushing away allies.  I named Jessica Jones as an example, and I've never seen anyone call her a Mary Sue.  And the reason, for both of these characters, is simple: despite all their talents, their personal lives are absolute train wrecks.  Nobody could consider that perfect.
> 
> ...



Your argument is that Batman is successful despite being portrayed as hyper dominant in the JLA setting, but this is nonsensical given the fact that DC keeps portraying him that way for a reason. Because it sells. Any fans who complain about it are still buying his media and aren't advocating for his violent torture. 

Why isn't King's run relevant? Because again "The fact is, when Batman is portrayed with such dominance, he is well received and not notably called a Gary Stu." For instance the animated universe.




  Or infinite crisis : https://i.stack.imgur.com/J19p1.jpg

This is the Batman that makes it into the major summer event books because this IS the most popular interpretation. Period.

Jessica Jones isn't called a Mary Sue often because the she never steps on masculine territory. Never threatens the masculinity of viewers. It's been called a "rape survivor narrative", 'Jessica Jones’ Is Bleaker Than Ever For A Really Important Reason, According To Krysten Ritter  (end of first paragraph). Rape survivor narratives are stereotypical and expected female stories.  Quote:

_And it's made explicit that his power over her included *forcing her to submit to him sexually.* At the end of the season, Jessica kills him. But it's not revenge for what he did to her._

It's not characters like that that are called Mary Sues. It's characters like mine, who reached positions of power without sexual dehumanization and without concessions to male sexual dominance. That invokes a violent reaction, as if the violence toward the female is an expected missing piece of the puzzle they're attempting to put back in. Maybe without even realizing they're doing it.

Often men will bring up Ripley from Aliens or Sarah Connor from the Terminator as their examples of female leads done well, when both those films contain a main character who spends the vast majority of the running time terrified and running from an unstoppable violent force.

_"I never said a thing about sexism in general. Don't strawman me. I was talking specifically about people who shout Mary Sue at every female character who shows a hint of being active, and you will see this if you go back and read my post. They are a fringe, even on the Internet, and I dare anyone to prove otherwise. If they weren't fiction like Hunger Games, an original IP with a female lead, wouldn't have been the literary and cinematic success it was. If they weren't a fringe, the little boycott they set up against Rogue One would've worked."
_
It was successful because the books were successful. As films they don't stand up on their own. Because I saw Mockingjay part 1 and Katniss didn't do anything. What she did in the trailer in shooting that plane down by accident is all she  did in the film. She didn't emote anything. She just stood there with a blank expression while other characters did things. When I asked my brother when she's going to do something he said she's not an action hero but more of an inspirational symbol. Women as inspirational symbols for war has been done since Helen of Troy and even before then. So why would anyone call her a Mary Sue? Every clip on youtube I saw involving her fighting  some black guy comes to save her. And she got helplessly choked out. At no point does she challenge male physical dominance. So it is not evidence of sexist attitudes being fringe, it's evidence of never challenging those attitudes in the first place. I haven't seen anything of Rogue One, so I won't comment on that.

Rey however DOES challenge male physical dominance without sexual dehumanisation and so IS called a Mary Sue.


----------



## Vaporo (Jul 30, 2018)

Oh for the love of... Is this thread back at the top again? Please, just let it die. I'm tired of seeing notifications for it. It's been little but controversial, and it's been over two months since the last post. Everyone whose wanted to say their peace has done so, and it's clear that nobody's going to convince anyone of anything.


----------



## X Equestris (Jul 30, 2018)

Annoyingkid said:


> Your argument is that Batman is successful despite being portrayed as hyper dominant in the JLA setting, but this is nonsensical given the fact that DC keeps portraying him that way for a reason. Because it sells. Any fans who complain about it are still buying his media and aren't advocating for his violent torture.
> 
> Why isn't King's run relevant? Because again "The fact is, when Batman is portrayed with such dominance, he is well received and not notably called a Gary Stu." For instance the animated universe.
> 
> ...



 With the two month wait to reply, it feels like there's an effort to deliberately stir things up, so I'm not going to bother continuing this line of discussion any further.  Most of these points have already been addressed anyway.


----------

