# Creating strong Female characters?



## Darkfantasy (Oct 8, 2018)

'A strong female character'

I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately on the other writing forums I use and I don't really understand it. I hear people say this female character was strong and this one was weak. I don't really understand the difference between the two. It seems a bit objective sometimes so maybe it all comes down to a person. I ask this question between I read the comments on another forum of two people disagreeing over whether Katniss everdeen was a strong female or not. I'm not familiar with the Hunger Games but I've been hearing this phrase more and more lately - like it's the new obsession to create strong females. Haven't female characters always been just as strong or weak as male characters? Why is there this preoccupation on strong females and not strong males?
What are some characteristics of a strong female character. I think of Scarlett O'Hara as a strong but maybe I'm wrong.

thanks


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 8, 2018)

It sure isn’t new, but I doubt you will find a real concencus. I don’t think about it. I shoot for “real” and make sure they fit the story. The rest is blah blah blah to my ear.

I’m sure you can find Miss Scarlett called weak or strong, just like Katniss. It woud be an interesting argument, and unwinnable, about which is stronger.


----------



## EponasSong (Oct 8, 2018)

In my opinion, that they are a legit chachter on their own merits. Neither stereotyped nor given special treatment by the author.


----------



## WooHooMan (Oct 8, 2018)

It’s the reverse of a Mary Sue.  It just means “female character that I like”.


----------



## Devor (Oct 8, 2018)

As a general rule, I've always felt that if a debate comes down to "It depends on how you define the word," it's not usually worth having.

For your own writing, just be a little conscious of how often you're defaulting characters to men, skip the sexy dumb waitress types, and develop your female characters to your best standards, and you'll probably be fine.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 9, 2018)

My opinion is don't bother with strong female characters. Make nuanced female characters. Make female characters with complex goals and motivations. Make characters that are full and developed and real. "Strong" is too vague to be worth pursuing.


----------



## ThinkerX (Oct 9, 2018)

Strangely, this is part of the premise of my 'Empire' series.  Tia Samos is an ordinary, upper middle class woman in a quasi imperial roman society.  Tia is accompanied by her bodyguard Sir Peter Cortez, arguably among the empires better warriors; Kyle, her oafish carriage driver, a fair sword swinger and competent magician, and Rebecca, a gypsy musician and petty thief who acts as her maid.

Tia has no magic, no skill at weapon play, nor is she a thief.  (though she did take basic self defense classes in book 2). Instead, she's attractive (worth a second look), has access to money, and a quality education.  Yet the end of each book is deliberately structured that it is Tia who resolves the situation -  after her talented employees have failed..


----------



## Night Gardener (Oct 9, 2018)

This feels like a down a rabbit hole question... I don't think I can answer this with the entirety of my thoughts on the subject without it turning into a lecture series, or dredging up RL history and modern politics. 

But, I can share an observation: and I feel like there's actually a [marketing or writing formula, depending on how cynically you interpret the trend] to get people to think of "strong" and "female character" when they read a book with a woman featured as a significant character...

1. The said female solves her own problems, and takes responsibility for her mistakes and OWNERSHIP of her successes. She isn't a damsel or southern belle in distress, waving a hankercheif and swooning to the fainting couch. She isn't helplessly dependent on *anybody* else to solve her problems. She is not a bystander in her own life and is proactive rather than reactive. This does not mean lack of reliance or vulenerabilities to other characters for "tactical, emotional, whatever", Support. 

2. She remains emotional AND logical.  No hysterics all of the time. Not running from emotions, either. Usually, fair-minded. Sensitive, in tune with her emotions but not driven to irrational acts consistently. Also, big keyword here: EMPATHY. She can be empathetic, but also can spot manipulation and exploitation.

3. She understands her own autonomy and worth, freewill and personhood, and Respects other people in turn. Even if others fundamentally disagree with her views or actions. Whether this means "equality" to men, gods, government, church officials, robots, aliens, whatevers or something else that is premised as intellectually compelling to the reader; it's a level of self-awareness that may or may not be the norm for her gender, social status, whatever.

4. She is not "passive". Nor unjustifiably aggressive. Not helpless, not a push-over. Depending on genre, also willing to take names and kick a$% on occasions that call for it.

5. Goal execution. Whatever the point of the narrative, she intends to be successful. 

6. Validation of convictions: she's willing to put her personal beliefs to the test, her self on the line, stand up for others, etc. Self confident, but not necessarily a narcissist. 

Now, I want to make a seperate observation regarding sexuality, sexual preference, motherhood, (or not-motherhood) relationships to self, others and gender roles. As these discussions might get bent towards RL religious or political contexts, I can contribute this:  I believe the above 6 things don't necessarily have to revolve or include themes just mentioned (sex, preferences, motherhood, etc ) and the Six things can exist independently in fiction. Not necessarily in a vaccum... as a modern reader would likely see these themes as an intrinsic part of the feminine experience. I think it's important to incorporate these themes as the author chooses as it is appropriate to their work? Yes. That's all rather the point. 

Now, why the term "strong female" characters is actually a thing these days... because until recently, there wasn't a whole lot of fictional characters that demonstrated the Six things above. Perhaps, one or two which was outstanding for 'the times they were written'. Heck, history books *might* offer a slim chapter or footnote about important women in prior ages. ( Until you get to University, and there's actually a Women's Study courses that you can maybe squeeze in, but isn't REQUIRED curriculum.)

In western culture at least, I grew up wondering in my textbooks and personal reading, "Where are all the women?". If there was an answer to that question, it was more or less in context to what we would probably call sexist or misogynistic, and the majority of the time, so utterly disappointing to female readers. I can say "mostly disappointing" to me as a young reader looking for what? Strong girls and women.

A more modern example? Bella in the Twilight series was, in my friend's opinion, a weak female character. ( There were many occassions were the book would go flying somewhere across the room out of her hands in disgust, because quote "it sent her sense of feminism reeling in disgust." I won the draw to *not* have to read about the teenage love triangle and sparkly vampires for employee book reviews, but I trust her opinion. )

Hermione Granger? A "strong female character". She was an awkward, gifted, unconventionally confident girl who grew up to be a cunning, loyal and independent woman able to hold her own; and stare down evil to be willing to fight it.

Now, I read the above Six items and don't immediately assign gender. Those are just 'strong characterstics'. Other nuanced characteristics can happily exist for either gender as other Scribes have suggested in this thread.  The phrase 'strong female character' has some societal weight behind it, at present. It's one of the most Googled and Amazon search phrases. So, I actually think that as a zeitgeist gestalt kind of thing, writers should probably be wondering just what 'strong female characters' really are.  

I'm writing a novel with a heavy cast of females. Would an audience identify one or more as having some or all of those six traits? Probably. But, I didn't set out to write a 'strong female character'. I'm just writing a strong character, who is female. 

I'm curious if any Scribes can offer anything in addition to my six observations and themes?


----------



## Darkfantasy (Oct 9, 2018)

Thanks guys. I always write the character I need to write and have never given a second thought to if they are role models for young girl's/women. I've just noticed this phrase being thrown around a lot and wanted to know more. Oddly, it seems to be something Americans say a lot, never noticed it be said once on my British or European forums.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 9, 2018)

Devor said:


> As a general rule, I've always felt that if a debate comes down to "It depends on how you define the word," it's not usually worth having.



Certainly it depends on being able to define your terms before you enter into the debate! If you have one definition of "strong" and the other person has a different one, but you both just assume that you both mean the same things by "strong", then you might as well give up before you begin. But then, when the topic of discussion is "what is this thing and what are its characteristics" then the discussion is for the purpose of defining the term and input by people will different points of view is invaluable for understanding. 

That being said, Merriam-Webster actually lists 16 definitions (some with sub-definitions) for the adjective "strong"! Some of these depend very much on what noun the word is attached to. But the point is clear: "strong" is a very nuanced word and one we shouldn't take for granted in our understanding. Should a strong character be "not easily injured, disturbed subdued or taken"? We apply such a meaning to, for instance, a "strong building" or a "strong army" even. But I think it becomes less healthy a definition when you apply it to individual people. Because things happen to people all the time and we often have no control over it. If I get hit by a car and injured, does that mean I'm not strong? If I get overwhelmed by someone with greater physical strength and abducted, does that mean I'm not strong? To be strong does a person always need to be in control and at the top? Well, I don't think it should.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 9, 2018)

Night Gardener said:


> This feels like a down a rabbit hole question... I don't think I can answer this with the entirety of my thoughts on the subject without it turning into a lecture series, or dredging up RL history and modern politics.
> 
> But, I can share an observation: and I feel like there's actually a [marketing or writing formula, depending on how cynically you interpret the trend] to get people to think of "strong" and "female character" when they read a book with a woman featured as a significant character...
> 
> ...



I think this is a good overview. I think a more succinct way of expressing it would be a character that doesn't depend on men for her story to move forward; she leads her own story and has agency. I guess? Even a character in a situation where she has very few options can be strong.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 9, 2018)

I've thought about this for a while now. Right now, for me, when I characterize a character as strong or weak, I avoid linking those words with anything to do with physical ability.

I like to think of strong or weak in terms of quality, as in that was a strongly written character or that character was weakly written. Because really, real people, people with depth, they are all strong and weak at the same time. It all depends on context. One person may be a tower of competence and confidence in athletics, but a weak willed speck of insecurity in the boardroom.

any ways my 2 cents.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Oct 9, 2018)

I was looking at this article recently: Six Pieces of Misunderstood Storytelling Advice


----------



## Svrtnsse (Oct 9, 2018)

A strong character is one that is able to carry the(ir) story forward (on their own).


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 9, 2018)

Used wisely, the fainting couch can be a powerful weapon, heh heh.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 9, 2018)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> would be a character that doesn't depend on men for her story to move forward; she leads her own story and has agency.


I don't think so. It has nothing to do with reliance on men, and everything to do with how the author presents character and her ties to the story. A strong character, whether male or female, in creative writing, relates to their involvement in the story. It's not about physical strength, or about sexism or anything of the sort. A strong female character is one that is not Mary Sue, not stupid, and definitely drives the story forward. As much as I despise GRR Martin and ASOIF, I would have to admit that Dani is a strong female character imo. I didn't always agree with her choices, but she always pressed forward and was intelligent about it. She commanded respect and what was hers to begin with, never relenting. She drove story forward. That's strength.

Another example of a strong female character is Scully on the X-Files (the original series, haven't seen the new ones). She also commands respect, drives story forward by being an awesome investigator, and is very well written/portrayed as a woman who doesn't just let things happen. 

A weak example comes from the story Brooklyn, where I can't even remember the character's name. I hated that book and that woman because she just got everything handed to her in the story and on top of that was ungrateful about it. Aelish...that was her name. Stupid girl. Stupid choices. Just let everyone step all over her and in the end never changed. That's weak writing and a poor excuse/attempt at writing a woman in general.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 9, 2018)

Hmmmm... I'm not really grokking some of the descriptions of "strong women" people have posted here. They rub me the wrong way because they seem to still be about possessing power or being completely independent of other characters. It doesn't sound like the kind of strength I find to be interesting or positive.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 9, 2018)

Mythopoet said:


> Hmmmm... I'm not really grokking some of the descriptions of "strong women" people have posted here. They rub me the wrong way because they seem to still be about possessing power or being completely independent of other characters. It doesn't sound like the kind of strength I find to be interesting or positive.



True. 

Here's food for thought: Why do we see independence from other people as strong???? We are largely defined by our ability to love and form relationships, as individuals and as a species. Depending on others really should not have anything to do with strength. It is our bonds with others that make us strong. Again, both as individuals, and as a species. 

I blame toxic, modern Western individualism. We see ourselves as units entire of ourselves rather than parts of a family and/or community. And we try to define ourselves apart from everyone else as if standing alone is virtuous, or more virtuous than standing together. 

Honestly? I wish that we as writers and readers and an entire culture could just forget about and get past the "strong female character" thing. It's simplistic, reductive, and no one has any idea what it means. The female characters that have stuck in my mind haven't been the "strongest" ones, in physicality or in mind or in spirit or in plot relevance or in alignment with feminism or in separation from males or literally whatever strong is supposed to mean. It's been the ones hat had depth, complexity, honesty in regards to humanity, and hopes and dreams and fears and virtues and flaws and struggles and victories. 

And that has nothing to do with gender.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 9, 2018)

Mythopoet said:


> Hmmmm... I'm not really grokking some of the descriptions of "strong women" people have posted here. They rub me the wrong way because they seem to still be about possessing power or being completely independent of other characters. It doesn't sound like the kind of strength I find to be interesting or positive.


No. If a character is presented strongly then they are not independent of relying on other characters. They NEED other characters in order to drive story forward. There are various angles with which to view this. None of the examples I gave (with the exception of Aelish) were women who did it all on their own without having relationships with other characters who helped them achieve maturity in the story. A strong female character, however, should possess power of some sort...and I'm not necessarily referring to magical powers or physical strength. Power in a woman's world has everything to do with her attitude, how she carries herself, how she treats others, etc. In no way shape or form does a strong character, either male or female, go at story alone. Again, it's not about independence in the sense that they don't have relationships with others. As a romance writer, my heroines learn to love unconditionally, which is powerful in itself.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 10, 2018)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> True.
> 
> Here's food for thought: Why do we see independence from other people as strong???? We are largely defined by our ability to love and form relationships, as individuals and as a species. Depending on others really should not have anything to do with strength. It is our bonds with others that make us strong. Again, both as individuals, and as a species.
> 
> ...



Then why did you post this:_ "I think a more succinct way of expressing it would be a character that doesn't depend on men for her story to move forward"_
Doesn't that make it about gender? I'm just trying to understand.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 10, 2018)

Chessie2 said:


> Then why did you post this:_ "I think a more succinct way of expressing it would be a character that doesn't depend on men for her story to move forward"_
> Doesn't that make it about gender? I'm just trying to understand.



I may have misunderstood, but I think the person I was responding to was laying out a traditional idea of what a strong female character would be considered and i was chiming in, really with what i feel is the root of the notion. That is, I was taking it as an observation and not a judgment.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 10, 2018)

Chessie2 said:


> No. If a character is presented strongly then they are not independent of relying on other characters. They NEED other characters in order to drive story forward. There are various angles with which to view this. None of the examples I gave (with the exception of Aelish) were women who did it all on their own without having relationships with other characters who helped them achieve maturity in the story. A strong female character, however, should possess power of some sort...and I'm not necessarily referring to magical powers or physical strength. Power in a woman's world has everything to do with her attitude, how she carries herself, how she treats others, etc. In no way shape or form does a strong character, either male or female, go at story alone. Again, it's not about independence in the sense that they don't have relationships with others. As a romance writer, my heroines learn to love unconditionally, which is powerful in itself.



Just so you know, I wasn't responding directly to you. If I was I would have quoted you. There had already been a few attempts to define a "strong female" that I was responding to in general. Notice I said they seem to be about possessing power OR being independent from other characters. And I do understand where possessing power and shall we say extreme individuality is a very desirable characteristic to the modern mind. Our culture certainly worships the powerful self-made individual (look at what we did with Trump, who is not self-made but has convinced enough people that he is). I lean rather toward the opinion that these kinds of characteristics are unhealthy both for the person and the culture and usually indicate a diseased kind of strength. 

Of course it is hard to talk about it in general terms without specific examples. Unfortunately I've never seen an episode of X files (no, really) and I only read ASOIAF up to the red wedding scene and then threw it across the room (nor do I watch GOT). For my part, I consider Jessica from Dune to be an immensely strong character. She is raised and trained to serve the Bene Gesserit and follow their orders, but she disobeys them. Not for empowerment for herself, but for love. She faces the crisis the Atreides are in with calm intelligence and puts the good of her family above everything, including her personal emotions. At her lowest point, she is a survivor able to adapt to a dire situation, taking any opportunity she can to protect her son. And later in life she is capable of pausing to wonder if the decisions she made were really the right thing to do, not because of her own sacrifice but because of the hardship she forced on her unborn daughter. Even though she puts her family first, she has a healthy amount of pride and self-knowledge and inspires respect in others through her words and actions. But everything she has done, has been for love.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Oct 10, 2018)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> True.
> 
> Here's food for thought: Why do we see independence from other people as strong???? We are largely defined by our ability to love and form relationships, as individuals and as a species. Depending on others really should not have anything to do with strength. It is our bonds with others that make us strong. Again, both as individuals, and as a species.
> 
> ...



My thoughts exactly. 
Even these days, I tend to fall back on 'I need to be totally independent', but it's mainly from old wounds and old lines of thinking. I do what I can to stop the cycle, but some days it comes back.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 11, 2018)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> True.
> 
> Here's food for thought: Why do we see independence from other people as strong???? We are largely defined by our ability to love and form relationships, as individuals and as a species. Depending on others really should not have anything to do with strength. It is our bonds with others that make us strong. Again, both as individuals, and as a species.
> 
> ...



Don't know how I missed your post. I agree completely. And at the same time we're throwing out "strong female character" (tm) we also need to kill off the idea of the Mary Sue (tm). For exactly the same reasons: it's simplistic, reductive, and no one has any idea what it means. I think if people were more honest with themselves, they would realize that most of the time what they identify as a "strong female character" is simply a character that works for them as a person, that speaks to them on some level, or someone they can aspire to be. Which is fine, but you have to keep in mind that it's only your own personal experience and everyone experiences characters differently. Likewise, what we identify as a "Mary Sue" is almost always a character that just doesn't work for us on a personal level. We don't personally enjoy the experience of reading about them, therefore they must be wrong. In reality, the only real Mary Sues are those extremely egregious examples from fanfiction that started the term to begin with. But it's outlived its day and really needs to be taken out and shot. And there simply needs to be more acceptance of the personal, subjective aspect of characters.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 11, 2018)

I just think that, in general, it takes a deep level of human understanding and emotional maturity to write realistic characters, either male or female, in fiction who inspire others and drive story forward. It all comes down to being skilled at your craft.


----------



## LordWarGod (Jan 26, 2019)

Darkfantasy said:


> 'A strong female character'
> 
> I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately on the other writing forums I use and I don't really understand it. I hear people say this female character was strong and this one was weak. I don't really understand the difference between the two. It seems a bit objective sometimes so maybe it all comes down to a person. I ask this question between I read the comments on another forum of two people disagreeing over whether Katniss everdeen was a strong female or not. I'm not familiar with the Hunger Games but I've been hearing this phrase more and more lately - like it's the new obsession to create strong females. Haven't female characters always been just as strong or weak as male characters? Why is there this preoccupation on strong females and not strong males?
> What are some characteristics of a strong female character. I think of Scarlett O'Hara as a strong but maybe I'm wrong.
> ...



A strong female character shouldn't have every aspect of a douche strong male character except for the gender. Which is what a lot of writers like to do. They like to have them muscular, badass and can beat everybody in a brawl. That's a male thing, not a female thing. A strong female character to me is somebody like Ellen Ripley. She's not muscular, she doesn't immediately beat every man that even looks at her but you know she's a strong person.

She led a ragtag team of marines against all odds. She took care of a little girl who lost her parents. She fucked up a nest of vicious xenomorphs and blew up the entire site from orbit. She took command, she didn't panic and break down. She was strong emotionally and that's the important thing that a strong female character should have. Just like Katniss Everdeen, at least before she started wailing about Peeta all the time. She didn't give a shit what people thought of her, she did her own thing and was bullheaded. She doesn't have to wear a wife's beater shirt, be all sweaty and act all angry and macho like a man does. She's already badass because she knows how to take advantage of her small figure and light weight, she knows she can' take down a man by herself but she can use a bow instead.

That's what gets me annoyed about strong female characters today. They literally take all the characteristics of an alpha male and apply it to a female and somehow that counts as being a strong female character. It's unrealistic to me and it takes me out of the immersion all the time.


----------



## C. L. Larson (Jan 27, 2019)

It is my humble opinion that a strong character, whether male or female, is a character that is a major force within the story, not just a sideline or support character. They don't have to necessarily have to play a positive role. In the series I am writing the strongest character (though not female) in the story, at this point is the villian. That character isn't virtuous or heroic but selfish and uses cruelty to mask insecurity. I believe however that the characters strength within the story comes from the emotion this evokes in the reader.

I think todays obsession with the idea of a strong female character stems from the over played damsel in distress themes of the past. I also believe this obsession will lead to the (I am a woman that can accomplish everything on my own) being over played.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 28, 2019)

LordWarGod said:


> A strong female character shouldn't have every aspect of a douche strong male character except for the gender. Which is what a lot of writers like to do. They like to have them muscular, badass and can beat everybody in a brawl. That's a male thing, not a female thing. A strong female character to me is somebody like Ellen Ripley. She's not muscular, she doesn't immediately beat every man that even looks at her but you know she's a strong person.
> 
> That's what gets me annoyed about strong female characters today. They literally take all the characteristics of an alpha male and apply it to a female and somehow that counts as being a strong female character. It's unrealistic to me and it takes me out of the immersion all the time.



Ripley is a character from the horror genre, which dictates that she retains enough vulnerability to put the monster over as terrifying. She's not supposed to engage the enemy until the other characters have been wiped out one by one.  In Alien, it's a plot twist that she's the main hero in the end, she's as terrifed as the other characters. She's not only terrified, but traumatized in Aliens as I recall and acts in spite of those at the end, after running and hidng from the alien for most of the running time. In the second one it's only by maternal instinct that she even goes back.

What I'm getting at, is Ripley is one character in a particular genre of Scifl/Horror. Sarah Connor, the other character who gets brought up as how to keep a strong female character "womanly" is also based in the horror genre. In the first one, she's a damsel with the twist at the end. In the second, she's traumatized and acts on maternal instinct for her son. These are essentially the same characters written by the same man.  Let them be them. To hold them as a gold standard for female characters of other genres and other writers would be incredibly limiting.


----------



## LordWarGod (Jan 28, 2019)

Annoyingkid said:


> Ripley is a character from the horror genre, which dictates that she retains enough vulnerability to put the monster over as terrifying. She's not supposed to engage the enemy until the other characters have been wiped out one by one.  In Alien, it's a plot twist that she's the main hero in the end, she's as terrifed as the other characters. She's not only terrified, but traumatized in Aliens as I recall and acts in spite of those at the end, after running and hidng from the alien for most of the running time. In the second one it's only by maternal instinct that she even goes back.
> 
> What I'm getting at, is Ripley is one character in a particular genre of Scifl/Horror. Sarah Connor, the other character who gets brought up as how to keep a strong female character "womanly" is also based in the horror genre. In the first one, she's a damsel with the twist at the end. In the second, she's traumatized and acts on maternal instinct for her son. These are essentially the same characters written by the same man.  Let them be them. To hold them as a gold standard for female characters of other genres and other writers would be incredibly limiting.



True, Sarah Connor is a far better example of a strong female protagonist than Ripley. But my point was that most strong female characters today are just men in female clothing. They don't represent or portray actual real life strong female characters properly. Just like how action heroes like Captain America don't represent strong men. The lack of emotion, responsibility and courage to do things outside of the norm for stereotypically strong men is what makes them inaccurate when it comes to this. Strong men look after their families, bond with their children and ensure they have the best life possible. Strong men will listen to their peers and understand them. Strong men are not afraid to open up to others and show emotion. Strong men can be fathers, engineers or just office workers.

Likewise for women as well.

A strong female character should have traits such as having strong motherly instincts or are unafraid to show emotion and defend those they love. Strong feminine traits is what they should have because that's what real life women have. A strong woman or man isn't supposed to be physically strong. They're supposed to be strong emotionally and mentally so they're prepared to face the obstacles ahead. 

If all a strong female character has is "she's strong and beats everybody in combat" then you might as well give that role to a male because there's virtually no difference. And if all a man has is that single trait then you have a shallow and vapid character that needs a lot of development. That was my point.


----------



## Gray-Hand (Jan 28, 2019)

A strong female character is a character who develops, or at least has their own agenda and takes action to advance it.

Examples from The Handmaids Tale:
Offred:  Strong female character.  Wants to escape Gilliad with her daughters and makes multiple attempts to do so. Manipulates other characters to improve her position.
Ofglen:  Definitely SFC.  Wants to bring down Gilliad and actively recruits others to the cause despite gruesome personal setbacks.
Serena:  Ebbs and flows between strong and weak. In flashbacks she appears to be quite the agenda setter, but as the story has continued her personal agency has declined and she has become a prisoner of her society with little ability and not much inclination to change it.  On the other hand, she does take independent, rule breaking action to get Offred pregnant, and later to try to keep her in line.
Aunt Lydia:  Definite Strong Female character.  Her duty is to uphold the patriarchy and keep the handmaids in line and she does it like a boss.
Eden:  The opposite of a strong female character.  Her entire world revolves around the men in her life.
Mrs O’Conner:  (Marisa Tomei).  Very definitely not an SFC.  A prisoner of the system who doesn’t even contemplate taking positive action to improve her position and clings to the belief that God will save her.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 28, 2019)

LordWarGod said:


> . Strong feminine traits is what they should have because that's what real life women have.



Most perhaps. But this is selective realism. Because most real life women can't fight fantasy villains. Real life women certainly aren't going back for the cat the way Ripley did. Or even facing down an alien queen to save Newt. 99.999999999% of women would just cry for Newt. 

If we acknowledge this is selective realism, why prioritize realism to begin with. Genre fiction is never going to be competing with Literary fiction for people who want realism. So how about things like 

- Entertainment Value.
- Symbolic meaning.
- Philosophical metaphor.
- Allegory, social and moral commentary. 
- Plot functionality. 

These are other levels in genre fiction that a writer can work with. There is a realism requirement to build empathy with a character, but that can be done with an everyman/everywoman sidekick, Or other character to comment and provide the audience with insight.



LordWarGod said:


> If all a strong female character has is "she's strong and beats everybody in combat" then you might as well give that role to a male because there's virtually no difference.



No, there is a difference. A female character beating everybody in combat, empathizes the specialness and power of the training to a much greater degree than it does a male, as a woman is usually starting from a physically weaker position. And  on top of that, if superpowers aren't involved, has less potential for strength growth. 

Also it is telling that in fantasy, we can believe heroic men taking out physically stronger Uruk Hai, or even trolls, but it's suddenly unrealistic for heroic women to beat men consistently. And if she does so, she's a "man in female clothing". By that logic, a man who beats a troll in a fight is a troll in mens clothing.


----------



## Gray-Hand (Jan 28, 2019)

Examples of strong and weak female characters from Game of Thrones (show, not the books).

Danaerys:  Not really a SFC.  Very powerful, and has an agenda, but she really has her hand held on the journey toward her end goal by a lot of stronger characters.  Becoming stronger as the series continues.
Sansa Stark:  A weak female character for the first six or so seasons.  Extremely passive most of the time, allowing all sorts of terrible crap to happen to her without taking action to improve her situation.  Has become stronger in the last season.
Brienne:  Not really a SFC.  A powerful fighter, but diesn’t really have her own agenda.  Advances other people’s agenda’s a lot more than her own.
Melisandre:  Definite SFC.  Has her own agenda, pursues it and manipulated and forces others to do so as well.
Cersei:  The SFC poster girl.
Arya:  Definitely an SFC, but not really as much as people often say.  Her agenda is revenge, and she is definitely doing that, but particularly in earlier seasons she was carried along that path by others.
Yara Greyjoy:  Could not be more of a strong female character.  Knows what she wants and goes for it.
Gilly:  Not a SFC.  She is a passenger.
Ygritte:  A bit to reactive to be properly classed as a strong female character.
Lady Olenna:  Oozes SFC.  Takes the initiative to pursue her goals. Forces everyone else to react to her actions rather than the other way around.


----------



## LordWarGod (Jan 29, 2019)

Annoyingkid said:


> Most perhaps. But this is selective realism. Because most real life women can't fight fantasy villains. Real life women certainly aren't going back for the cat the way Ripley did. Or even facing down an alien queen to save Newt. 99.999999999% of women would just cry for Newt.
> 
> If we acknowledge this is selective realism, why prioritize realism to begin with. Genre fiction is never going to be competing with Literary fiction for people who want realism. So how about things like
> 
> ...



So what's the point in having a strong female character if all she has going for her is "she can beat 100 men at once"? It's boring and it has an obvious feminist agenda behind it. Women hate the whole damsel in distress thing so now writers, especially in Hollywood, are pumping out movies/books where women are dominant, assertive and in charge over men. 

Why? Nobody can relate to it. Men are almost always in charge in real life, assertive and dominant. So what we have here is another "female kicking male ass" and everybody rolls their eyes until the scene ends. I get that it's fantasy but is it worth creating a cardboard cutout of a stereotypical "Hollywood tough guy" and replacing his clothes with women's clothing? I understand that women need some kind of inspiration from a fictional female character that can beat all the men and save the day but it's just really boring, doesn't add anything else to the story nor does it create depth in the character. 

Why is it so important to make sure that women do exactly what men do? Why do they have to always be fighting? Lifting weights? Eating a lot? Acting all tough and macho 24/7? I can't comprehend the fixation on this. Don't women have their own thing? Looking after children, teaching children or being an emotionally supportive character? 

I get that it's 2019, I get that women are equal to men but that isn't in the literal sense. Biologically, men are superior in every aspect but one; flexibility. Sure, it's difficult for women to be on the same level as men in combat but that's still something men do. Why is there such an obsession in trying to make women exactly the same as men? Haven't people maybe considered that women should have their own thing? Like how men have their own thing? 

It's like everything else in real life. Women now want to be included in everything that was once a male dominant thing. Video games, cars, weightlifting, police/military and so on. So forgive me if I sound brash but it's beginning to take it's toll on me. I open up my games and all I see are "tough female chicks kicking male ass" so I shut down my game and watch a movie. More "tough female chicks" taking control and kicking more man ass. So I stop watching a movie, turn on the news-- "FIRST FEMALE TO BECOME X Y OR Z" or some variation of how a female has achieved something that men already have and why we should all be excited about it. Alright, enough news, maybe there's a book I could read? Oh for fucks sake, here's a female protagonist that's just slain a million men with a stroke of her blade.

Enough, man. All this politics is beginning to infect literature, video games, movies, comics and everything else that used to be fun. I just want it all to be over and read a decent story that doesn't have a feminist issued female protagonist that is a man with a sex change, just to "inspire women" to believe they can "beat men" in real life.

Every time I read or watch something that features women beating men, looking after men and being the "alpha", I just cannot suspend my disbelief enough to stay immersed and it screams modern politics all over the place, which I can't stand either. Any idea how demoralizing it is to see that over 70% of media representation is women? What? Do men just take a backseat and just accept being phased out slowly?


----------



## Gray-Hand (Jan 29, 2019)

It’s hard to see how characters like Rambo, James Bond, Ethan Hunt, John Wick, Conan or Jack Sparrow are any more realistic than say Lara Croft, Black Widow or Arya Stark.

They all have supernatural strength, toughness, endurance, reflexes and unbelievable luck to do the things they do movie after movie, episode after episode.   Realism was never part of the action hero genre.


----------



## LordWarGod (Jan 29, 2019)

Gray-Hand said:


> It’s hard to see how characters like Rambo, James Bond, Ethan Hunt, John Wick, Conan or Jack Sparrow are any more realistic than say Lara Croft, Black Widow or Arya Stark.
> 
> They all have supernatural strength, toughness, endurance, reflexes and unbelievable luck to do the things they do movie after movie, episode after episode.   Realism was never part of the action hero genre.



Take Rambo, give him a motherly nurturing instinct, make him emotional and turn him into an emotional support character. Have him dress up like a woman, behave effeminately and so on. Does that make sense at all? No.

Same goes for "strong female characters". They should be female, not male.


----------



## Gray-Hand (Jan 29, 2019)

You wouldn’t take Rambo and change the character because Rambo is already the character that he is.

You also wouldn’t write a (non parody) story about Emma Woodhouse or Jane Eyre strapping up in combat gear and going off to Waterloo, cutting a swathe through the Imperial Guard and taking on Napoléon in hand to hand combat.  Because that’s not who those characters are.

But there is no reason why you can’t create a well written nurturing male character or a female action hero character from scratch.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 29, 2019)

LordWarGod said:


> So what's the point in having a strong female character if all she has going for her is "she can beat 100 men at once"? It's boring and it has an obvious feminist agenda behind it. Women hate the whole damsel in distress thing so now writers, especially in Hollywood, are pumping out movies/books where women are dominant, assertive and in charge over men.



If there's a character that can just beat 100 men at once, and there's nothing else there can still be a point to it, because the character beating guys may exist to set up other, more complex characters and events. The story might not be about the SFC per se, but the SFC's actions might be inciting incidents.

The SFC's selling point might be little more than the entertainment value of watching  her fight, like a Steven Seagal or Jackie chan thrill ride. There's nothing inherently wrong with that in visual media. Not everything needs to be deep.

*"Men are almost always in charge in real life, assertive and dominant."*

 Not so much in developed countries these days, but I can agree that the Strong Female Character is by her very nature, an exceptional individual.   

* "Why do they have to always be fighting? "
*
Sarah Connor beat up men in the mental hospital scene and did bodyweight exercises. You like that character.

How's a SFC going to beat the standard dark lord then? By blowing pink love hearts? By inspiring the men through sex? By complaining on her blog on tumblr?

*Don't women have their own thing? Looking after children, teaching children or being an emotionally supportive character?*

Interesting. Nobody ever says the reverse. Nobody ever says Alfred from Batman should stop looking after young Bruce Wayne and should stop being an emotionally supportive character because that's a woman's thing. "Nobody can relate to that."

Unfair if men have the versatility inhabit fighting and nurturing roles but women should be limited to the sensitive and stay away from the fighting.

*"Enough, man. All this politics is beginning to infect literature, video games, movies, comics and everything else that used to be fun."*

You've had it good for too long. Imagine what it's like for other genders, sexualities and races who rarely get to see themselves portrayed in popular media. You have to increasingly share the pie.
Am I supposed to be upset about that? Am I supposed to relate to your frustation?

*"Any idea how demoralizing it is to see that over 70% of media representation is women? What? Do men just take a backseat and just accept being phased out slowly?"*

Do you actually care about the female dominated aspects of media though? Do you genuinely want to see more male protagonists in romance, YA fiction, and more men on daytime tv? I certainly would. So if you would, I agree with you.

Film:
_According to a new study about women and film out of San Diego State University, women accounted for *24 percent* of protagonists in the 100 top-grossing domestic films of 2017_
Film Study Finds Number of Female Protagonists Down 5 Percent

Books:
*The Gender Balance of The New York Times Best Seller List*

79% of the best seller list for fantasy /scifi in 2010 were by male authors. 

Video games.

109 games debuted at E3 this year, and just eight of them (or *7 percent*) star female characters,
compared with 29 titles (*26 percent*) featuring male protagonists. Fifty-*two percent* of newly announced games utilize a system that lets players select specific characters or genders.
The evolution of women in video games continues at E3 2017

Comics:
Only *26.7 percent* of all DC and Marvel characters are female, and only *12 percent* of mainstream superhero comics have female protagonists.

Analyzing the Gender Representation of 34,476 Comic Book Characters

*Yet you say: *

_ "forgive me if I sound brash but it's beginning to take it's toll on me. I open up my *games* and all I see are "tough female chicks kicking male ass" so I shut down my game and watch a *movie*. More "tough female chicks" taking control and kicking more man ass. So I stop watching a movie, turn on the news-- "FIRST FEMALE TO BECOME X Y OR Z" or some variation of how a female has achieved something that men already have and why we should all be excited about it. Alright, enough news, maybe there's a book I could read? Oh for fucks sake, here's a female protagonist that's just slain a million men with a stroke of her blade."
_
Your rant doesn't sync with reality of things.

However I will conceed this: In media with Strong Female characters, there is a strong tendency to portray all the male characters as inept, cowardly, weak, and immoral. This is something I don't like at all as it pits the strong female character not against men, but a strawman of men, or males. This actually weakens the strong female character, contrary to what alot of writers think.


----------



## LordWarGod (Jan 30, 2019)

Annoyingkid said:


> If there's a character that can just beat 100 men at once, and there's nothing else there can still be a point to it, because the character beating guys may exist to set up other, more complex characters and events. The story might not be about the SFC per se, but the SFC's actions might be inciting incidents.
> 
> The SFC's selling point might be little more than the entertainment value of watching  her fight, like a Steven Seagal or Jackie chan thrill ride. There's nothing inherently wrong with that in visual media. Not everything needs to be deep.



There still isn't a need to create a void of disbelief suspension just for the sake of filling a diversity quota.



Annoyingkid said:


> Not so much in developed countries these days, but I can agree that the Strong Female Character is by her very nature, an exceptional individual.



That's because men are being raised by female teachers and carers to believe that women are better than them at everything. The moment boys attempt to do anything boy related, they are pulled aside and told that it's bad. They are being feminized. Men are naturally better at leading, hunting and fighting. Not exactly a great argument when you have boys being brainwashed from day one.



Annoyingkid said:


> Sarah Connor beat up men in the mental hospital scene and did bodyweight exercises. You like that character.
> 
> How's a SFC going to beat the standard dark lord then? By blowing pink love hearts? By inspiring the men through sex? By complaining on her blog on tumblr?



How did Katniss beat President Snow? That's right, she inspired people through propaganda clips and brought the Capitol down to it's knees. She didn't march into the Capitol and take every single person out with her bow and arrows.

Sarah Connor used a weapon to beat the men. You understand physics? It replaces the need for body strength and weight. Read up on it.



Annoyingkid said:


> Interesting. Nobody ever says the reverse. Nobody ever says Alfred from Batman should stop looking after young Bruce Wayne and should stop being an emotionally supportive character because that's a woman's thing. "Nobody can relate to that."
> 
> Unfair if men have the versatility inhabit fighting and nurturing roles but women should be limited to the sensitive and stay away from the fighting.



It's funny that you expect an old 90 year old man to do anything else but that. It's like expecting a 18 year old terminally ill patient who can barely move to suddenly do anything but be an emotionally supportive character.

And nobody can relate to women fighting and acting macho. All our lives, we've seen men do that and not women in real life.



Annoyingkid said:


> You've had it good for too long. Imagine what it's like for other genders, sexualities and races who rarely get to see themselves portrayed in popular media. You have to increasingly share the pie.
> Am I supposed to be upset about that? Am I supposed to relate to your frustation?



I'm not interested in your gender/race war. I'm interested in consuming good reading/viewing material. Just because of the past, you don't need to suddenly enforce a diversity quota just so everybody feels included. I've been Deaf from birth, I don't require movies or books to have at least one Deaf person at all times to feel immersed in it. There may be the occasional movie or book where there is one but I don't care.

These people have been portrayed in popular media for years. That's not enough though. What they want is a complete elimination of straight white men from popular media in favor of plastering the poor oppressed minorities in everything and burning it into our minds. Sort of a sick and twisted reverse 1950's scenario where men are oppressed, have no rights and are worthless.

That's the thing, you DO have representation in popular media. You're just taking a mile when you've been given an inch and just proving the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy once and for all. You want everything instead of your portion of the pie. And you forget that men can just choose not to watch these things. Just like how women can choose to do so as well. What a hysterical argument.



Annoyingkid said:


> Do you actually care about the female dominated aspects of media though? Do you genuinely want to see more male protagonists in romance, YA fiction, and more men on daytime tv? I certainly would. So if you would, I agree with you.



I would rather that people write good books and make good movies. If you have to include a minority character just to fill a diversity quota, chances are it's going to be SJW garbage trying to manipulate the media into believing that this is how the world looks. And people will see through it, just like the Ghostbusters remake, the Ocean's Eleven remake or the new Star Wars movies and just not watch it.



Annoyingkid said:


> Your rant doesn't sync with reality of things.
> 
> However I will conceed this: In media with Strong Female characters, there is a strong tendency to portray all the male characters as inept, cowardly, weak, and immoral. This is something I don't like at all as it pits the strong female character not against men, but a strawman of men, or males. This actually weakens the strong female character, contrary to what alot of writers think.



That tiny of a representation and yet we see nothing but females all day long.

What gives?

Ah, because of a diversity quota that women must be over-represented and plastered all over everything. Just like that dumb statistic where it claims that women make up 50% of gamers and it turned out it was talking about mobile games rather than PC games. Then a new statistic came out that made a claim that women made up 50% of PC gamers and it turned out that it was just a survey based on what gender was chosen for characters in video games where males chose the female gender over the male gender.

I think you just can't accept the idea that women are never going to be viewed as strong, fighting machines like men are by the majority of society. And that's a good thing too. Can you imagine if this started having an influence on how women viewed reality and had them thinking they could beat men in real fights? The mortality rates would skyrocket. Even worse, the influence on how men viewed reality? Instead of their conservative views on violence against women and not hitting them, they would start to not have any qualms on beating the utter shit out of women just like they do with men.

There isn't just politics involved, there's real life risks involved in this as well. There's a reason why combat sport divisions are separated by gender. There's a reason why for many millennia, women weren't allowed to fight in the police/military because of the extreme liabilities they posed to their male counterparts which we can witness in play with a simple search on YouTube of female cops/soldiers not being able to restrain or subdue male suspects or combatants and putting their male partners in danger because of it.

We keep going in this direction with the whole "women can do everything men can" and it won't only just ruin literature or movies, it'll have some powerful and profound social consequences as well because of how widespread, accessible and easily consumed popular media is today which will only get worse in the future. Think twenty steps ahead, not just the now.


----------



## LordWarGod (Jan 30, 2019)

Gray-Hand said:


> You wouldn’t take Rambo and change the character because Rambo is already the character that he is.
> 
> You also wouldn’t write a (non parody) story about Emma Woodhouse or Jane Eyre strapping up in combat gear and going off to Waterloo, cutting a swathe through the Imperial Guard and taking on Napoléon in hand to hand combat.  Because that’s not who those characters are.
> 
> But there is no reason why you can’t create a well written nurturing male character or a female action hero character from scratch.



Then why the sudden desperation in creating as many "strong female characters" as possible? If it's not necessary to do the reverse for men?


----------



## Gray-Hand (Jan 30, 2019)

It isn’t necessary to do the reverse for men.  It’s not a zero sum game.  More action heroines doesn’t require more male romcom leads.

I’m not quite sure I understand the point you were trying to make.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jan 30, 2019)

LordWarGod said:


> A strong female character shouldn't have every aspect of a douche strong male character except for the gender. Which is what a lot of writers like to do. They like to have them muscular, badass and can beat everybody in a brawl. That's a male thing, not a female thing.
> 
> That's what gets me annoyed about strong female characters today. They literally take all the characteristics of an alpha male and apply it to a female and somehow that counts as being a strong female character. It's unrealistic to me and it takes me out of the immersion all the time.



Can you name me a few female characters that meet this description? From books, preferably. I've not encountered any that I can think of like this, personally.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 30, 2019)

I know Sarah Connor had a weapon. If simply giving the SFC a weapon solves your problem with it, then you should have just said so.



LordWarGod said:


> There still isn't a need to create a void of disbelief suspension just for the sake of filling a diversity quota.



You think man beating 100 guys doesn't create a void of disbelief suspension but a woman doing the same does? You realize neither happens irl.



LordWarGod said:


> Men are naturally better at leading, hunting and fighting.



Leading and hunting would need proof. But here's a question:

 If you had a setting where elves make naturally better warriors, does that mean you'd think no human can become a top level warrior because genetics and nature rules the human's destiny?



LordWarGod said:


> How did Katniss beat President Snow? That's right, she inspired people through propaganda clips and brought the Capitol down to it's knees.



I saw Mockingjay part II. Katniss just stood around with an emotionless face, being "inspiring", while others manufactured her image. Was utterly boring to watch seeing  the SFC reduced to being a living banner or flag.



LordWarGod said:


> It's funny that you expect an old 90 year old man to do anything else but that.



http://www.littlestuffedbull.com/images/2012/366alfred/alfred0105.jpg
He's not nearly that old in the comics.  (the canon material)

*"And nobody can relate to women fighting and acting macho.*"

I can.

*"All our lives, we've seen men do that and not women in real life."*

Seen it in MMA.
Men don't out fight bears in close quarters irl, but we see them doing alot of that against equivalent monsters in fantasy.



LordWarGod said:


> I'm not interested in your gender/race war.



Why do you consider other races and genders having greater  representation to be an attack on you and a battle? Why the zero sum game? Straight, cis, white men still hold the large majority in the medias you're interested in.

*"And people will see through it, just like the Ghostbusters remake, the Ocean's Eleven remake or the new Star Wars movies and just not watch it."*

While Oceans 8 made 100 mill less than Oceans 13, it was after an 11 year gap,  trying to revive a concluded franchise with different characters, with a 15 million smaller budget. 

Judging how Solo, a Star Wars story did, using recasted males probably wouldn't have done any better.

Force Awakens is the highest grossing Star Wars film ever made.

The Last Jedi was badly written. Ghostbusters barely even had a script, they just ad libbed the whole movie.

*"I think you just can't accept the idea that women are never going to be viewed as strong, fighting machines like men are by the majority of society."
*
Lets look at two equivalent fantasy shows in the same setting by the same production company. One with a male lead, one with a female.

Buffy The Vampire Slayer outperformed Angel in ratings.
Xena Warrior Princess outperformed Hercules The Legendary Journeys in ratings.

* "Can you imagine if this started having an influence on how women viewed reality and had them thinking they could beat men in real fights? The mortality rates would skyrocket"*

What, like men thinking they're really the Joker?
Cops: Colo. Suspect Said He 'Was the Joker'

Maybe men shouldn't have these stories if you can't tell fantasy from reality?

*"Instead of their conservative views on violence against women and not hitting them, they would start to not have any qualms on beating the utter shit out of women just like they do with men."*

Oh really, so in your mind, conservative views means less violence against women. So that must mean Middle Eastern, orthodox Islamic countries must have the lowest violence against women in the world? 

*
*


----------



## LordWarGod (Jan 30, 2019)

Annoyingkid said:


> I know Sarah Connor had a weapon. If simply giving the SFC a weapon solves your problem with it, then you should have just said so.



But that's not good enough is it? Women need to believe they can physically beat a man without weapons.





Annoyingkid said:


> You think man beating 100 guys doesn't create a void of disbelief suspension but a woman doing the same does? You realize neither happens irl.



I'm talking about the role being taken up by a female. It's just unrealistic. 



Annoyingkid said:


> Leading and hunting would need proof.



Proof? Over 40,000 years of human history. Every attempt females have made to create their own civilization has failed. Male armies and civilizations always subjugated them with so much as a fuss.



Annoyingkid said:


> But here's a question:
> 
> If you had a setting where elves make naturally better warriors, does that mean you'd think no human can become a top level warrior because genetics and nature rules the human's destiny?



That's a species difference. It's like saying there's a race of 15 meter tall, instant-regenerating titans that make naturally better warriors, can humanity ever attain the potential to be better than them at being a warrior?



Annoyingkid said:


> I saw Mockingjay part II. Katniss just stood around with an emotionless face, being "inspiring", while others manufactured her image. Was utterly boring to watch seeing the SFC reduced to being a living banner or flag.



Which is what happens in the real life most of the time.



Annoyingkid said:


> He's not nearly that old in the comics. (the canon material)



Does it actually matter? He's an old frail man, that's why he has that kind of role. That's the whole point. That's why the author made him so.



Annoyingkid said:


> Seen it in MMA.



Against other females. Against men, they would die from a glancing blow. Ergo, gender division exists.



Annoyingkid said:


> Men don't out fight bears in close quarters irl, but we see them doing alot of that against equivalent monsters in fantasy.



And suddenly women should do it too? Just because men do? It's like a kid wanting some other kid's toy truck just because he has it. It's immature.



Annoyingkid said:


> Why do you consider other races and genders having greater representation to be an attack on you and a battle? Why the zero sum game? Straight, cis, white men still hold the large majority in the medias you're interested in.



Because that's how these people view it. The fact that you're calling us "cis" is evidence of this battle going on. I am not "cis", I am a normal male without any problems. That's the whole aim, to try and erode our existence from the face of the Earth in an act of vengeance for what people did to their ancestors 200 years ago.

And to do this, you constantly pump out horrid SJW infested content in movies and in books with a diverse cast that has no other purpose but to say "diversity is our strength".



Annoyingkid said:


> While Oceans 8 made 100 mill less than Oceans 13, it was after an 11 year gap, trying to revive a concluded franchise with different characters, with a 15 million smaller budget.
> 
> Judging how Solo, a Star Wars story did, using recasted males probably wouldn't have done any better.
> 
> ...



They were exploiting women in a SJW dominant world in hopes that they'd get tons of money but didn't anticipate that women generally don't care about movies originally created for men so they flopped. Mild shock.



Annoyingkid said:


> Lets look at two equivalent fantasy shows in the same setting by the same production company. One with a male lead, one with a female.
> 
> Buffy The Vampire Slayer outperformed Angel in ratings.
> Xena Warrior Princess outperformed Hercules The Legendary Journeys in ratings.



Buffy was more well known compared to Angel.



Annoyingkid said:


> What, like men thinking they're really the Joker?
> Cops: Colo. Suspect Said He 'Was the Joker'
> 
> Maybe men shouldn't have these stories if you can't tell fantasy from reality?



And there are already real life consequences of movies/books perpetuating the idea that females can beat men in fights. Women join the police force, fully thinking that they can take down male suspects and they end up with a caved in face and a plethora of life-threatening problems that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.



Annoyingkid said:


> Oh really, so in your mind, conservative views means less violence against women. So that must mean Middle Eastern, orthodox Islamic countries must have the lowest violence against women in the world?



There was another meaning to the word "conservative" before all this political cancer came and took over the world.


----------



## LordWarGod (Jan 30, 2019)

Gray-Hand said:


> It isn’t necessary to do the reverse for men.  It’s not a zero sum game.  More action heroines doesn’t require more male romcom leads.
> 
> I’m not quite sure I understand the point you were trying to make.



The point I'm trying to make is that women should stop trying to copy men in everything they do. Make their own way in this world. Doing things that men have already done is just boring, pointless and doesn't bring anything new to the table.


----------



## LordWarGod (Jan 30, 2019)

Mythopoet said:


> Can you name me a few female characters that meet this description? From books, preferably. I've not encountered any that I can think of like this, personally.



It's mostly in movies since I don't read books with female protagonists. There's a character from the 2013 movie Riddick where a mercenary female is always constantly beating the shit out of this one man who's always an asshole to her. It's literally a man dressed up like a woman, it's ridiculous and it's almost like the movie expected me to believe this thing.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Jan 30, 2019)

Hello everyone!

This thread has already been derailed and it has entered negative territory in several ways. Please stop the argument, and keep the discussion focused on Fantasy stories and characters. 

Thank you!


----------



## Annoyingkid (Jan 30, 2019)

LordWarGod said:


> But that's not good enough is it? Women need to believe they can physically beat a man without weapons.



Superior martial techique is effectively a weapon. Which is what the SFC is trying to portray.
SFCs that win despite inferior technique and inferior physical stats don't exactly ever win just because. There's usually a reason. ex. Kylo Ren was bleeding out and probably lightheaded when he fought Rey.



LordWarGod said:


> It's just unrealistic



How do you define unrealistic besides "Never happens irl?"



LordWarGod said:


> Proof? Over 40,000 years of human history.* Every attempt females have made to create their own civilization has failed*. Male armies and civilizations always subjugated them with so much as a fuss.



Again, not true.
'The land where women rule'

We're not talking about women marching out en masse and subjugating nations and ruling men. That shouldn't be your response to the notion of individualistic SFC's operating in fiction.

Also fantasy by it's nature, is a form of speculative fiction. It need not have happened irl to be a viable subject.



LordWarGod said:


> That's a species difference. It's like saying there's a race of 15 meter tall, instant-regenerating titans that make naturally better warriors, can humanity ever attain the potential to be better than them at being a warrior?



Don't strawman the argument. Answer the question as asked. If the average human male has say, only 60% of the upper body strength of an elf and 80% of the lower body strength naturally, does that mean biology rules the human's destiny and the human can never become a top warrior and should give up?

Answer Yes or No.

I won't accept any other answer.

*"Which is what happens in the real life most of the time."*

Real life war isn't entertainment. Fantasy is.



LordWarGod said:


> Does it actually matter? He's an old frail man, that's why he has that kind of role. That's the whole point. That's why the author made him so.



Actually he's a 64 year old ex military veteran. Was a field medic.

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111112794/3980163-3010450-6225163743-19233.jpg
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111112794/3980164-superman+and+deathstroke+_a32262c0364da48ccebe8d915438df1f.jpg

*"Against other females. Against men, they would die from a glancing blow. Ergo, gender division exists"*

Against men in the same weight class, they wouldn't die from any blows unless very unlucky. But a heavyweight will be able to knock out a lightweight sure. But this carries the assumption that low, real world fantasy is the only valid artform. Which is nonsense.



LordWarGod said:


> It's immature.



It's equality.

*"I am not "cis", I am a normal male without any problems*. "

That's what "cis" means. It means you're not transgender.

*"That's the whole aim, to try and erode our existence from the face of the Earth in an act of vengeance for what people did to their ancestors 200 years ago".*

The numbers say you're far from being eroded. So this is not debatable.



LordWarGod said:


> They were exploiting women in a SJW dominant world in hopes that they'd get tons of money but didn't anticipate that women generally don't care about movies originally created for men so they flopped. Mild shock.



69% of Ocean's 8 audiences were women.
Ocean's 8 - Wikipedia



LordWarGod said:


> Buffy was more well known compared to Angel.



Xena wasn't more well known than Hercules.

Also Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon has some of the best fight scenes ever put to film, is female dominated in that regard, has a 97% critic rating on Rotten Tommatoes, An 86% audience score, and had
*Budget* US$17 million
*Box office* US$213.5 million
Massive profit.

Wonder Woman with 100 million lower budget, drew almost the same box office as Batman v Superman.

Women, although still the minority in popular fiction, have been seen as viable action leads for some time now.



LordWarGod said:


> Women join the police force, fully thinking that they can take down male suspects and they end up with a caved in face and a plethora of life-threatening problems that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.



It's disrespectful toward their courage to assume they didn't know the risks and were just high off the portrayal of Strong female characters in media.



LordWarGod said:


> There was another meaning to the word "conservative" before all this political cancer came and took over the world.



The idea or threat that men are going to _start_ to see women as viable targets for violence because of SFC's lacks teeth considering the rates of domestic violence has already been epidemic for a very long time.

Edit - The mod ninja'd me, but I think this debate has concluded anyway.


----------



## Devor (Jan 30, 2019)

While there's room to talk about gender portrayals and some of the differences between men and women, several remarks in this thread have clearly crossed the line, and it's moved well beyond any useful function.

In the future please try to take a topic like this on its own merits and avoid using it as a proxy for political fighting.  And please do your best to avoid characterizing groups of real people.

Also thanks to the individual who reported this thread.


----------

