# 'Strong' vs 'mean' in female characters



## glutton (Nov 12, 2013)

According to many people, a common problem encountered when writing strong female characters is the difficulty of finding the right balance between being 'strong' and being _mean_ (or, as people put it when being less polite, 'being a bitch'). I however have never understood this - why it often assumed that a strong female must be mean/aggressive/a borderline 'bitch' when the same is not assumed of a strong male character? Would a male character who is friendly and nurturing, but willing to take a stand and risk danger for what he believes in, not be strong? And if he is strong, then would a female character will the same traits not also be strong? So why would a 'strong, independent female' be at so much greater risk of crossing the line into being a bitch than a 'strong, independent male' be of crossing the line into being an insensitive asshole?

As an example my favorite strong female character is considerate, often concerned more about others than herself and somewhat yielding in arguments much of the time - but when push comes to shove and she has to fight, she is the best warrior in the world and invading armies, demon lords and 500 foot dragons will feel her wrath. XD

PS. If you're wondering, I do have some female characters who are both strong and mean, what I'm questioning is why some seem to think that 'strong' and 'mean' go hand in hand, as if a strong female character is almost required to also be aggressive/mean.


----------



## Devor (Nov 12, 2013)

The problem stems from the perception that the line between "mean" and "strong" is seen as being in a different place for women and men, that men "get away with" or are even praised for the same behaviors that a woman would be criticized for taking.

You're adding traits like "friendly and nurturing" to the mix.  Throw them out, and use only words like "ambitious," "forceful," "stubborn," and "tough."  When the words describe a man, or a woman, do you make different judgments?

But that's only for illustration.  It isn't really a good test, however, because those words have multiple meanings, and just saying "man" or "woman" might shift your perspective, even allow you to see through the test, and change what kind of "forceful" or "tough" you think we're talking about.  (For instance, which movie character would you use for the man and for the woman you think of when you read those words?  Are they really that similar?)


----------



## Ireth (Nov 12, 2013)

Interesting discussion. I have a female character, Signy, who could be thought to straddle the line between "strong" and "mean", but my intention with her is to show that her real strength comes from her gentler side. Her people, the black-elves, are somewhat akin to orcs, in that crudeness and cruelty are the norm, and any deviance from that is a thing to be ashamed of. Signy flies in the face of her people when she secretly rescues a captive, tends to his injuries, and eventually helps him escape. Her motives aren't entirely selfless, as she initially only helps the captive to satisfy her own curiosity about him; likewise she has no qualms about using her fellow black-elves to help the captive escape. I'm still fleshing out her character, though, and I'm not sure whether she'll immediately discard her darker side upon gaining freedom from the influence of her people, and especially their leader (i.e. the villain). Old habits die hard, as they say.


----------



## glutton (Nov 12, 2013)

Devor said:


> The problem stems from the perception that the line between "mean" and "strong" is seen as being in a different place for women and men, that men "get away with" or are even praised for the same behaviors that a woman would be criticized for taking.



This is a valid issue, but I don't think it's exactly the same one I'm talking about.

What you mention is 'women are held to a different standard when it comes to what actions on their part are considered mean' - which is often the case, certainly.

My question though is more why is the term 'strong female character' itself automatically associated with aggression by some - even without knowing anything about the character or what actions they take.

Or in some cases, a character might not even exist, but bringing up the term 'strong female character' by itself makes somebody react immediately, for example, by saying you should careful not to make them too mean.


----------



## senseiseth (Nov 12, 2013)

The method I go with my female characters is that aside from the physical differences, I don't really treat them differently from the men. Some are good as background characters, others are more upfront. All can handle themselves in certain respects and not so much in others. 

Make them 3-d characters, and give them the time and attention they deserve, and you won't really find a problem between the two.


----------



## Guy (Nov 12, 2013)

Also, consider differences between the author's perception of the character and the readers'. I don't think my heroines are mean and the bad guys deserve everything that the characters do to them, but readers might think the MCs are being mean or cruel.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 12, 2013)

glutton said:


> My question though is more why is the term 'strong female character' itself automatically associated with aggression by some - even without knowing anything about the character or what actions they take.



There's probably many answers to this but maybe it comes down to them not knowing what the full scope of strength really is, so they default to the most obvious descriptions of strength, physical strength and the ability to impose one's will on another. Maybe they're too young and to inexperienced to recognize the various forms of strength there are in the world.

They don't see that if a character is physically weak and mentally meek, they can still be strong.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 12, 2013)

It falls down to patriarchal ideas of strength, imo.


----------



## Devor (Nov 12, 2013)

glutton said:


> Or in some cases, a character might not even exist, but bringing up the term 'strong female character' by itself makes somebody react immediately, for example, by saying you should careful not to make them too mean.



In fairness, people say that because a lot of people over-correct when they set out to make a point by creating a "strong female" character, and end up creating characters who are too strong, mean, etc.  It's more about the rhetoric than the characters.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 12, 2013)

The term "strong female character" kind of turned in the wrong direction. To contrast, what people were originally complaining about were _impotent_ female characters--female characters who were helplessly swept along with the path of the story, without any opportunity to act and change the direction of the story. A lot of authors responded by making female characters who could kick ass, but who still ultimately had no effect on the story's ending--their characteristics changed, but they were still essentially impotent, and they were all the more aggravating for seeming like they were going to be relevant and then doing nothing except being crude and arrogant.

I mentioned in another thread that I think Gen Urobuchi is one of the few writers who really got this. He created characters like her:








A scared, vulnerable, _human_ figure who could still hold her own in a crisis. You know, just like a male hero. But "strong female characters" are often more like this:


----------



## Xitra_Blud (Nov 12, 2013)

I encountered this with my sci-fi story. I have a female character that I personally like a lot. Yeah, she's a bitch but her bitchy personality is the thing I wanted her to be. It's what made me like her. The people in my critique group felt differently, however, and thought that I should lighten her. I still don't like the idea because I think that that would take away fro who she is. I think it's subjective. Some people see the strong character as bitchy and I think the "bitchiness" is what makes her awesome, but I guess others don't feel that way. It depends on who's reading it.


----------



## Chessie (Nov 13, 2013)

The main character in my WIP has an attitude problem. I love her for it. She has other qualities that make her seem like a bitch but really its just that she is driven. A bitchy woman is like the modern term for the opposite of a doormat. I had a reader tell me she should lighten up and I was like nah...don't think so.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 13, 2013)

I've personally encountered this issue in both my personal life and my previous career.  I am a very outspoken woman, an alpha female, if you will.  In a social environment when the core personality traits I tend to exhibit are expressed by a man - extroversion, assertiveness, taking control of a conversation, taking control in emergency situations, confident expression of interest in a possible sexual partner, and a willingness to become physically aggressive if necessary to protect those who are weaker or if attacked - a guy like that would be considered "manly," a "stand-up" sort of guy.  In a woman, even in today's changing climate, these traits are still seen somehow as transgressive, and suddenly the behavior that's "assertive" in a man becomes "bitchy."  It's an interesting sociological experiment to watch in action.  I am rarely mean and don't go looking for trouble - in fact, when angered, I become cold and formal.  But, still, as Chesterama points out, it seems to be a choice between being a "bitch" and a "doormat."  In mixed company, the doormat is socially more acceptable.  She's soft, and yielding, lets her opinion be swayed by louder, more assertive voices, and avoids conflict at almost all cost.  She talks around a refusal, rather than straight out say "no."


----------



## C Hollis (Nov 13, 2013)

> I've personally encountered this issue in both my personal life and my previous career. I am a very outspoken woman, an alpha female, if you will. In a social environment when the core personality traits I tend to exhibit are expressed by a man - extroversion, assertiveness, taking control of a conversation, taking control in emergency situations, confident expression of interest in a possible sexual partner, and a willingness to become physically aggressive if necessary to protect those who are weaker or if attacked - a guy like that would be considered "manly," a "stand-up" sort of guy. In a woman, even in today's changing climate, these traits are still seen somehow as transgressive, and suddenly the behavior that's "assertive" in a man becomes "bitchy." It's an interesting sociological experiment to watch in action. I am rarely mean and don't go looking for trouble - in fact, when angered, I become cold and formal. But, still, as Chesterama points out, it seems to be a choice between being a "bitch" and a "doormat." In mixed company, the doormat is socially more acceptable. She's soft, and yielding, lets her opinion be swayed by louder, more assertive voices, and avoids conflict at almost all cost. She talks around a refusal, rather than straight out say "no."



I've been hesitant to comment on this thread because I don't see it as a "writing" issue.  Maybe because my major was in sociology, I see this as a cultural issue and your comment says exactly what I've been thinking.  You see examples such as this in textbooks.

Just makes me glad I am a man.  I make a good guy, but if I was female, I would be considered a bitch.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 13, 2013)

One thing that cropped up with my MC that I decided to change was that she was an alcoholic, aggressive, arrogant, and all around unpleasant. I found that even if this was a man character, it would still be hard to relate to this kind of character as an MC because I figured this kind of obnoxious character can be hard to want to stick with. She changed later on, but I found that starting off this particular novel with her being all around unpleasant wasn't working. I've since softened her character, but not to the point to make her a doormat. She's less violent and tends to think her way out of situations instead of just drinking or beating them away. I have a new character that has taken on her previous role, and I think I prefer it that way for this story. 

I don't think having a mean female character is a bad thing, but any story that has a character like that as the main can be a hard sell. However, I think if any character is done well enough, they can be convincing.


----------



## Chessie (Nov 13, 2013)

Hey, let's not forget the bitchiest literature bitch of all time: Scarlett O'Hara. A much loved heroine.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 13, 2013)

Chesterama said:


> Hey, let's not forget the bitchiest literature bitch of all time: Scarlett O'Hara. A much loved heroine.



I'm not sure loved is the right word here. She is an interesting and compelling heroine, but not necessarily loved or even liked. Having read Gone with the Wind I would said my feelings toward Scarlett are mixed. I respect her tenacity and determination in the face of hardship. But I wouldn't want to be her friend or her family and certainly not her enemy. She treats people like crap.

Scarlett isn't rewarded for her behavior. She gets what she wants for the most part (money and security though she never does get Ashley) but then finds out too late that she's been chasing after the wrong things. In the end she loses what really matters to her. She becomes a pitiful figure. 

The thing with Scarlett, of course, is that she DOES have some good qualities. If you want to give a hero or a heroine negative qualities I think they should be balanced with positive ones. All humans are a mixed bag. It's very hard to identify with anyone who goes too much to any extreme.


----------



## Chessie (Nov 13, 2013)

Well, the book is much loved and a lot of that has to do with Scarlett, in my humble opinion. The other characters are grounded in their own sense, but if it weren't for she and Rhett then the story wouldn't be the same. Even though she is greedy and manipulative, she stepped it up when she needed to without being asked. She did everything she could to save Tara and even Melanie when she was giving birth. Gone With The Wind wouldn't be as popular if it weren't for her.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 14, 2013)

Going for our own genre, let's not forget Laurell K Hamilton's Anita Blake.  Say what you will about the sexual content of the series, Blake herself was originally conceptualized as a hard-boiled detective type, and her character arc has taken 20 years to soften to the point where she doesn't treat every interpersonal relationship she enters into as a land mine.  She expresses both the pros and cons of being a woman with an aggressive personality.  Definitely _not_ anyone's doormat.


----------



## Jabrosky (Nov 14, 2013)

One thing I want to add to the conversation on "strong" female characters is that just because a woman comes across as strong, independent, or otherwise not stereotypically feminine doesn't guarantee they represent feminist ideals. If anything, some of the most viciously misogynistic, anti-feminist people I have met were women who distanced themselves from the perceived female norm and identified more with the male half of the species. Being a so-called tomboy doesn't necessarily mean you recognize that women are people too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for action heroines, but giving one chick a sword doesn't mean you can't subscribe to sexist thinking.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 15, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> One thing I want to add to the conversation on "strong" female characters is that just because a woman comes across as strong, independent, or otherwise not stereotypically feminine doesn't guarantee they represent feminist ideals. If anything, some of the most viciously misogynistic, anti-feminist people I have met were women who distanced themselves from the perceived female norm and identified more with the male half of the species. Being a so-called tomboy doesn't necessarily mean you recognize that women are people too.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for action heroines, but giving one chick a sword doesn't mean you can't subscribe to sexist thinking.



That is actually an excellent point with the Anita Blake character.   She several times has other female characters try to get her to sympathize with them from some sort of "sisterhood" perspective, but Anita just doesn't get it.  She sees herself as having to keep up with male cops in a hyper-testosterone environment, and pushes hard to be "one of the guys."  She doesn't have close relationships with other female characters - thus, a downside to the transgression I earlier mentioned about how exhibiting aggressive "male" characteristics separates women from their traditional roll as "doormat."  In this case, Anita become socially separated from women entirely by her aggressive nature and dangerous occupation - eventually, as the series rolls along, she is almost entirely surrounded by male friends and co-workers, and those few women in her life are like her, or married to men like her.


----------



## Bee (Nov 16, 2013)

No matter what I write I always have very strong female characters, and this is strong rather than mean, I think you should always be able to make the difference. It is right that too often in writing or other media strong female characters end up in the mean category, but all people are different so why should there be such pigeonholes? You can have strong females who are also gentle, funny, kind. Strong females do not in any way have to be mean as well unless you specifically want them to be.


----------



## Guy (Nov 16, 2013)

Make the character an authentic human being (assuming, of course, the character is human) and the problem will be solved.


----------



## Shasjas (Nov 18, 2013)

A. E. Lowan said:


> I've personally encountered this issue in both my personal life and my previous career.  I am a very outspoken woman, an alpha female, if you will.  In a social environment when the core personality traits I tend to exhibit are expressed by a man - extroversion, assertiveness, taking control of a conversation, taking control in emergency situations, confident expression of interest in a possible sexual partner, and a willingness to become physically aggressive if necessary to protect those who are weaker or if attacked - a guy like that would be considered "manly," a "stand-up" sort of guy.  In a woman, even in today's changing climate, these traits are still seen somehow as transgressive, and suddenly the behavior that's "assertive" in a man becomes "bitchy."  It's an interesting sociological experiment to watch in action.  I am rarely mean and don't go looking for trouble - in fact, when angered, I become cold and formal.  But, still, as Chesterama points out, it seems to be a choice between being a "bitch" and a "doormat."  In mixed company, the doormat is socially more acceptable.  She's soft, and yielding, lets her opinion be swayed by louder, more assertive voices, and avoids conflict at almost all cost.  She talks around a refusal, rather than straight out say "no."



extroversion, assertiveness, taking control of a conversation, taking control in emergency situations, confident expression of interest in a possible sexual partner, - a guy like that would be considered "manly," a "stand-up" sort of guy.

I don't know about anyone else, but if these qualities were expressed in a woman to the degree that I would think of her as bitchy, then I would think of a man displaying these qualities, to the same degree, as equally bitchy.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 21, 2013)

Shasjas said:


> extroversion, assertiveness, taking control of a conversation, taking control in emergency situations, confident expression of interest in a possible sexual partner, - a guy like that would be considered "manly," a "stand-up" sort of guy.
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but if these qualities were expressed in a woman to the degree that I would think of her as bitchy, then I would think of a man displaying these qualities, to the same degree, as equally bitchy.



Possible, indeed probable, but you know what else you would probably call him?

"Boss."


----------



## Shasjas (Nov 22, 2013)

A. E. Lowan said:


> Possible, indeed probable, but you know what else you would probably call him?
> 
> "Boss."



Hahah, nah.


----------

