Ghost
Inkling
I used Erikson merely as a loose example, and no doubt the majority of characters, male or female, will divide opinions. I'm very careful about not portraying women as weak or anything, but this also leads me to not dare write about certain issues such as rape etc.
My post was getting superlong, so I stopped before I got to a few points. Some readers just aren't happy. For all we know, the reader saw the author's name and went into the book thinking, "Men can't write women." Or the reader could've interpreted certain situations through a narrow lense, thinking "I wouldn't do this, so no woman in the entire world would do this." Both of those opinions are silly. Perhaps the reviewer had a point, perhaps not.
It's okay to have a weak woman, even several, because people can be weak in different ways. One woman might be afraid of her husband, another might be more afraid of what society thinks of her, one might be easily influenced and lack her own convictions, and one might be timid and hesitating. I just prefer for them to be more than wilting flowers or sex objects. When thought goes into their circumstances, it goes a long way. I guess that would be hard to do if no women are main characters or secondary characters. I like reading about strong-willed women, but they can't all be strong-willed, either.
I ought to say that I do enjoy some books with unbelievable characters. In my limited reading of the genres, historical romance and paranormal romance often feature female characters whose lives revolve around men and those female characters are weak, helpless and bland. I see the prostitute/virgin thing more often in works by men, but the rest of my complaints were pulled from novels by either gender.
While I can read books like that for fun, I don't look to them for compelling insights or to be moved. I don't remember the characters, only the plot. They're fluff and that's fine.