Actually strong female character.

[Caged Maiden]

Yeah, or if you have a big/ tall woman as a character, she ought to be a fighter, because a beast like that is unfit for any other "womanly" tasks. Thoroughly dislike that one, too. I mean...I'm fine with female soldiers, but does it have to cost them their femininity? Their identity as a woman?

One of my favorite characters from Robert Asprin's MYTH series is Massha. Not the beautiful temptress, but rather the opposite. And she's so much fun in MYTH-ing Persons! OMG!!!

 

[Penpilot]

In 1980, only 30 years ago, females went to hunger strikes to get noticed. Horrifying, isn't it? Equal rights did not come easy, right, if they are even there today, especially in sports. We still name it "women's football", "women's soccer", "women's tennis". I can't imagine what it would have been like in 1950 when those terms just didn't exist.

I'm not a history scholar, but I'd like to reiterate that the pop culture version of history is a distorted version. I'm trying not to step into the powderkeg of modern feminism, but I'd just like to share some photos that can be googled up from the late 19th and early 20th Century.

The first women's hockey clubs date back to the 1890s

Many think tennis was introduced to America by a woman by the name of Mary Ewing Outerbridge, "Mother of Tennis."

And lets not forget there was a professional women's baseball for a time. Remember the Movie A League of their Own?

I grew up in the 80s and from what I observed, it was a time not of suppression of women's rights. It was a time where they were exercising them. Margarette Thatcher was the UKs PM from 1979 to 1990. We had the first American Woman in space, Sally Ride, in 1983.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Yeah, or if you have a big/ tall woman as a character, she ought to be a fighter, because a beast like that is unfit for any other "womanly" tasks.

But she can be tall and a fighter and feminine… right?

 

[evolution_rex]

I'd stop viewing it as 'I want a strong female character that doesn't follow strong female stereotypes' and more about building a character based on characteristics that you want, with the gender being a trivial matter in the wider scope of the character. If you write a human, people will be able to understand why the character acts the way he or she does. Then, just like real life, your character might accidentally have stereotypes but it won't exactly matter because you've written a human and you can attribute stereotypes to any human.

That doesn't mean not to be aware of stereotypes, but I think people get so hooked on the idea of not following stereotypes that they create flat characters. It's partially why the strong female stereotype of being emotionless comes from; they didn't want to make a stereotypical feminine character so they avoided any kind of characterization other than the main attribute of strength.

 

[Caged Maiden]

HA! Yeah, I know there's a few folks here who write really big women fighters, and I don't mean any offense. I just mean to say that sometimes, in some story concepts, it can feel like a bigger woman has no other use than as a fighter...and I do think even women who work as mercenaries or other fighting-type jobs are still women. I mean, it shouldn't be any different than policewomen or soldiers today...they don't have to be anything other than just women. I mean, to show how strong they are...

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Or, what about the idea that strong female characters have to hate everything traditionally associated with femininity? I see this all the time: the "strong" woman who hates dresses and doesn't want to settle down and pop out babies for a man, she wants to go out and dress like a man and do man things...ugh.

There is NOTHING WRONG with liking dresses or wanting a family or being a stay at home mom or any of it. They don't make you less strong or important. Being feminine doesn't make you less valuable!

Maybe instead of characterizing women as "strong" based on how stereotypically "masculine" they are, what about we celebrate them as women, celebrate their femininity? My favorite "strong females" in books have been "feminine," dress wearing ladies who don't hunt or fight, but are smart, competent, and awesome. The "warrior lady who can beat up 30 guys at once" never seems genuine to me. If acting like a man is what makes a woman "strong" then it implies there's something wrong with being a woman. Not that I mind women playing roles traditionally filled by men. But there's nothing wrong with just being a wife and mother either. When you think "strong female" you think of the warrior lady I mentioned earlier, not a married woman who has kids...but my Mom is probably the strongest person I know. And...seriously, what does wearing a dress have to do with anything? I like them. They're swishy and fun to twirl in. I feel like having your heroine hate dresses is just a way to distinguish her from "those other girls" and PLEASE DONT DO THAT! Being both strong and female is not some special, unusual thing that makes you stand out above all the rest. It's not.

Some characters are suited to combat roles, some aren't. You need characters to beat up the bad guys. You need characters to patch them up after they're done beating up the bad guys just as much. You need characters to pull your MC into a long kiss and make them promise to come back safe as they go off into battle just as you need the characters who are fighting in the battle. (In my WIP my female MC would be the one going off to battle and her partner would be the one saying goodbye. But he's not less important. He's a thinker, not a fighter, and the story needs thinkers just as much as it needs fighters.)

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

We give women "masculine" traits, but we don't give men "feminine" traits.

(Now, the definition of feminine is just "pertaining to a girl or woman," so if you are a girl or woman and you are doing or being something, that thing is feminine. But I'm talking in terms of traditional views and ideas...which some girls and women diverge from and some conform more to. I mean, I don't believe men and women are exactly the same, but that's a very long discussion, and even then we can only speak in general terms. People are so varied in how they think and act and feel, "male" and "female" traits are going to overlap more than not.)

It's not shameful for a woman to act "like a man" but it is shameful for a man to act "like a woman." Why does that have negative connotations?

There was some discussion earlier about how it's not socially acceptable for men to cry. I'm not sure men and women feel emotions any differently, so why? I've noticed that society has strict rules about how and when men are supposed to express their emotions. Now, I cry about basically everything, I'm just a really emotional person and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and its not considered unusual, really, because I'm female...but, it's not acceptable for a guy to cry about anything short of someone dying.

You'll notice that one of the main qualifiers for a strong female character is that she expresses her emotions less. I get that fiction has to be different from reality in this way. If anyone had to read about my mood swings they would throw the book across the room. But characters should be able to cry and be angry and emotional without being judged as weak. It says a lot about our culture, really. A character who shows her emotions or is at all affected by them will quickly be labeled a "Bella Swan". (Bella's problem was her utter self loathing, dependency on others for her self esteem, and pessimistic, judgmental attitude toward everything and everyone. And I only read the first few pages.)

(Crying is good, ok? It's perfectly natural and healthy and helps you to feel better. There's nothing strong about being unable to acknowledge and process the fact that you're hurting.)

Why are emotionless characters interesting to read about, anyway? Why does anyone want to read about them? I, as an extremely sensitive and emotional person, can't relate to emotionless characters. Even a seemingly emotionless character should eventually crack and show a little of what's inside.

The strong female trope has very little to do with actual strength.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Let's discuss. What IS strength, do you think?

 

[Miskatonic]

The term seems to be such a loaded one that I'd rather it be abandoned. Whenever I hear someone say "strong female lead" it seems like they are merely demanding more female characters in general and don't like any of the ones who aren't "strong females". Just sounds like nonsense to me.

 

[La Volpe]

Or, what about the idea that strong female characters have to hate everything traditionally associated with femininity? I see this all the time: the "strong" woman who hates dresses <snip>

To be fair, the 'strong women' hating dresses are usually because dresses are not made for active activities such as fighting/horseriding etc. So especially if the character is a fighter, she won't want to wear dresses, since they would encumber her in a fight.

As a side note, she might just dislike them because the particular society's women are passive and wear dresses, and thus specifically refusing to wear dresses allows her to silently protest the passiveness of the women.

As another side note, I liked the way Vin from the Mistborn series handled this. She did like dresses, and wore them to social events etc., but she'd switch back to pants and a mistcloak when she's doing any kind of patrolling or fighting.

He's a thinker, not a fighter, and the story needs thinkers just as much as it needs fighters.)

Thinkers, as you mention, don't need to be weak characters. A very good example of a strong male thinker is Patrick Jane from the Mentalist TV series. He runs away at the first sign of violence, but he's still the most influential person in that show.

There was some discussion earlier about how it's not socially acceptable for men to cry. I'm not sure men and women feel emotions any differently, so why? I've noticed that society has strict rules about how and when men are supposed to express their emotions. Now, I cry about basically everything, I'm just a really emotional person and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and its not considered unusual, really, because I'm female...but, it's not acceptable for a guy to cry about anything short of someone dying.
<snip>
(Crying is good, ok? It's perfectly natural and healthy and helps you to feel better. There's nothing strong about being unable to acknowledge and process the fact that you're hurting.)

Crying is generally a sign of being overwhelmed. If I were to hazard a guess, the biological reason for people to cry is to signal other people that you are in pain and in need of physical or emotional help. Ergo, if you cry, you're showing other people that you are being overwhelmed, and thus not completely in control.

Men, in general (less so nowadays, but certainly a lot in the stone age et al), are expendable, and thus the ones who do the dangerous stuff (i.e. hunting and war). Men generally (and especially if they are in any kind of team or group) sort themselves into a hierarchy. If the guy at the top is showing that he is not completely in control, the others could lose faith in him (because they follow him, and they don't want to put their lives in the hands of somehow who can't handle it) and he could drop down the hierarchy.

So crying, if the social context views it as a weakness, will threaten your position in the world if you're a man. Your wealth, love, food, or life could depend on your ability to hold in the tears.

It's not shameful for a woman to act "like a man" but it is shameful for a man to act "like a woman." Why does that have negative connotations?

Well, actually, as far as I'm aware, it was heavily frowned upon (a century ago) for a woman to be acting like a man. Not forbidden, but not exactly an everyday occurrence.

It's only recently that it's become more acceptable for women to be "acting like men".

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

HA! Yeah, I know there's a few folks here who write really big women fighters, and I don't mean any offense. I just mean to say that sometimes, in some story concepts, it can feel like a bigger woman has no other use than as a fighter...and I do think even women who work as mercenaries or other fighting-type jobs are still women. I mean, it shouldn't be any different than policewomen or soldiers today...they don't have to be anything other than just women. I mean, to show how strong they are...

None was taken.

Right now I'm playing a pathfinder RPG, and my druid character WAS 5'0", ~100 lbs. until she rescued a fairy and found a way to become one. So now she's 6" tall, 1.6 oz. The GM does an awesome job making it scary to be a fairy living among humans. I definitely want to write this character in short stories. But my point is that I never felt like she had to be "weak" due to lack of height. She's a samurai's daughter, she's never killed before (yet), she has a protective nature... these are traits that play into her personality.

 

[Svrtnsse]

This may have come up before, but...
When it comes to talking about "strong" characters in storytelling I try to think of it as the character being strong enough to carry the story forward.

 

[Miskatonic]

HA! Yeah, I know there's a few folks here who write really big women fighters, and I don't mean any offense. I just mean to say that sometimes, in some story concepts, it can feel like a bigger woman has no other use than as a fighter...and I do think even women who work as mercenaries or other fighting-type jobs are still women. I mean, it shouldn't be any different than policewomen or soldiers today...they don't have to be anything other than just women. I mean, to show how strong they are...

I have an "amazon" type character that is just over 6' tall and relatively strong, but given the average height of the men in her civilization is like 6'6" she doesn't really stand out. A lot of the other women are also close to her height as well. She's the same height as the MC so that makes it interesting. All in all she doesn't have that whole being the tall and physically strong woman that stands out from the crowd mindset going on; thus she doesn't have the compulsion that since she's an anomaly or outcast she has to take on a role where her size and strength are the only thing she has going for her. She is a warrior, and there is a tomboyish element (not an overwhelming personality trait though),but her outlook on things is much closer to that of a regular woman in society.

 

[Alile]

I'd like to think about how this discussion has been flowing and comment on a few things. These are my views, but like any writer I sometimes write for impact and I just want to warn you that my tone of voice and ideas may offend you, I'm running short on time so I'm just going to post this now. I am not quoting anyone and I'm not aiming at anyone in particular. Just trying to analyze some general themes.

All right, so a few themes that has occured so far in this discussion that I picked up on, are (among others) these:

*Strength is physical.
Strenght depends on your size. A big woman is not that feminine. And so: small woman can't fight... (There are other things to take into consideration in fights like agility, speed, technique, experience, luck; this is another discussion).
Also: What about mental strength or the strength to deal with emotions, indeed, what is strength?

*Emotion is feminine.
The way I read many of these posts there is a lot of mention of emotion and women/femininity. Nobody has directly said it, but it just appears in this discussion, over and over again, as if it was natural and completely normal. It hasn't been pointed out yet, but it's there all the time. Why do we connect emotion to our female characters so much?

*A difference between personality traits and the role the character has in a written story.
That a character shall move the story forward is another function than a character who can benchpress 220 pounds.

*Anything to do with human people, and genders in our real world and in our fantasy worlds that we create ourselves.
These two do not need to be the same. Be aware of what bias or opinions you bring from your world reality into your writing.

*The idea that women are considered equal to men is a mass illusion. It's just not true. Not in our "modern" North American/European world, and absolutly not in Africa, South America, the Middle East or in Asia. Why on Earth would we even discuss this topic if we weren't having issues with it?

I think it's about being human, and having equal human possibilites, the right to freedom. Opportunity. Human rights. To be able to realize who you are. Yes, we talk about women wearing dresses, but what about a man who wants to wear high heels? Be aware that these clothing codes are a result of YOUR world and how you ENFORCE these codes. Even sub-conciously. Even into your writing.

Paul Lazarsfeld in 1949 wrote this: "Years of oppression take a toll on achievement motivation". He used that sentence to describe why black privates in WWII were less eager for promotion than white privates. Make no mistake, I'm not comparing oppression of women to the oppression of the slaves and black people, the point is the quote. Women today often can't be bothered getting up on the barricades to burn their bra's and should they do so it creates an outrage from both men and women because, come on!!! It's 2016. But here we are, still wrapped up in discussing how a woman character can be strong. Isn't the need for this thread a sympthom of our ideas and culture adn worldview?

Social studies, social psychology in particular look at these things (among a lot of things):
Topic; Social influence.
*Culture and biology
*Pressure to conform
*Persuasion
*Groups of people
These deal with how people view and affect one another. They can be used in our every day life and to analyze our lives and that of our characters. Culture is defined in one place as "The enduring behaviours, ideas, attitudes, and traditions shared by a large group of people; and transmitted from one generation to the next." Genders and gender roles and views on genders fall into this research.
People like studying people, maybe because we want to understand ourselves. What made us into who we are.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

There is an old RPG supplement by Iron Crown I think, called ... And a ten foot pole. It is a huge collection of gear that your character can buy. It is with everything in that book in addition to the ten foot pole that I will not touch this subject, LOL.

It has been done to death. Write a strong character and forget about it.

 

[Miskatonic]

There is an old RPG supplement by Iron Crown I think, called ... And a ten foot pole. It is a huge collection of gear that your character can buy. It is with everything in that book in addition to the ten foot pole that I will not touch this subject, LOL.

It has been done to death. Write a strong character and forget about it.

I'll give it the occasional prod with the proverbial ten foot pole but that's about it.

 

[Gurkhal]

I'd say that you shouldn't care about "strong women" - whatever the hell that means - but develop female characters that works in the story and are interesting to read about and interact in a meaningful way, and then readers can figure out for themselves if a character is strong or not.

 

[Laurence]

Molly Weasley is an awesome example of a strong woman.

 

[FifthView]

Personally I think emotional and mental strength is THE determining factor in how strong a character comes across, so thanks for the suggestions Ireth.

Isn't it odd that when we think of a "character" in fiction, we sometimes forget "character" as in one's character, "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual?"

For me, one type of strength arises from having a strong personal moral compass. I add the "personal" to it because I don't think it needs to be something generic or socially acceptable (within our world or a fantasy world), and so forth. Strong characters usually seem to have a guiding principle or set of principles that guide them, and depending on the character these principles might be something I personally share or they could be something distasteful to me, but

• Those principles are real for that character
• That character is conscious of them—to some extent. She made a conscious choice at some point in the past, even if sometimes now she can function without having the principle at the forefront of her mind.
• Those principles guide the character's endeavors and reactions, when applicable.
• That character doesn't veer from them but stays on course come hell or high water.

For me, these principles are not simply intrinsic or genetic or irrational, springing from impulse. They are a sort of conscious orientation. For me, this is strength.

As for that last bullet point, sometimes strong characters can be shown to "veer" from or to sacrifice a principle; but this is only because some higher, more important principle is in conflict with it. The character still adheres to principle.

Sometimes the principle takes a material form. For instance, a loved one or an object of devotion (like a state or institution.)

Such a character can show indifference to an outcome if her principles or guiding stars aren't at stake or have nothing to say on the given possibilities for the outcome. A person can be absolutely devoted to her family; but in a strange country may not give a damn about whether the ruling government stands or falls—if neither outcome affects the wellbeing of her family, and despite the fact that such a contest might harm other families.

 

[FifthView]

I suppose I overlooked the main question from the OP, re: things to avoid.

In light of what I wrote above, I'd say avoid the easy, unexplained, generic principles or adherence to principle. In a way, this also means avoiding that intrinsic, irrational adherence to "principle." I put principle in scare quotes there because sometimes I encounter what I'd consider to be blobs: the character who will step in to defend a child being bullied "just because" that's "the right thing to do," or because the character has some sort of irrational reaction to seeing a child being bullied (most likely an uninvited flashback to being bullied herself or seeing her younger brother being bullied) and so forth.

It's not as if a strong character can't be shown targeting bullies and can't have strong emotions relating to the existence of bullies. But something more than a knee-jerk, generic display would be better. Something other than an impulsive lashing out.

Now, none of the above is meant to imply that irrational characters can't be interesting. But I do think that confusing the two, or using irrational impulsive behavior to somehow signify strength, can be self-defeating.