Hey! Well, if you’re still reading this, it means that you didn’t automatically assume I was a sexist twat and thought I might have something intelligent to say. I can’t promise anything intelligent, really, but at the very least I can promise you that I am not a misogynistic imbecile.
For starters, when I say that “strong female characters” are a bad thing, I am not saying that female characters that empower women or offer a fresh perspective are bad. Quite to the contrary. Instead, I am saying that the very use of the term “strong female character” is bad, because it is simply generic and a cop-out for otherwise poor characterization.
Obviously, having stronger, more empowering female characters is a good thing. Throughout history women have been objectified as prizes to be won in all sorts of stories, from books to movies to video games, and breaking that vicious cycle by having female characters who can accurately portray the entire range of strength and veracity women are capable of can only improve storytelling.
But “strong female characters?” That’s not going to help at all.
The problem is that stories are using the term “strong female character” as if it somehow makes things better; because a movie has a “strong female character,” it must automatically be better because it challenges the patriarchy found in the stories preceding it. A book with a “strong female character” is great because it provides young female readers with a good role model. Writers use it as a kind of shield, as if to say “my work has a strong female character in it, therefore it is automatically better than that other story that’s out there.”
It’s disgusting, and it serves none of the purposes the writers think it does.
My main issue is with that adjective, “strong.” It’s thrown about so casually and used so often that at this point it’s even become part of an archetype for female characters. But “strong” is generic. It’s boring. Anyone with any amount of physical, mental, or emotional power can be considered “strong.” Lazy writers use it because they don’t want to bother with actually describing their character; using the word “strong” is just a cop-out to make up for otherwise-sloppy or lazy characterization.
Let’s look at two awesome female characters who have unfortunately been lumped into this “strong female character” archetype – Hermione Granger and Katniss Everdeen – to show just why that entire archetype is useless and shouldn’t even be used. I should warn you, if you haven’t read the “Harry Potter” series or “Hunger Games” trilogy, I am not only going to use a copious amount of references, but also spoil some things (though, honestly. If you’re reading this, just stop for a moment, sit down, get your butt to a library, and read the books. Shame on you for not reading them already.). So let’s get on with it. What sort of characters are they?
Hermione Granger, when we first meet her, is only 11 years old. She’s described as not being especially attractive – she has two buck-teeth which she later has magically reduced – but makes up for that in her sheer brilliance. Her role is to flesh out the trio as the intelligent one; Harry has the heroics, and Ron brings the light-hearted fun. Over time, we see more of her as a character and the challenges she faces – despite her brilliance, the Death Eaters hate her for being “Muggle-Born” (and, of course, for fraternizing with Harry). But in the end, she proves herself to be a true heroine, fighting in the Battle of Hogwarts and protecting Harry and Ron on a number of occasions with her clever schemes. For all intents and purposes, she is the wise mentor Harry can turn to whenever he needs to solve something he doesn’t understand. Words that come to mind when describing her would be brave, clever, dorky, and wise. You would never think to describe her as “strong,” because that is already implied by her other character traits.
When we first meet Katniss Everdeen, we see her struggling to keep her family together. She’s lost her father in a mining accident, her mother is barely able to help, and her sister is still very young. She can hunt with her bow – and, indeed, she is amazing with it – and uses it to get food for both her family and for others who are also struggling. She sacrifices herself for her sister by volunteering as Tribute, which we are told was the first time anyone had done so in District 12 – this instantly sets herself apart as brave through her actions. As she progresses through the games, she reveals how warm-hearted she is, mourning over Rue after her death and protecting Peeta when he is injured; she even manipulates the Hunger Games so that both she and Peeta can survive. She eventually also becomes a symbol for a revolution and fights in a war and all that, but those two books were not especially great and so for the sake of this argument I am ignoring them. She is driven, smart, and courageous. “Strong” barely even begins to cover Katniss as a character.
Overall, the fact of the matter is that “strong female character” should never be a go-to description for any character because it simply cannot cover their actual defining traits. Heck, even if your character has She-Hulk-like strength, you could do better than just “strong;” powerful, colossal, or even titanic would be good ways to describe the character, and chances are you would fit into more than just the “strong female character” archetype.
Strong female characters are boring. They are lazy. You don’t write characters who are just strong, you write characters who are brave. Characters who are cowardly. Wise and stupid. Warm-hearted and vicious. Characters should never be so one-dimensional, and certainly never degraded to something so base and simple. If we are to prove that our storytelling has evolved and moved beyond the misogynistic tales of the past, we have to put forth a little bit of effort.
Jacob Ryckman 