Putting the ‘Character’ Back into ‘Strong Female Character’

Recently, I found myself describing a character in a book I was reading and why I liked her so much, and the book as a whole. I described her as “a strong female character” then immediately rephrased with “but, you know, not one of those strong female characters.”

I was struck by what that meant, that I had to clarify my statement, that I felt the need to clarify, when “strong female character” (henceforth abbreviated as SFC) should be a positive thing. Something we readers enjoy. Something we writers strive for. After all, don’t we desperately want the females in the stories we read to be like us, to be their own personalities, to have their own goals and beliefs and thoughts, to have agency separate from the menfolk unlike those soulless female shells that so fill older literature and – sadly – still make appearances in modern literature?

Well, yes, of course we do. But that’s not what SFC has come to mean. Now, when you think of SFC, you think of a very specific female character. She’s willful, but only when it’s convenient. She’s fit, possibly athletic. She can run in heels, kick ass, and take names, all in the same night. She might have a good female friend, but most likely she is surrounded by males. Most of whom she wants to get in bed with – and probably has – because she’s liberated, dammit. And because she’s so STRONG. And FEMALE. And she probably has a handful of character flaws that only serve to make her either endearing – ooh, she’s clumsy! – or will be to her benefit in wooing the male character.

But the problem is that the agency is still all held by that male character. As soon as SFC gets within the event horizon – plotwise or physically – of the male MC, all of her agency disappears. She becomes the same shell of a character that the SFC was supposed to eliminate, just with a different personality. We’re still being told by the author that the SFC knows what she wants, is going to by golly go out and get what she wants – but then, somehow, all of that agency vanishes like smoke in the wind as the male MC enters, stage right. She doesn’t grow. She doesn’t change – at least, not at any meaningful level.

For example, my fiancee brought up a book she had just finished reading, wherein the SFC had divorced her husband of so many years to forge her own way in life. She knew what she wanted. She had no qualms going to get it. That is, until the male MC strode onto the page and then whoosh – all of that agency went out the door. Suddenly the SFC wanted nothing better than to live her life with the male MC, and obviously whatever she had thought she wanted had been wrong. The implication was that she couldn’t possibly have known what she wanted until the male MC came along and all of her previous agency was but smoke and mirrors.

This is a somewhat extreme example and I’m not writing this post to merely belittle and decry the SFC, only to point out that in striving for this supposedly strong, feminine ideal we’ve created a monster stereotype. We’ve lost sight of the reason this type of character was needed in the first place by placing too much emphasis on the strong and the female than the character.

People are complex. Characters should be complex, too, and we do a disservice to women by proliferating the SFC stereotype. There are certainly authors out there that write strong female characters well, but the overwhelming majority of SFC are anything but characters. They lack agency. They lack depth. But they certainly don’t lack a man in their life.

I’m down with the characters being strong, and I certainly enjoy when they’re female, but let’s focus on making them characters first and foremost, all right?

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under books, rants, reading, writing

2 responses to “Putting the ‘Character’ Back into ‘Strong Female Character’

  1. beckony

    My biggest problem with the cliched SFC is that she just isn’t realistic. I know most of it is escapist literature–but seriously if I tried to run in stilettos I’d break both ankles. I would love to see strong characters who have their insecurities and have their flaws, but who make tough choices to be ‘strong’ instead of having to roundkick a jewel thief.

  2. Lovely Post! I couldn’t have said it better myself!
    I have recently been frustrated with female characters. Either they are the whiny, annoying, females who you want to kill by the end of the book even though you knew at the beginning what was going to happen to this whiny female and you hoped anyway, or she’s overly strong in a way that doesn’t seem realistic, and her strength flies out of the door when prince charming comes.
    I hate reading books where the female claims to not need men in her life ( for no legitimate reason other than not wanting them), only to toss it all away for the male MC.
    Also, this new female who is either clumsy or has unmanageable hair is getting annoying.
    Phew! Sorry about the long comment 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s