Why The Phrase “Strong Female Character” Makes Me Cringe

“Strong female character” – it’s a phrase that’s got its own Netflix category and regularly ignites outrage over its use or misuse.

But honestly, it’s a phrase that sets my teeth on edge.

Don’t get me wrong – I love all sorts of female characters who show resilience and courage. Leia, Katniss, Hermione, Eowyn, Ripley – I’m there. They’re characters who are strongly written, covering a spectrum of emotions.

More often, though, the phrase is used differently, to describe someone who is physically strong, aggressive or commanding, or who displays characteristics that are traditionally seen as masculine. This strong female character will reject romance or emotion, instead favouring pursuits that are “for the boys”. They embody the “I’m not like the other girls” mentality.

And we’re seeing it spring up all over the place. Today, we’re all about representation, and sometimes Hollywood can make a cynical art of it. I remember rolling my eyes at how Elizabeth Swann morphed from a gutsy but klutzy girl with modern sensibilities in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, to an impossibly gifted sword expert with no explanation by the third. (What?)

It seems like filmmakers think they have found the formula for a strong female – carries a weapon, is emotionally distant, gives tough love to men – and are deploying it all over the place. Then they can pat themselves on the back for being so progressive.

I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t really feel like progress to me.

What I realised was that I didn’t cringe at the term “strong female character” because I had a problem with women characters who were gutsy. I cringed because those women were too often just another flat stereotype. While I thought of strong females as fully-realised women with emotions and relationships, pop culture has taken the phrase and made it into one brand of bad-ass, cold-hearted stock character.

It’s time for a smarter conversation.

The problem isn’t with tough women. It’s with women only being seen as strong if they fit a certain set of characteristics – mostly traditionally masculine ones. From being an antidote to the prevailing “damsel in distress” cliche, “strong female character” has become a cliche with problems of its own.

The phrase buys into the assumption that strength is inherently male.

In her New York Times article on the subject, Carina Chocano commented:

“Strength,” in the parlance, is the 21st-century equivalent of “virtue.” And what we think of as “virtuous,” or culturally sanctioned, socially acceptable behavior now, in women as in men, is the ability to play down qualities that have been traditionally considered feminine and play up the qualities that have traditionally been considered masculine.

Strong females, in popular culture, have become synonymous with those who most successfully take on traditionally masculine traits. Think Angelina Jolie, cold, unattainable and rolling her eyes at how hopeless James McAvoy is with a weapon.

For some, strong females need to basically be men. James Cameron ignited controversy with his remarks about Wonder Woman not being a “strong female character” because she was too objectively pretty. In other words, she wasn’t a toughened, masculine-looking heroine, and therefore she wasn’t a strong female. Her sex appeal meant she was just Hollywood fodder.

Reversing this rationale just shows how silly it is. By this criteria, Robert Downey Jr can’t be a strong hero because he’s so fine.

Femininity and strength aren’t opposites – but “strong female” tropes can pretend it’s so. Women don’t need to morph into traditional male characteristics to be considered strong.

The phrase can just swap one female stereotype for another.

What also rankles me about the strong female character is that it’s taking one flat female character and replacing it with another. As Chocano continues:

“Strong women characters” are a canard. They refer to the old-fashioned “strong, silent type,” a type that tolerates very little blubbering, dithering, neuroticism, anxiety, melancholy or any other character flaw or weakness that makes a character unpredictable and human.

The problem with the damsel in distress stereotype of old wasn’t that she was too feminine. It was that she had no humanity or depth, with her need for a man as her only character beat.

Replacing this cliché with a strong fighting female who is a stock character, who still has no humanity or depth – well, we’re no better than when we started.

So what is a strong female character?

Strong female characters are strongly written characters.

It’s cool to have badass fighting women, but that’s not the heart of the issue. What we really need are multi-dimensional, fully realised women who embody a complex experience.

What strong female characters are, for me, is that they are strongly written – whether they are housewives, army commanders, doctors, prostitutes or assassins.

One great example is in Mad Men. Joan Holloway and Peggy Olsen are not what you’d call great feminists. Joan is a flirty office manager who’s internalised “boys will be boys”, Peggy is an ambitious newcomer trying to beat the boys at their own game – but both are so much more than that. Each is a deeply realised character, with hopes and motivations and complexities. They use their work ethic, relationships and personality to navigate their own destinies within the boys’ club surrounding them. They’re not textbook feminist icons. But they are strong female characters – because they are fully fleshed-out, flawed and multi-dimensional.

There are plenty of other examples. Hermione Granger isn’t a cold-hearted gunslinger, but she owns her surroundings and stands up for herself. Katniss is caught in a love triangle, but she has greater depths that define her. And Jane Austen characters may inhabit a patriarchal society, but I’ll be darned if Elizabeth Bennet isn’t a strong female character.

What a strong female character needs isn’t to be indistinguishable from men. What she needs is agency, complexity and humanity – things that were not always afforded to women in fiction (or in real life).

George R. R. Martin was once questioned about how he could write women so well. His tongue in cheek response? “You know, I’ve always considered women to be people.”

The point is that women haven’t always been written that way.

Male characters have long been fully fleshed-out entities with quests and agency. Female characters deserve the same treatment – to be characters who are real, with all their messy emotions, relationships, hang-ups and flaws.

What’s better than a shoot-em-up badass female character? A female character who reminds us of us.