Lack of "strong" female characters?

And there is another level of underrepresentation. Women are prone to write both male or female viewpoint characters, while men to a bigger degree tends to write mostly male viewpoint characters.

And books with multiple viewpoint characters tend to have more make then female viewpoint characters (how often have we seen 2-3 male viewpoint characters and 1 female?)

 

It's been nice to read this thread. As a man, I was a little concerned that most of my main characters turned out to be female. Now it feels like I'm evening things out.

 

And that's appreciated...as long as they are not first and foremost a pair of boobs in a tight shirt ;]

 

Those articles seem to be dealing with literary fiction - admittedly only read three of them. Which just tells me more men write literary fiction - I highly doubt it includes Romance and many other genre writers.

And of the twelve of the top female UK authors I cited only JK Rowlling is gender neutral and that is as much down to it being marketed as a childrens book and to get the boys drive in the UK. Enid Blyton, Agatha Christie, Kathy Reichs, Patricia Cornwell, Kate Morton, Claire Raynor, Barbara Castle, Jackie Collins, Jilly Cooper etc are also very obviously female.

Aphra Behn also had a female name.

Not sure how that is any different to my men in a tight pair of trousers OK Socrates is more than a nice backside but ...

 

Yes, I know that if I were going on a difficult adventure I'd want butt level short shorts and a tank top. As long as my hair was in a pony tail and the hot metal of my freshly fired guns didn't burn my thighs, I'd be ready for action.

But would the world be ready for me?

 

Why can't an archaeologist be sexy ? Indiana Jones had his shirt unbuttoned a bit and a whip - Lara Croft actually looks like plenty I have seen on site.

She's an archaeologist depending on the setting butt level short, shorts may actually be practical, and I have seen many a tank top on an excavation. She is missing the hat though. Most excavations are hot, sweaty and very physical manual labour.

Jeans, trousers etc are depending on soil and ground type not upto the job. Wrong location and you will rip holes in everything - fatigues, jodhpurs and boiler suits work better but to be honest flesh heals better. I can still thirteen years after being anywhere near an excavation can see the damage to my knees.

I do not wear provocative clothes (my pjs on site were generally voted the least sexy lol) - excavation is the only place I would be seen dead in very short, shorts and makeup (it protects the skin). I've seen men on excavations in shorts, vest tops and makeup as well. Also with their hair in ponytails (has to be one of the few professions were men seem to have long hair in reasonable numbers)

I would also be found swinging an axe and keeping up with the men in a physical enviroment. (Despite being at the time 5ft2 and under 100lbs)

 

The definition of "sexy" needs to be worked on for women.

Indy in the first movie looked like he slept in a vat of french fry grease, had old leather pants, a regular shirt, and an old hat but he still looked cool. He was dressed practically and in a rugged manner. The male invented Coft can't even bend over to pick something up without her vulva making its jungle debut, and so her outfit is some kind fetish wear and she's not "sexy" for being rugged but for almost falling out of her clothes, which is the classic female sex object no one takes seriously.

When I used to enjoy comics I would get annoyed at how male characters would have armor or cosumes up to their neck, but the females would always have their breasts showing. For instance, there might be a hole in the armor to show clevage. Thus, making it a bullseye for swords or whatever weapon. That's not sexy, but stupid in my opinion.

If you want to have females in action roles, they need to be taken out of the bedroom role and be given tasks that are remotely possible.

 

Personally think Angelina Jolie looks better in em Suddenly the idea of taking a man on an excavation in short shorts seriously becomes a consideration - fact is he passes the exams and is your boss - he can wear what he likes Of course when Indiana undoes a button, carries a whip wears leather trousers its nothing to write home about - of course they weren't trading on the idea he could be found sexy. She's no more underdressed or unrealistic than He-Man.

Why ? Males in fantasy roles are hardly realistic - I mean Superman wears clingy clothes, his underwear on display and flies - is that really much different ? What is being asked for in this thread isn't anything like equality it's something else. Men are objectified as well - it may happen in a different way but it happens.

EDIT: I happen to think the human body is fun and beautiful. I am not unhappy with the one I am given. When John Barrowman for example wears a suit he is impeccably covered, but it is designed to fit those shoulders, when he turns round and lifts his arm it reveals his best asset at just the right amount wearing trousers that are designed to fit just right. Telling me that isn't meant for objectification ? Given this is a man that thinks nothing of being nude or wearing a short skirt and heels if he thought they would make him a great sex object he would wear them on his concert tour. What do you think is sexier the bloke in the suit or the ones in the dresses ?


This picture to me highlights why generally what is sexy on a woman is different to what is sexy on a man. It is not the best picture but pay attention to the shape of the suit trousers. Apply the same standards about what is found traditionally sexy on a man and they are dressed in it just as often.

I like it when people find me sexy - don't care if they don't either but certainly not offended.

 

Please find the recent thread on PC bullsh!t and have a good read.

Those shorts you've featured aren't "short shorts" or "Daisy Dukes" as they're called in the US. Said shorts are desired to expose buttocks, create camel toes, and so on. Their function is to attrack attention.



Laura now with realistic Mons Publis!

Superman is wearing a gym outfit from the 1930s.

These outfits still exist today and I wear something like it when I run or bike. Spandex running tights are like the gym, of the Superman ear, or dancing leotard worn by, dancers. It's not meant to be "sexy" but supportive and a garment that allows full freedom of movement. Normal clothes don't allow the joints to move in their full range.

Since Superman is super physical and moves rapidly, he can't have three inches of pants hanging between his legs because he'd be splitting his pants at every turn.



This is what serious people wear.

It's gear, not a childish sexual billboard.

Being focused on the body is childish and it's all like a baby discovering it has feet and playing with them all day. A person of heroic character isn't fascinated with their breasts or penis size.

 

So lets see its OK for Superman to wear an outfit that echoes athletes of his time but not for Lara Croft to do the same?: You don't on any level think when Superman was devised he wasn't designed to be 'sexy' to men and women - athletes are seen as sexy. He was given superhuman strength - not seeing the comic book where he puts on twenty pounds and has spots.

Modern female athlete


And its certainly no more revealing than


I've seen Phil Harding wear a much tighter fitting version I am sure it was just the only online pic I could find. He did however go on TV in them.

You still haven't told me what is wrong with highlighting a good pair of buttocks on either sex? The suit I showed on John Barrowman when he dances highlights both groin area and buttocks nicely In a different setting like when he did West End Bares he maybe even more highlighted.

What is childish about finding people beautiful in their various guises ? Finding someone sexy has it's place in entertainment. For some people that is the member of the opposite sex clothed in a respectable fashion, others its a whip and chain, still others it is a thong For every woman that is sexploited in the entertainment industry there is often a male equivelent.

Both have serious and both have kinky/sexy/fun representations.

 

I was going to add to this debate by saying that "sexy" doesn't necessarily equal "revealing," but then I remembered that I play derby, where sex appeal is one of the biggest draws for new fans...

Seriously, though, I don't think that to be thought of as sexy you need to dress like Lara Croft. But that could just be my intense hatred of Angelina Jolie talking.

 

You are quite right Hidden I agree I played the computer game when it first came out I kinda thought it was fun for the girls and something for the boys to gawp at - but to say Lara Croft is any more objectified than her male equivelents is silly - a large number of gay men like comic books for a reason lol There are shows where I think fun for my husband but ok I'll look at the main actors legs

There are plenty of elegant examples of women - I love Abi from NCIS to me she is incredibly sexy, also like Ziva actually unusually it's a show where i find the women wholesale sexier than the men lol My objection is to the main premise that there is a lack of strong women of all types from the comic book like Lara Croft or a Dr Who companiong to the comedic like Ma Boswell (Bread) or Geraldine Granger (Vicar of Dibley) to the more serious like oh its late I know there are plenty lol

Same in books from all ages.

 

I was speaking to the lack of strong female characters in popular stories and the differences in what makes female characters strong, as opposed to what traits are commonly associated with strong male characters. I imagine that opinions run the full spectrum and your mileage may vary from my own.

Generally speaking, you don't find too many macho "Bruce Willis" type male characters in romance novels. Likewise, there aren't that many gritty, butch female characters fighting the battles in war stories either. I was only observing what I interpret as trends in popular writing.

Kind of messed up in itself?

Apparently I've upset you enough with my observation, for you to feel the need to protest it...which in itself could be an observation of the feminine stereotype.

I sincerely apologize if I've offended you, but I'm only making an observation from my own perspective. I do not apologize for recognizing that males and females are different, with different traits giving them their strengths and weaknesses. I live in the real world, not some politically correct utopian pipe dream where everything is equal, fair and exactly the same for everyone.

As far as male and female authors go, a good writer can write any race or gender well...even extraterrestrials in the case of science fiction.

Bad writers...well...their work speaks for itself.

I disagree with your sexist point here. A good story is a good story. It doesn't really matter what gender the MC is and I disagree that women want/need/demand Female MCs, just because they are female and want to see more women in fiction.

One of the most intense sources of stories with strong female leads, that I've seen, has been the science fiction and fantasy stories is "Heavy Metal" magazine. Their stories are loaded with strong female characters, but they are all virtually the same, sexy black leather, spike high heels, vampire pale with long, flowing hair that "whips" in battle, as they swing jagged swords and fire high powered energy weapons at aliens/demons/robots/etc.

The characters and stories are all virtually porn designed to be marketed to a market of teenage males with bubbling hormones and zits. All the female characters are troubled, suffered harshly, which resulted in turning them into hard core, psychotic battle chicks, riding dragons and slaying monsters.

The teen male market eats that sort of material up and it sells magazines. I'm not endorsing the magazine, I'm just making the observation that their content features both strong female characters and is targeted to a specific market demographic. If you want stories hinting at sexual fantasies of psycho dominatrix warrior women, you read "Heavy Metal" magazine. If you want stories about bright young women who use their wits to solve mysteries, while not being sexist about it, you read "Nancy Drew".

It is a simple fact of the market place.

There are, of course, exceptions to everything.

However I must disagree with you again. As you stated, on average, women are physically weaker then men, and if a woman entered into a physical altercation with a male, he'd smack her down. If she had served in the military, she'd quickly realize that the only combat training she had was basic training (which by definition only teaches the basics of being a soldier), because women aren't allowed to serve in the combat arms roles in the military.

If she engaged a male in combat, the male, typically being bigger than her, heavier than her and stronger than her, would use his greater body weight to pull her straight to the ground and beat the crap out of her (that, by the way, is typical of how males fight other males). Male ego will not allow your average male to let a woman beat him up...he will fight to preserve what passes for his self respect if nothing else and men who are willing to fight women usually are not hindered by the "Gentlemanly graces" that prohibit violence against women. Unless a woman has an "ace in the hole" (Meaning a handgun, pepper spray, stun gun, metal pipe, martial arts training, or something else to even up the odds or put them in her favor), things will not end well for her.

If the male in question was raised with a sense of "Gentlemanly conduct" and refuses to fight women...if said female decided to attack him anyway, he still wouldn't allow her to beat him up. She'd quickly learn that larger size, stronger muscles and heavier weight means that you can effectively grab a smaller, lighter, weaker person and essentially "hold them still" until they get over being angry.

But at this point, I'm talking about realism in heroics, not about the sexism of not using female main characters.

While I agree that female characters are fully capable of being written in a dashing and heroic fashion, you are using some of the same observations I made in my original post. Using weapons to level the playing field, or psychic powers, or magic or martial arts, etc. Story telling loses something when you abandon realism just to make an arbitrary point. While you can write a story with a strong female cop character, who is on the SWAT team, that kicks down doors and blows away the bad guys...its a bit hard to swallow to a reader who knows that such things don't turn up in the real world. Such characters cease to be feminine and basically end up being written as if they were masculine and macho...which just makes them cheesy (again, this is MY opinion).

My point is when a character gives up being feminine, it ceases to be a realistic female character. Now story plot devices in fantasy, such as finding the magic amulet that gives her special powers to make her stronger and more powerful, or in science fiction where genetic mutations or cybernetics make her more powerful and stronger, the strong female character can retain her femininity and at the same time still be able to fight off alien monsters in a semi-plausible manner.

This plot mechanic doesn't work so well in a war story or crime drama fiction.

I'm not peddling or selling anything. I'm merely observing that they exist.

In a traditional sense, it isn't the female character's job to sacrifice herself, it is the job of the male character to sacrifice himself to save his family. The traditional female job is to stay alive to look after the children after the male is dead and gone.

In a non-traditional sense, most folks like to pretend that anything goes in the modern world.

I would disagree with your assessment of it not being realistic.

Excusable? Making the observation that traditional values contribute to realism in the themes of a lot of popular literature requires an excuse? You lost me there...

What my statement actually implies is that the characteristics most writers think of when creating a heroic character, are usually found in the male psyche anyway, thus the writers are temped to take the lazy way out and use that to their advantage, thus explaining why most MCs are male.

Your post implies that you are drifting away from observations about trends in writing and viewing my statement as some personal testimony about the battle of the sexes, which it is not. It is merely an opinion about the writing market place.

 

I this thread!

No, I avoid that stereotype, to the point that many of my female characters don't care much about their looks. One is oblivious of fashion and hair care products, another is a grey mouse, and a third dresses sporty and practical in her free time and neat and professional at work. I have a fourth female character who spends time on clothes and hair and worries about her weight, though.

But there are women who are very tough in real life, as well as women who are masculine, even if they're in minority... wouldn't you find them believable if they appeared in a novel?

What do you think about Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) from the Alien movies? IMHO, she's a believable, tough female character, who's neither particularly feminine nor particularly un-feminine; she's just a person who adapts to a harsh situation.

 

She's one of the few great female characters who is believeable and not obnoxious. She doesn't wear a mini-skirt while doing her thing, doesn't know kung fu, and tends to use weapons instead of kicking ass. Also, she's bright and tends to have a plan. Also, she gets along with the males in the story instead of being some symbol for female only empowerment.

 

She kindly strips to her underwear near the end of Alien, though.

 

What about She-Ra (OK she is mini skirted but actually more covered than some of the men) He-Man also had Queen Marlene she is fabulous, Teela, Cheetara and Wiley Kit from Thundercats. Heck Evil Edna and Mavis the Fairy from Wilo the Wisp - I grew up with some fun female characters as a child.

Modern children have Winnie the Witch. The mother from the Gruffalo

Enid Blyton always had a wealth of male and female characters - the Chalet School was fantastic. I like Stephanie from LazyTown sure she is in someways sexualised but no more than Sportacus and the show is fun.

Then we move into sci-fi - the new Dr Who companions from Ace onwards have been pretty good. Then there are the Sarah Jane Adventures. The women in Torchwood no more sexualised than the men.

Star Trek had Uhuru. Farscape was really good for female characters - heck the ship was female. Even Red Dwarf had Holly as a female at one point.

I am still looking around for this great lack of female characters - growing up I had a wealth to choose from Pamela Brown's characters, Heidi, Nancy Drew etc I chose books from the girls and boys sections - loved Just William and Tom Brown's Schooldays as well.

If all you are seeing and reading is heavily sexualised women - you are just reading and watching different shows to myself. Having said that when I want to objectify either man or woman Torchwood does nicely

Is it worth watching the rest of the movie for I never got that far damn lol

 

I'm finding your responses to be a bit childish.

I dislike going around in circles with people and that's what we're doing here. Croft is supposed to be a female Indiana Jones. I don't know if you've ever walked through the woods but you'd be scratched to hell if walked through the jungle, ect without pants on. It's why hunters don't wear speedos, or at least one reason.

If we had another male version he'd have snake boots up to his knees, pants, an ammo vest, and maybe his arms out. You'd never have a male adventurer dressed like croft because he would look unprepared and without cool gear. Thus, Croft is just a sexist creation and does nothing to promote women and in fact does the opposite by being absurd.

I alway hated Red Sonja:



The armor is a chain mail bikini!

That will prevent vicious stabs to the nipple and the armor is highly mobile, thus a confusing target, as her breasts jiggle around, so it is functional. I was wrong.

I believe that you've shallowed the sexist trash on TV which is sold as empowerment. In a previous post I noted the African women who stopped the civil war, and they all looked pretty chubby from what I saw. So, buttocks don't make the man or woman. The thread is about "strong" female characters and how large your implants are or how perfect your teeth do not make women strong. It's the opposite in fact.

 

All the characters in the first Ailien move was written gender neutral before the casting. The script just contained the last names. Thats also the explanation to why theres none of the social interaction was affected by gender either.

The result: one of the most rememrable female heroes ever.

(Up to Ailiens when they felt a need to add a "mother instinct" and a good mother twist to the character. )

 

How does it stop you being strong though ? There is a place for all kinds of characters and just because we have Lara Croft does not take away from us also having Sarah Jane. We have the woman in the chainmail bikini but we also get Mavis the fat fairy. We have the Ghibli films where you will struggle to find a strong male MC.

I am not the one basing strength on looks you are - you are the one stating Lara Croft can't be strong because of her dress. One of the most amazing women in real life for me is Dolly Parton - intelligent, talented, amazing business woman. Dresses like a tart but that woman is strength. Barbara Windsor is another not stupid woman but made a career out of her boobs. Paul O'Grady made a career out of dressing like a trashy woman - very intelligent man Madonna is bonkers but I would class her as a strong intelliegent woman.

Julian Clary again. I can up with countless examples - it is your own prejudices at work here.

And I gave you He-Man there are others Vin Diesel has played some interesting ones - Patrick Swayze's bum made appearances in 80s films.

I read and watch a wide variety and don't see a lack of strong women or objectified men.

EDIT: Tomb Raider started life as a computer game it is hardly ment to be realistic anymore than Indiana Jones is - you said it was OK to dress Superman in clingy clothes because it reflected the athletic dress of the time - but Lara Croft's reflects the dress worn by many female archaeologists at work for practicality and modern female athletes of course it's ment to be sexy I have never denied that - personally its not my thing I prefer my women more hippy in style.

Just i am not sure what is wrong with the world having a few characters intended entirely for titilation and fun and why having Lara Croft means we don't have strong intelligent female characters as well.

 

I don't know about these characters. I didn't bring up He Man and so on. I was pretty much an adult when they came out. I was more of a Johnny Quest fan.

Anyway, cartoons of that era ddidn't really have "characters" they have moving action figures. Most of those shows were designed to sell products. Whatever, the case, if the males were more functional than the females, then they weren't very good female characters.

In addition, I discount females with magic/technological powers from the discussion. In such a situation, a magic talking rabbit can be equal to the best human, so it's difficult to discuss what's a strong character.

This is too out there for me.

What?!

During the Tom Baker era---in the 70s---there were a couple of smart and capable companions but since the show started they just boil down to sex/ramance objects to define the suffering of the doctor.

I can't even watch that show any longer since the Baker shows were ten times more mature even though they were written when I was a kid. You can find them on Netflix.

Uhuru was fine.

Farscape was ok, but still women in skin tight clothes and a "earth momma" (the blue one) who has a mysterious wtf personality. That's a constant female stereotype.

The woman on Torchwood isn't smart from what I've seen and all the characters on that show are weak. I watched the first two seasons and the show was about nothing, so I stopped watching.

I think you need to go an meet some real women in real life and ask them what they think of women in popular media.

 

Of course there are exceptions to everything.

Masculine women characters are basically written as men with girlie parts, or at least they have been in the works I've been exposed to (and I fully admit to not having read everything, so there is no accounting for the things I haven't read).

In my opinion a female character written as a man with girlie parts is not equal to a strong female character. Again this is an opinion and everyone has their own ideas, but I see a female character as having to be feminine to qualify as "female". A strong female character has to be both feminine and have strengths to qualify as a strong female character.

The Ripley character is a good action adventure character in a science fiction setting. I like action adventure and I like science fiction, so I enjoyed the stories, however the character herself was basically Bruce Willis with girlie bits. You said it yourself, "...neither particularly feminine, nor particularly un-feminine"....that's a gender neutral character, not a strong female character.

The Ripley character did manifest a few redeeming feminine traits, primarily in her nurturing instinct looking after the girl "Newt" in "Aliens", so in context you might be able to argue the case of her being both tough and feminine in the role of being a strong female character. However, all that quickly goes out the window in the later "Aliens" stories where she embraces her inner "macho" and is all hard core, butt kicker, while at the same time abandoning all pretense of being feminine. Yes, she is a strong character, but no different from the male colonial marines, not what I'd consider a strong female character at all.

 

Just because you do not watch a show with strong female characters or read the books with them in does not mean they do not exist. How many girls shows and books did you partake of growing up ? Personally I read and watched anything with a story.

I am a woman - I have female friends and we do not in general feel hard done by with what is on offer. There are loads of strong female characters going back to Esther in the bible. Having a few male and female characters for titlation does not change the fact we have also have a wide range of entertainment and literature to choose from.

I have no bother going to the library and finding myself good strong women to read about. I have no bother looking at my media library and finding good strong female characters to watch.

EDIT: Marlene and Teela (HE-MAN) were as effective as the men if not more so. Ace was Sylvester McCoy's companion. Evil Edna was a TV and whilst Mavis was a fairy don't actually know if she had any powers.

When I got to the library I know Alannah Knight, Kathy Reichs, Robert Neill, Pamela Brown etc all write good women.

 

Tamora Pierce is all about writing strong female characters. Her Protector of the Small series is about a young girl becoming the first to enroll as a page (training to be a squire). It's potrayed pretty realistically, with many of the boys hating her from the start, and the lord of the palace trying to speed up her demise.

 

I'm not sure Stieg Larsson is such a great example, as a lot of it is male fantasy fulfillment. My daughter noticed that at the end of book one there was only one significant female character who hadn't jumped into bed with Blomkvist -- and she did just that at the start of book two. Lisbeth might be strong (in some ways), but she's no match for the lure of Blomkvist's penis. She still seems to be written as a male sexual fantasy. None of the other females are much developed as characters.