Strength in Utero

Perhaps it's a strange use for Biblical quotations, but a passage from 1 Corinthians 13:11 that has also been utilized by President Obama offers, "When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."

Gentlemen - and ladies, gasp! - it is time to put away the childish notion that the "strong" character archetype is only for men. Male-dominated literature is fine for the first few centuries, but there were women in Jesus' time, too, and there are women, now, raising families, running businesses, running sewing circles and book clubs, heading PTA meetings, and making important scientific, technological, archaeological, human beneficial discoveries on a daily basis. But let's digress. Specifically, this article refers to the notion of a "strong female character", a term borne of the feminist movement to describe women who are strong, 'just like men'.

Being one of the sacred keepers of the uterus, the author wholly appreciates female empowerment. At the same time, there is something archaic about the proposed terminology, a double standard, so to speak. If one leaves gender out of the phrase completely, it becomes, simply, "strong character". That "female" needs to be specified means that, by default, strong characters can only be male.

It is notable that Strong Female Characters do not have to be stunningly self-aware about their gender roles or persistent in their ability and/or want to change the status quo to be considered "strong". As the term originated within the feminist movement, many of its current champions are females themselves, fighting the good fight for the fictional women because, if not them, who? In addition, there seems to be a higher proportion of female character sympathizers amongst gay women, likely because there is an assumed sense of compassion and awareness for gender-related matters. Yet again, "strong female character" does not (necessarily; it can) equal "lesbian". This championing is commendable, too, in a sense, because sexism still furtively exists; at the same time, liking a character purely on the merit of his/her gender is the foil for liking a character purely because they're NOT female (or in this case, male). This doesn't even get into cases where the character does not even have a prescribed gender, and adapts characteristics typical of both males and females, either biologically or mentally. Where does one draw the line, typical female sympathizers may ask. By stripping strength of its gender connotation, one does not have to worry about it.

One of the author's friends suggested that "Strong Female Character" officially be re-categorized as "fierce". That works.

Strength Through Equality

The act of being a woman and being strong - just as being a male character who happens to be weak, either physically, spiritually, or emotionally - are not mutually exclusive. If a female is a ball-busting Nurse Jackie-type, she is considered "strong, in spite of her gender"; if her testosterone-laden foil - nay, House, M.D. or Dr. Perry Cox from "Scrubs" - acts the same way, he is simply "interesting". The difference is subtle, but notable.

Similarly, female characters get a lot of flack for adhering to their stereotypical gender roles - as a college pal noted when the subject came up in conversation, the literary world is full of "long-suffering silver-haired mothers, damsels in distress, and sexually dangerous femme fatales."

Modern critics still can't decide whether Ibsen's late-19th century character, Hedda Gabler is a ruthless harpy or a feisty spirit trapped by the enforcements of her stuffy Norwegian society - though they can agree that she's a "strong woman", in that she acts more like a man, seeking intellectual companionship (rather than sexual stimulation) from males, and subtly snubbing her nose at any and all women she comes in contact with in the course of the play. Hedda may not be a femme fatale, but the simple knowledge that she wants something more than being a wife and mother, even with a distinct lack of sexual immorality to her character, seems to pin her with the title. If a male character acted the same way - and in "Hedda Gabler", he, in the form of trashed genius Eilert Loevborg does - he would simply be a man-whore, or a male slut. And again, consider the implications: By default, sluts and whores are generally female.

In point of fact, in many "yaoi" anime and manga, a subset of effeminate, 'girly' male characters receive top billing, entirely because they are, in fact, 'chicks with dicks'. There is no simple parallel to this with female characters - a weak female character is just a female character. A strong female character is only notable because she 'defies being female'. But strength should not be a gender-oriented characteristic. A character's strength, inner or outer or somewhere in-between should be determined by his - or her - life experiences, decisions, and behavior, not whether or not there is a baby-maker present. "Strong" is too often used in referring to women as a substitute for, "This character attempts to go outside of her gender role, or uses her feminine wiles to move around in a male-dominated world." However, these are not synonyms, nor should they be used as synonyms.

There are more male characters in bigger roles in literature largely because women have been treated as second-class citizens - this is undeniable. At the same time, the male characters themselves should not be sloughed off or ignored simply to give women an equal amount of time in the spotlight. This is reverse sexism, and in the long run, does not solve anything. Furthermore, fans of male characters should not be made to feel 'guilty' that they enjoy those characters - though they should recognize all the same that "strong" is not gender-specific; that the reason for feminist appeals to literature is not simply so the hairy-legged man-haters will stop whining and start douching and making dinner for their husbands and dutifully pop out children; that characters' strength should be judged not by the stuff between their legs, but by all the gooey neurotic, ironic, erotic, psychotic tendencies that make them notable as characters in the first place.