We Are Over the “Strong Female Character” Category and its Sexist Implications

We have all heard the “strong female character” descriptor thrown around in the media when discussing women portrayed in movies, books, and television. But what does that mean? Why is there an archetype focusing on women specifically? Why is “strong” used as an adjective only for female characters? No one ever describes male characters as “strong male characters,” they are just male characters.

In media, whether it be in books, movies, or television shows, we often see stereotypical archetypes. Three examples of archetypes are the hero, the everyman/common man and the rebel.

The hero is often the protagonist who, in the face of danger, stands up and fights for what is right. Harry Potter in the Harry Potter series is an obvious example of a hero. The everyman/common man is a character the audience can relate to. They oftentimes do not have any powers or special abilities and either assist the hero or become the hero. Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings series is an example of the everyday/common man archetypes (he later becomes the hero). The rebel is a character who stands up against injustice and is often times a troublemaker like Robin Hood.

“Strong Female Character” Isn’t a Compliment

Now there are obviously female characters that fit these archetypes: Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games trilogy is a great example of both a hero and rebel, and Mulan from Mulan fits the everywoman/common woman archetype. However, the problem is that female characters that fit these archetypes are boiled down to “strong female characters.” But what does that mean? Harry Potter is never called a “strong male character” before being described as the hero. Robin Hood is not a “strong male rebel,” he is just a rebel. Putting “strong” in front of “female” suggests that female characters are inherently weak and that it needs to be explicitly specified if otherwise. It also suggests that being strong is inherently male. Again, no male character is ever described as a “strong male character,” they are simply just a male character.

Recently, during a press conference at the Venice Film Festival, Sigourney Weaver reflected on this phenomenon.

“I am always asked why I play strong women, and I’m always like, that’s such a weird question. Because I just play women. And women are strong, and women don’t give up. You know why? We can’t. We have to do it,” Weaver said.

Shonda Rhimes has also spoken out about her distaste for the phrase “strong female character” in 2018:

Okay. Entertainment industry, time to stop using the phrases "Smart Strong Women" and "Strong Female Leads". There are no Dumb Weak Women. A smart strong woman is just a WOMAN. Also? "Women" are not a TV trend — we're half the planet.

See Also

Valentine’s Day 2025: Music, Film, and TV Releases You Need to Know

— shonda rhimes (@shondarhimes) February 1, 2018

And it is no wonder all these people are upset with the “strong female character” narrative. The characters that most of the media consider to be “strong female characters” fit into a masculine mold. They are often characters who are physically strong, have no interest in romance, are aggressive and lack emotional depth. All of these characteristics are traditionally masculine, and it makes the point that if you act like a man, you are strong, and if you act like a woman, you are not strong.

That is not to say that female characters who are aggressive or don’t have romantic interests or etc. are poor examples of women. If they are written well, they can be relatable and deep, and speak to the experiences of being a woman. But if they are just simply a device to show that this woman is different than other women because she is strong, then it is a harmful portrayal. The “strong female character” is another way of saying she is “not like other girls,” continuing the movement of pitting women against each other.

Here is a great scene from the television show New Girl that articulates that not fitting the “strong female character” type does not make you any less strong:

Being strong is not inherently male, and female characters shouldn’t be considered “strong” just because they act like a male character. Like Weaver said, “I just play women. And women are strong.” There is no need to add the word strong to a female character archetype to make her inherently less feminine. Being feminine makes a character just as strong as being masculine. We are sick of the “strong female character” and the underlying meaning that comes with it: “Don’t worry this character isn’t like other girls.” It is offensive and further pits women against each other.