Deconstructing Hollywood’s Strong Female Character

By On March 17, 2010 · 12 Comments

My favorite ass-kicking lady, Ellen Ripley.

I know I’m responding to a ridiculously old post here, but I stumbled across it this morning and it got me thinking about Hollywood’s rather screwed up idea of strong female characters. mlawski over at Overthinking It posted a great rant about the “strong female characters” Hollywood is cramming down our throats, which is somewhat unfortunately titled “Why Strong Female Characters are Bad for Women.” Perhaps it would be better titled “Why ‘Strong Female Characters’ are Bad for Women,” because like mlawski, I’m of a mind that pretty much any female character created by Michael Bay does NOT fit the rubric of a strong woman, at least in my book. (Also, check out my fine MLA-approved use of quotation marks. This is what happens when I write blog posts when I should be doing homework.)

See, I’m a strong female character kind of reader/viewer/fan. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, I’m going to go for a book featuring a tough woman in the lead as opposed to one who faints and dithers and needs to be rescued. I’m not saying there’s anything particularly wrong with the passive characters, just that I don’t prefer them. When it comes down to it, I do think that we need a wide variety of female protagonist (as well as male protags), some weak, some strong, most falling somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. But my personal reading preferences tend toward the kick-ass heroines, and so I get frustrated, much like mlawski, when people start trumpeting characters like those in Bay’s Transformers movies as strong female characters.

It feels kind of disingenuous of me to start drawing a line in the sand and making Megan Fox stand on one side while Sigourney Weaver stands on the other, and this brings me to the crux of this issue. What do we do with strong female characters that are also sexy? Not saying that Ms. Weaver isn’t sexy (au contraire…), but Ripley, as an iconic tough movie woman, wasn’t created to capitalize on her attractiveness. What’s Her Face in Transformers was most certainly created to be masturbation material. Sure, she can work on cars, but she works on cars while bending over in very short shorts with her cleavage hanging out.

This is where I feel like I’m talking myself in circles. On one hand, I emphatically don’t like seeing women exploited for sex. On the other hand, I think that women should be able to express themselves sexually however they damn well please without being shamed for it. So… how do I reconcile my belief that women should be in control of their own sexuality with my complete and utter disgust at Megan Fox’s character (yes, I’m too lazy to look up the character’s name)? I think maybe it comes down to the feeling that the character actually is in control of her own sexuality. I know, I know, that’s incredibly subjective, and I suppose when it comes down to it, it’s up to each of us to make our own judgment call about what’s exploitative and what’s not. But how does that help send Hollywood the message that a sizeable chunk of their viewing audience is sick of wank-material sex kittens who can fix cars/hack computers/what have you being trumpeted as tough, role-model-worthy characters?

Last year at San Diego Comic Con, I attended the “Entertainment Weekly: Wonder Women: Female Power Icons in Pop Culture” panel, which was a round table discussion of strong female characters in Hollywood. Here’s SDCC’s description of the panel:

EW moderates a conversation with Sigourney Weaver (Avatar), Elizabeth Mitchell (Lost), and Zoe Saldana (Avatar) about the actresses who have redefined the rules, and the female characters that have shattered the glass ceiling for all women. Basically, a discussion with women who kick ass. (Addition: Eliza Dushku also sat on the panel)

While I agree that these women have all played characters who kick ass, I have to quibble with the idea that they’ve shattered the glass ceiling for all women. Having to be sexy sexy in order to be successful in Hollywood doesn’t exactly make it sound like that glass ceiling is coming down. Thankfully, Sigourney Weaver seemed to quibble with that, too, and she said something that really stuck with me. An audience member asked her if she feels like Hollywood is leading the way for strong women, and Ms. Weaver immediately shot down that idea. She basically said that we can’t expect Hollywood to blaze any trail, especially when it comes to feminism and the portrayal of women. Hollywood makes what they think will sell, and they tend to be way behind when it comes to social change. If we as audience members want to see change in Hollywood, we’ve got to make that change with our pocketbooks.

Hearing her say this made me want to stand up and cheer. We have to support movies that have strong female characters and not see the ones where we’re told that a strong woman is one who can save the world, but must do it while being supermodel-thin with big tits and a short skirt. The key there is the requirement that the woman must be traditionally sexy. Strong women most certainly can be sexy, but they can also go against the ideal of sexuality that our culture is so enamored with. They can be pretty or frumpy or nerdy, but they need to be realistic most of all. They need to have flaws to go along with their strengths.

This is different in books than in movies, mainly I think because books don’t have the same sort of visual representation of sexuality that movies do, but I do think that strong female protagonists in books need to have the same veneer of realism that I think movie heroines need. I don’t want to read about characters that are all tough or all weak; I want characters that find a balance between those two extremes, who can kick your ass, but who can also break down every once in a while.

One of my academic specialties is pop culture, particularly the portrayal of tough women in film and comic books. So, to make myself feel like less of a slacker for writing this instead of finishing up a midterm, I’m going to put my academic source hoarding to good use. Here is a list of my favorite books about the portrayal of strong female characters:

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject of strong female characters! This is something I’ve been chewing on for a while, and frankly, it’s a miracle that this post is somewhat coherent. Let me know what you think about the issue.

(As an aside, when I hit Google Images to find that pic of Ripley, the first two images to show up were of Ripley in her panties after waking up from hibernation. I think that makes my point for me.)

Apple iTunes
Tagged with: • •
 
About The Author

TDF Pamela

The Discriminating Fangirl, who is more likely to answer to Pamela if you shout it at her, is the proud owner of an MA in English, focusing on children's/young adult literature and popular culture. She's now not using that degree to work as a project manager for a mobile app company. She reads voraciously, loves geeky movies and tv shows, reads comic books as long as she's not pissed off at Marvel, and when she's procrastinating, she enjoys playing video games. She can be contacted at t.d.fangirl @ gmail.com and followed on Twitter @tdfangirl.

Visit Authors Website →
  • Kristen

    Great post! I completely agree with you.

  • http://www.thediscriminatingfangirl.com TDF Pamela

    Thanks, Kristen. :)

  • Burn

    Hollywood is right. Unsexy women do not sell. And it’s not Hollywood’s fault. Even when you create an ingenious character like Connor or Ripley, no woman ever says “oh, I want to be like her!”.

    • http://www.thediscriminatingfangirl.com TDF Pamela

      Troll in the dungeon! Thought you should know.

      Burn, we thank you for your brilliant insight. I’m sure women everywhere are rethinking their preferences and will now only look up to the Megan Fox sex kitten characters.

  • Burn

    if you reread my post, you may notice that it carries an absolutely opposite meaning. They do that right now.

  • Burn

    oh, and if you really do not appreciate an opinion that differs from yours to the point of putting labels right away, I may as well leave you in your self-righteous whining.
    PS. Zoe Saldana from Avatar shattered your glass ceiling? What she did, besides being a big blue sex interest of a main hero, I wonder.

  • http://www.thediscriminatingfangirl.com TDF Pamela

    You just restated the point I was arguing against, then made a false, sweeping generalization. If you had actually made an argument, I might have been more likely to engage in a discussion. As it is, there’s nothing to discuss. If you meant your comment to be sarcastic, then that obviously didn’t come across that way in the text.

    Yes, that IS what Hollywood is doing right now, which is why I wrote this post. Sexy is what sells. As I said, I have no problem with attractive characters; I just don’t particularly like Hollywood’s attempts to pass off sex objects as “tough women” as a patronizing pat on the head to women who are criticizing the industry. I don’t hold up Saldana’s character as groundbreaking, so I’d suggest directing criticism of her inclusion in the SDCC panel to the people who organized it.

    If I missed any of your other points, I apologize.

  • humanadverb

    I think the sexual exploitation aspect kinda misses the point of strong/weak characters. It is important, but it is a separate question, which might be why you’re talking yourself in circles.

    Contrast the shows Farscape (sexy, but not salacious or exploitative) with True Blood (basically porn). I’d say they both have successful female characters. Beyond the sexual content, too, I think the two contrast your use of strong/weak. Aeryn leads the attack; Suki is usually being victimized.

    The key is more whether female characters can be relate-able, and that’s established in a lot of ways. To Burn’s point–Hollywood fills their scripts with wank material because they *think* audiences are just like them, shallow coke-addled boy-men. Then a Ripley or a Conner (I don’t know about women, but I want to be like them both) comes along and you get a good, strong character plus a massive box office. And no one notices.

    • http://www.thediscriminatingfangirl.com TDF Pamela

      To Burn’s point–Hollywood fills their scripts with wank material because they *think* audiences are just like them, shallow coke-addled boy-men.

      The thing, though, is that does sell. Hollywood generally doesn’t make a movie that they don’t think will sell, and at this point, wank material female characters do sell well. So, maybe instead of just criticizing Hollywood for making it, it would be more pertinent to criticize American culture for perpetuating these stereotyped or shallow female characters.

      I don’t know if I’d argue that sexuality is or should be divorced from the discussion, though. I consider myself a sex-positive feminist, and I’d really like to see more female characters who are both tough and in control of their sexuality. As it is, characters like Fox’s from Transformers are presented as eye candy, and then you have tough women who are presented as being almost asexual. It would be nice to find a happy medium.

  • humanadverb

    It looks like Predators, like Predator, is going to be another sausage fest with a token hot chick. And it will sell, very well. And that’s okay, I think. I know I’m going to see it.

    But look at some of the biggest blockbusters of all time, all from Cameron and all with decent female leads: T2, Titanic, Avatar. Clearly, actually appealing to a female audience is bankable. And yet these types of characters tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. I simply do not believe that this chauvinist paradigm is being sustained by market forces.

    Dynamic, relate-able female characters appeal to male audiences, too. I once heard Howard Stern say the scence from Aliens, where Ripley gets off the elevator, is the most erotic thing he’s ever seen. I know a lot of men are absolutely petrified by the concept of a woman who challenges them, but many, many more find that a turn-on.

    I don’t think sex should be divorced at all, but it is just one aspect of a much larger conversation. I’d argue Megan Fox has more control over her sexuality than Sookie, but is a much less successful character. I’m a sex-positive feminist, too, and actually I really enjoy some of the exploitative aspects of pop culture.

    But, jumping to conclusions here, the real problem is that not enough women are in positions of power in the film industry. The boy-men are, instead, actively cutting out these characters based on their own taste, projected onto audiences. Tarantino and Cameron can do what they want, but “Hit Girl” has to be titled “Kick Ass” or it wouldn’t get made. (Ditto “Matilda” becomes “Leon.”)

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.