Pants are Not the Cure: Strong Female Characters vs Strong Characters, Female

 "Strong Female Characters" from the webcomic Hark! A Vagrant

Sometimes satire so accurately portrays society's misconception of equality that I have trouble laughing . . .



Recently in the realm of geek internet social commentary, there has been a growing awareness of the (flawed) "Strong Female Character" archetype.  Though the call for more realistic representations of women in comics is not new, the current round of critique began when geeks noticed that DC's new "non-reboot" character designs featured most canonical heroines wearing pants; Supergirl's leotard and  Harley Quinn's (spandex?) daisy dukes being the exceptions.  In an interview with Newsarama, DC Editor-in-Chief Bob Harrras stated that the new character designs were an effort to make characters "more current-looking", with no specific parameters on the redesigns of either male or female characters.  However, according to Bleeding Cool, there was an editorial edict that all female characters should "have their legs covered".

I'm inclined to believe that the edict is true - DC's well-intentioned effort to present heroines in a less objectified manner.  However, as mlawski at Over Thinking It and DC Women Kicking Ass summarize, the accurate portrayal of Strong Female Characters is not purely about the physical; and, when it comes to comic book heroines, it's Not All About the Pants.

Because mwlaski explains it so well in her article "Why Strong Female Characters are Bad For Women", I've included a substantive excerpt below:

I think the major problem here is that women were clamoring for “strong female characters,” and male writers misunderstood.  They thought the feminists meant [Strong Female] Characters.  The feminists meant [Strong Characters], Female . . . Strong just means they have their own goals that move beyond “I want to do whatever the male hero wants to do” or “I want to marry the male hero.”  “I want to have a baby” is moderately better – moderately. 

She goes on to describe the Altered Mary Sue:

They pile up one awesome trait after another on top of this sexy female character, thinking that will make them “stronger.”

This Super Strong Female Character is almost like a Mary Sue, except instead of being perfect in every way because she’s a stand-in for the author, she’s perfect in every way so the male audience will want to bang her and so the female audience won’t be able to say, “Tsk tsk, what a weak female character!”

Mwalski clarifies that it is not the "physical perfection" which makes the Altered Mary Sue, but the lack of character depth and the delicate treatment of these women (i.e., how Megan Fox's character was NEVER injured despite spending two films evading aliens while running through war zones and explosions with 50 - 75% of her body exposed) in addition to the emphasis on their sexuality/physical beauty.

In comics, the portrayal of the Super Strong Female Character is even more absurd as all character development, and the idea of female empowerment, is continuously overshadowed by their blatant sexualization.  In a medium which relies on artistic renderings to communicate with the audience, the depiction of characters is of paramount importance.

Megan Rose Gedris did a side-by-side comparison of original super-heroine cover art against artistic renderings of super-heroes in the same costumes and poses.  Both hilarious and siturbing, it also accurately captures the over-sexualized portrayal of women in comics.  As she says, "Yes, men are idealized, too . . . but men aren't being sexualized." 

an unsettling, accurate gender-bending example from Gedris' blog

The truth is, I can't even remember that last time I saw a male superhero depicted in a purely sexualized manner.  Argue that a female character can be sexy, empowered, and capable, and I will agree; but, how often is that portrayed?  Being sexy  is NOT the same as being objectified, and you can only be so powerful when your breast weigh more than your entire body.  

sexy . . .

                                                                                                                          

slightly objectified . . .

ridiculous

During the 2008 Democratic primaries between then-Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, someone said that whoever won, it would only indicate whether Americans were either more sexist or more racist.  I agree.  (I'm not sure where that places the LGBT and disabled communities on the road of general acceptance)


Although the current depiction of women in film or comics is realistic, it has improved over the decade; and, that the discussion is once again in the public forum is encouraging.  As genres, science-fiction, fantasy, and sci-fantasy are usually ahead of the curve; pushing boundaries on technological possibilities and societal standards of acceptance.  Character portrayals not based solely on gender could not only expand the audience, but trickle-down to influence society at large - something I strongly believe media has the power to do.  

Hopefully, when creating/re-booting/re-vamping/re-designing/programming characters in the future, creators will not start with the description of their character's sex, but with a description of character; because, as Gedris and Hark!A Vagrant point out, the cure for sexism is not found in pants.

by Gedris