What makes a good female character?

[Mr Light]

It's always interesting to read reviews and opinions about the treatment of women in media. The debate between what is positive and what isn't, what is feminism and what isn't.

I've heard that Fury Road is both extremely feminist and extremely anti-feminist at the same time. It stars a bunch of strong women fighting for their own destiny... but they're also half naked lingerie models.

So what's a strong female portrayal? I always strive to have prominent positive female characters in my stories and I always wonder if I'm doing enough to that end.

I often hear about a character "having agency", controlling his/her own life and not existing as a component of another stronger character. Someone who does what she wants to do, and not what a man in her life wants to do, etc, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
And of course there's the Bechdel test. There must be at least two female characters and they must talk about something other than a man.

But what's the line between including M/F relationships and romance in a sensible way and going too far? What defines a positive feminist M/F relationship?

And of course one wants to avoid stereotypical overly emotional portrayals of women. But what's the line there? Should we strive to be gender neutral, where the gender is utterly irrelevant to the personality? For example Starbuck in NuBSG.

Should a "strong" female character mean aggressiveness and confidence? How much self doubt is allowed?

I don't have answers... only questions

 

[auntiehill]

What makes a good female character is what makes a good character--period. A character that has their own inner life, own purpose, personality and follows a challenge to achieve a certain goal.

Take gender out of the equation and see if that character is more than a caricature or cliche--a plot device to serve another character's development.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

Strong-willed, intelligent, relatable, but also knowing that she has flaws, and isn't afraid to admit it.

 

[Christopher]

I've heard that Fury Road is both extremely feminist and extremely anti-feminist at the same time. It stars a bunch of strong women fighting for their own destiny... but they're also half naked lingerie models.

I haven't heard the latter side argued, and I don't think it makes a lot of sense. The Brides were specifically selected by Immortan Joe for their beauty, and he didn't give them a lot to wear. But that wasn't gratuitous titillation, it was a reflection of the objectifying attitudes they were fleeing from. And they weren't glamorized and leered at by the camera, but were allowed to get dirty and scratched up, and they had individual personalities so they weren't just there to look good. And Max didn't try to hit on them or objectify them or ogle them, but just treated them first as obstacles and then as allies.

So what's a strong female portrayal? I always strive to have prominent positive female characters in my stories and I always wonder if I'm doing enough to that end.

As Gail Simone and others have said, "How do I write strong female characters?" is the wrong question. The question is, "How do I write strong characters?" Being male or female is just one facet of who they are. The rules for effective characterization are the same either way. Treat them as individuals rather than generic classes. Give them distinctive personality traits. Make them nuanced and flawed rather than idealized. Make them active rather than reactive. Give them an inner life rather than just looking at them from the outside. If you go in thinking that the way to write women is fundamentally any different than the way to write men, then you're already failing.

And it's not just about physical strength or being a fighter. It's about strength of character, or simply being interesting enough to leave a strong impression on the reader.

I often hear about a character "having agency", controlling his/her own life and not existing as a component of another stronger character. Someone who does what she wants to do, and not what a man in her life wants to do, etc, etc.

Basically, yes, but even people in nominally subordinate positions can have agency. Look at history -- beyond the traditional male-centric way of writing it -- and you find lots of ways in which women found agency within the context of male-dominated societies, e.g. controlling household finances or marriage decisions. Many oppressed groups -- women, racial and religious minorities, slaves -- have had agency in the subtle ways they resisted oppression and held on to their traditions and identity.

Agency is essentially about getting inside a character's head, seeing how they think about the situation they're in and what choices they make in reaction to it. No matter how powerful or powerless people's nominal position may be, they still have opinions and reactions and choices, and if you let your characters have those things, then they have agency. An agent is simply one who acts, rather than purely being acted upon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
And of course there's the Bechdel test. There must be at least two female characters and they must talk about something other than a man.

That's not a "must," per se. There are effective female characters in stories that don't have any other women, e.g. Sandra Bullock in Gravity. The Bechdel Test is meant more as a commentary on gender representation in media in the aggregate. An individual story passing or failing the test doesn't necessarily mean it's feminist or sexist, respectively, but if the majority of stories fail the test, then there's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. Bechdel isn't a strict litmus test, more a rhetorical device to get us thinking about inclusion and representation.

The point, really, is that most movies have more than two named male characters who talk about things other than the opposite sex, but a lot fewer have the same with female characters. And that's because too many movies treat men as the default and women as an afterthought. If you just write the sexes equally, then the Bechdel Test takes care of itself.

But what's the line between including M/F relationships and romance in a sensible way and going too far? What defines a positive feminist M/F relationship?

The same thing that defines a healthy relationship in real life -- equality and respect for both participants. Both points of view being paid attention to. Both parties being treated as individuals who have full lives of which the relationship is just one part.

And of course one wants to avoid stereotypical overly emotional portrayals of women. But what's the line there? Should we strive to be gender neutral, where the gender is utterly irrelevant to the personality? For example Starbuck in NuBSG.

I don't think there's anything wrong with emotionality in either sex. Characters can be passionate and vulnerable but still strong. Again, don't try to define this in terms of types or categories. Treat each character as an individual. Approach them from the inside, try to see the world as they would, like method acting. Give them personal, individual reasons for their emotions and reactions.

And if you have trouble imagining how women see the world, then for goodness' sake, make more female friends. Read more female authors. Just pay attention to what's already out there.

Should a "strong" female character mean aggressiveness and confidence? How much self doubt is allowed?

As I said, that's a common misreading. Personally, I think aggression and machismo show weakness rather than strength. And a lot of the time, strength in a character comes from overcoming vulnerability and doubt rather than simply lacking it. That's not about sex, that's just about characterization in general.

Female characters shouldn't be alike any more than male characters. Just write individuals -- that's what matters. Don't have a bunch of different male characters plus "The Girl." Have just as much variety of types in both sexes.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

What makes a good female character is what makes a good character--period. A character that has their own inner life, own purpose, personality and follows a challenge to achieve a certain goal.

This.

A good female character doesn't have to conform to some idea of femininity or some idea of feminism. The same things that make a male character interesting make a female character interesting, and any attempt to treat a character differently based on being female make the character less interesting.

Though one common way to make a female character uninteresting is to define her in relation to a male love interest. Way too many movies and TV shows do this.

 

[Christopher]

I think you can learn a lot about this just from watching Jessica Jones and Supergirl. Both shows center on female characters who have exceptional physical strength, but that physical power isn't what makes them "strong" characters. They have vulnerabilities and doubts and fears and screw-ups, but their strength as characters comes from their complexity and identifiability, as well as their ability to transcend their setbacks and limits and make a difference for others. More importantly, both shows feature multiple women of diverse types and roles and personalities -- women who are very different from each other, who are strong or weak in distinct ways, who are allowed to have flaws and make mistakes and even be unlikeable. They work as characters because they're written as human beings who, among other things, are female, rather than being entirely defined as "female characters." Because they're allowed to run the full gamut of humanity just as much as male characters are, for better or worse.

 

[SPCTRE]

But what's the line between including M/F relationships and romance in a sensible way and going too far?

Depends on whether or not you're writing a shitty romantic comedy

 

[stardream]

First of all thanks for even thinking about this.

Second the above posters have given great insight. Listen to them.

Someone above mentioned talking to female friends. Ask them about their favorite female characters and why they like them. Ask them if they are believable. Read TV and movie reviews written by women and consider their opinions. Wander around in http://tvtropes.org/ and see if you can find anything of interest.

http://www.themarysue.com/ is another place you can check out for the female point of view.

Hope this helps.

 

[1001001]

I think you can learn a lot about this just from watching Jessica Jones and Supergirl. Both shows center on female characters who have exceptional physical strength, but that physical power isn't what makes them "strong" characters. They have vulnerabilities and doubts and fears and screw-ups, but their strength as characters comes from their complexity and identifiability, as well as their ability to transcend their setbacks and limits and make a difference for others. More importantly, both shows feature multiple women of diverse types and roles and personalities -- women who are very different from each other, who are strong or weak in distinct ways, who are allowed to have flaws and make mistakes and even be unlikeable. They work as characters because they're written as human beings who, among other things, are female, rather than being entirely defined as "female characters." Because they're allowed to run the full gamut of humanity just as much as male characters are, for better or worse.

My first thought was of Supergirl, even though some object to the name. And the costume.

I haven't watched the other show you mentioned, but I agree with everything you said regarding Supergirl. She is so human, despite not being human. I find her very appealing. I'm rooting for her.

 

[Christopher]

My first thought was of Supergirl, even though some object to the name. And the costume.

I think Cat's speech about the term "girl" in the pilot was a nice illustration of how terms that were originally demeaning or insulting can be reclaimed and made empowering, like with "gay" and "queer" in the LGBTQ community. And the writers have kept it consistent, having Cat continue to refer to herself and other women as girls. And yet they've allowed other women to have different points of view on that and other issues.

And there's certainly precedent for adult men referring to themselves as boys -- for instance, the all-male main cast of Red Dwarf have referred to themselves in-story, and become known among the fans, as "The Boys from the Dwarf." So it doesn't have to be infantilizing, but can be a self-adopted expression of youthful attitude or informality. It depends on whether it's something imposed on you by a group that sees itself as superior -- like the use of "boy" as a racial epithet applied to black men in the past -- or something you choose to adopt for your own reasons.

It's the same with costuming and sexuality. There's no reason an empowered woman can't be sexy or provocative, as long as she's the one with the power and choice and is doing it for her own reasons, rather than being arbitrarily sexed up or objectified to serve male gaze. Here are a couple of comics-related links that address the difference between empowering sexuality and objectification:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/empowered-vs-objectified/

http://comicsalliance.com/superheroine-sex-art-story/

As for Supergirl's costume, though, it's not objectifying at all, certainly not as cheesecakey as the tiny-skirted, midriff-baring outfits she wore in the comics over much of the past couple of decades (the first outfit Winn had her try out in the pilot montage was a jab at those). It's a functional, athletic outfit. Sure, it has a skirt, but so does a tennis dress, say. And there's really very little leg showing.

All this ties into the fact that a woman doesn't have to stop being feminine to be strong. There's no incompatibility between the two. The assumption that a strong woman is one who acts exactly like a man, who "unsexes" herself as Lady Macbeth put it, is itself sexist. That's what's so great about the TV Supergirl. She is very girlish and feminine and adorable and sweet and vulnerable, but she is also a totally badass fighter who is routinely given intense, even brutal combat sequences, and that is treated as a perfectly natural juxtaposition rather than a contradiction. I love that.

 

[Mr Light]

Supergirl is another interesting example where I wonder whether it's a positive portrayal or not. She wear a short skirt and is full of self doubt and lets her boss walk all over her and a large percentage of her screen time is about the guy she's crushing on who's dating someone else and the guy who's crushing on her who's invisible to her. Is that still a strong role model?

<<Someone above mentioned talking to female friends. Ask them about their favorite female characters and why they like them. Ask them if they are believable. Read TV and movie reviews written by women and consider their opinions. Wander around in http://tvtropes.org/ and see if you can find anything of interest. >>

Actually, I have nothing but female friends. I generally hate guys And I work almost exclusively with women as well. So basically 90% of my social interactions are with the opposite sex And one of my best friends, a female writer, usually pushes me to make them more feminine. One of things she told me that I always try to remember is that women usually don't speak directly about things but will dance around whatever subject they're really thinking about.

My stories always feature strong and confident women, but sometimes I worry I'm going too far in that direction. They generally don't suffer much doubt about anything and I don't want them to be too perfect. Actually my primary story is set in a matriarchal society and one of the issues of the series is about men slowly reaching equality.

 

[Cyke101]

I think you can learn a lot about this just from watching Jessica Jones and Supergirl. Both shows center on female characters who have exceptional physical strength, but that physical power isn't what makes them "strong" characters. They have vulnerabilities and doubts and fears and screw-ups, but their strength as characters comes from their complexity and identifiability, as well as their ability to transcend their setbacks and limits and make a difference for others. More importantly, both shows feature multiple women of diverse types and roles and personalities -- women who are very different from each other, who are strong or weak in distinct ways, who are allowed to have flaws and make mistakes and even be unlikeable. They work as characters because they're written as human beings who, among other things, are female, rather than being entirely defined as "female characters." Because they're allowed to run the full gamut of humanity just as much as male characters are, for better or worse.

Agreed. I'm *almost* done with Jessica Jones (please, no spoilers!), but one thing that I greatly appreciate is just how much her powers are secondary compared to her actual job of private eye. Most anything she can do, like pry a lock open, can surely be done with a crowbar. But how she got to that lock in the first place, what's behind the door, etc, those are all simply points on the paths that she chooses and deduces. Her powers are neat and all, but that pales in comparison to her powers of deduction and sense of justice.

 

[stardream]

One of things she told me that I always try to remember is that women usually don't speak directly about things but will dance around whatever subject they're really thinking about.

I don't know. That might be cultural. Most of the women I know are pretty upfront about what is on their minds. My mom was one of them. If she had an opinion about something she would talk about it and she didn't care who was offended. My mother-in-law and my daughter are all the same way. I personally hate 'dancing' around a subject.

 

[Mr Light]

Yeah, I was a little surprised she said that because she (like most of my female friends) are very direct and upfront. So it's not my personal experience. But then again I avoid "normal" people so that's probably more of a normal people type thing

 

[Christopher]

Supergirl is another interesting example where I wonder whether it's a positive portrayal or not. She wear a short skirt and is full of self doubt and lets her boss walk all over her and a large percentage of her screen time is about the guy she's crushing on who's dating someone else and the guy who's crushing on her who's invisible to her. Is that still a strong role model?

Why not? "Strong" doesn't mean "masculine." There's no reason a strong character can't wear a skirt or be interested in romance. Heck, Barry Allen over on The Flash in his first season had an arc defined by unrequited love for a person who was seeing someone else.

And sure, role models are aspirational figures, but a role model who has flaws and insecurities we can relate to and is still able to transcend them can be better than a role model who's so perfect that we can't relate to them at all.

As for Kara letting her boss walk all over her, we've seen her stand up for herself in "Red Faced," and we've seen that her relationship with Cat (both as Kara and as Supergirl) is multilayered and nuanced.

My stories always feature strong and confident women, but sometimes I worry I'm going too far in that direction. They generally don't suffer much doubt about anything and I don't want them to be too perfect. Actually my primary story is set in a matriarchal society and one of the issues of the series is about men slowly reaching equality.

Well, sure, you don't want your characters of either sex to be too perfect or too free of internal conflict. Conflict is where story comes from. Stories are about people facing obstacles to their goals and trying to overcome them, and those obstacles often come from within as well as without.

Agreed. I'm *almost* done with Jessica Jones (please, no spoilers!), but one thing that I greatly appreciate is just how much her powers are secondary compared to her actual job of private eye. Most anything she can do, like pry a lock open, can surely be done with a crowbar. But how she got to that lock in the first place, what's behind the door, etc, those are all simply points on the paths that she chooses and deduces. Her powers are neat and all, but that pales in comparison to her powers of deduction and sense of justice.

Also, JJ is a great exploration of how a character can be a survivor of rape and abuse, yet still be strong and feminist. Too many stories default to using rape as female characters' motivation as if it were the only thing that could fill that role, or actually show the rape for titillation, but where stories like Jessica Jones and Mad Max: Fury Road transcend that is their focus on survival and recovery and moving on after the abuse rather than the act of abuse itself, and that they define their characters by more than just the fact that they were victimized. We do see Kilgrave do some horrible things to people, but most of his victims are people we see after the fact, as they learn to cope with it and recover their sense of self and the things that matter to them. Or not, in a couple of cases.

Still, as advice to a writer who's just trying to learn how to write female characters effectively, I would emphatically suggest: stay the hell away from rape. It's something that can be used effectively, but it takes a lot of sensitivity and delicacy and nuance, and it's all too often used as a lazy shortcut to give female characters baggage. And it can be alienating or distressing to female readers, driving them away from your work. So it's best avoided unless you really, really know what you're doing and have a story that genuinely requires it.

 

[auntiehill]

And one of my best friends, a female writer, usually pushes me to make them more feminine. One of things she told me that I always try to remember is that women usually don't speak directly about things but will dance around whatever subject they're really thinking about.

Clearly, your friend needs to meet more women. I don't think anyone has EVER said that I wasn't "direct enough" in my communication. I have rather the opposite problem. Most of the women I know are also fairly direct. Oddly, though, it is my male co-workers who have told me that I need to be less direct or less blunt, and that, when speaking to a man, I should "be nice."

Only the men I supervise have said I wasn't "friendly enough" when correcting their mistakes. No women--and most of the staff are women--have asked me to "nicer."

 

[Christopher]

^Just goes to show -- different women have different definitions of femininity. That's something Supergirl does a good job of illustrating.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

There's a big difference between giving a female character a boyfriend and defining her strictly in relation to the men chasing her or writing her as the male lead's nice guy entitlement destiny.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

This thread is reminding me of a great episode of Parks & Rec. When Ben is running for rep and there is a tradition where the candidates wives have a pie bake-off. First she chooses not to participate and one side attacks her, then she decides to participate and the other side attacks her.

 

[Mr Light]

Personally, I'm not a macho guy at all, and my female friends are not particularly feminine, so in my experience there's little difference between genders, and my stories tend to reflect that. I just don't want to be a bad writer by imposing my genderless personal history on my stories