I think the underlying problem with most female characters is that writers tend to deal with them in extremes. They can either be one thing or its polar opposite, when a complex, well-written character would be somewhere in between. This goes along with the Good Girl/Bad Girl narrative that’s been present throughout literature for a very long time.
A good example of this is Dante’s The Divine Comedy. This story is well known for having tons of references to both real-life and mythological people. When it comes to women, however, there are really only two places that the narrator encounters them throughout his journey. The first is the second circle of Hell, which is, big surprise, Lust. Dante mentions Cleopatra, Helen of Troy, and other notable women who were considered adulterous. These women would fall into the Bad Girl category. To contrast, the other place we see women is in the eighth sphere of Heaven, when the narrator encounters the Virgin Mary. Mary, of course, is the textbook example of an ideal woman; someone who is pure, chaste, and a mother. The only other notable woman in the story is the lovely Beatrice, who was too pure to even enter Hell. She would fall into the Good Girl category alongside Mary.
In Dante’s epic, we can clearly see how women are deposited into one of two categories. They’re either a seductive, sensual temptress or a pure, chaste mother/wife. They either fit within the criteria for a “Good Girl” or a “Bad Girl”. In other words, they’re either one of two extremes on different ends of a very broad spectrum, with no room in the middle for complexity or decent characterization.
Obviously, we’ve come a long way since Dante’s time. Following the rise of feminist thinking and writing, there’s been a lot of change in literature (and now television and film) with how women are portrayed, and for the most part, I think we’ve gotten away from the Slut versus Housewife dichotomy. Unfortunately, we’re still seeing a lot of female characters being limited to one of two extremes: feminine vs masculine.
In recent years we’ve witnessed the rise of strong female characters everywhere from literature to film to TV. But I think we’re really limiting ourselves by creating female characters (and male characters too) who must be either wholly masculine or feminine. To me, one of the central ideas behind feminism is that personality traits shouldn’t be limited to one gender. Men can be emotional and impulsive, and women can be strong-willed and rational. The truth is, most people possess traits that fall into both “masculine” and “feminine” categories. Certainly, a lot of people are more in line with one type over the other, but that’s not to say that every person is either 100% feminine or 100% masculine. A girl can wear a dress and talk softly and be shy and crush on men and still kick butt on a battlefield (lookin’ at you Eowyn). A guy can be tough and wear leather jackets and beat up robbers and still cry over romantic comedies (Jake Peralta at some point probably).
My point is this: a strong female character isn’t just a girl who can kick a guy’s butt in a fight. Don’t just shove your character in a box, saying “she’s a fighter, so she must be totally masculine” or “she’s a wife with two kids, therefore she must be completely feminine”. There’s nothing wrong with being feminine or masculine, just be careful not to put limits on how they can intermingle. Your character should be interesting, have visible flaws, and a mixture of personality traits that aren’t just restricted to traditionally “feminine” or “masculine”. That’s how you create a complex, compelling character.
izzy806
ellievsbear
blakekathryn
origamiaround
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
kianamaiart
