What I hate about Strong Female Characters

So, I have an issue with Strong Female Characters.

To clarify, while this is a criticism of the public perception of "Strong Female Characters", this doesn't necessarily mean that I will take issue with any character just because they are both a) female and b) strong. I love and embrace characters with those traits. The issue that I have is with the exclusion of characters from the "Strong Female Character" (note the quotation marks) label because they do not exhibit their strength in a way that is traditionally masculine.

In case you're confused as to what kind of character I'm referring to, Rhiannon Thomas outlined a few of the typical characteristics. "Strong Female Characters" tend to exhibit at least 3 of the following traits:

Action girl

They tend to be fighters, physically capable of injuring or killing both male and female enemies whether it be with swords, guns or their bare hands. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing female characters being depicted as the physical equal of any man. I grew up watching shows like Charmed, Buffy and Xena and I idolised these characters, and they still have a special place in my heart. But I, along with many other women (and men), am not in peak physical condition. I rarely go to the gym and I've never fired a gun. The kind of strength that these warrior women have is not relatable to me, but I like to think that I can have another kind of strength. What I'm trying to express here is that there is more than one way to be strong. Mental strength and intellectual ability can make a character just as much of an asset to a war effort (or whatever conflict is happening in the story) as somebody who can use a bow and arrow.

Non-emotional

They're capable of killing without any visible guilt, they don't bat an eyelid at the sight of blood or gore and their confidence is rarely, if ever, shaken. You will never see them cry for any reason, as they instead respond to a traumatising event with an immediate thirst for revenge. This is problematic for many reasons. Firstly, there is a dangerous assumption in our society that 'strong' and 'emotional' are antonyms. This is just not true. Emotion is not weakness. It's part of being human. Crying and experiencing feelings like hopelessness and insecurity when faced with a difficult situation is a completely natural reaction to have. There is another issue of relatability here; everybody is emotional. So any characters that express no emotion are both unrealistic and (to me) uninteresting to boot. Moreover, the absence of guilt is dangerous in any fictional role model. I understand that morality is not black and white, and sometimes it is necessary to commit acts that would typically be morally wrong (like murder) for the greater good. This is understandable. But if a character, female or otherwise, can murder somebody without even blinking, this sends a message to the audience that violence is nothing to feel guilty about. Smarter people than me have written about the dangers of glorifying violence, so I'll leave this here.

Sexually liberated 

Their attitude to sex is casual and adventurous, and they tend to wear skimpy clothing despite their active lifestyle. I'm all for sex-positive role models. Women have been shamed for doing what their male counterparts have been commended for doing for far too long, and in the 21st Century, women should feel free to express their sexuality. The issue for me is when woman is praised for being a "Strong Female Character" when in reality she exists only for the male gaze. This is evident in their clothing choices; superhero films and comics are the worst culprits here. Women wear platform heels and skintight leotards where combat boots and body armour would be more appropriate, and the woman is always, without fail, extremely attractive. Seeing women like this on television screens does not inspire women. We can't relate to somebody who looks like Lara Croft while they're running and sweating in a fast-paced action scene.

"Not like other girls" 

They tend to have mostly male friends and dismiss most other women as weak or stupid, disdaining their emotional expressiveness and their traditionally feminine desires or interests (such as in romance or fashion). Their interests are more traditionally masculine, like cars or weapons. This is a pet peeve of mine, both in fiction and in real life. We need to stop regarding women who are traditionally feminine as silly, shallow and uninteresting. You can love the colour pink and getting your nails done while still having an inner will of steel. Strength does not mean having to be masculine, or separating yourself from other women. After centuries, maybe millennia, of being regarded as the weaker sex, women need to show solidarity for each other and embrace their differences.

Now, there are characters that fit the mould almost perfectly that I absolutely adore (I love every single character in all of these gifs). My issue isn't that characters like this exist. I'm happy that women with a lot of traditionally masculine traits are being represented. My issue is that critics and audiences will tell you that a female character must have these traits in order to be a "Strong Female Character" and any woman that is physically inactive, emotional, naive and/or traditionally feminine must be weak. Women cannot be completely masculine; women, and men for that matter, all have a mix of masculine and feminine traits and by saying that feminine characters are weak, you are demanding that the feminine aspects of one's personality must be suppressed in order for them to be considered strong. It's not the writers of these characters that are the main issue here (besides the writers to choose to write characters with no emotion; that's just lazy writing), it's readers, audiences and critics. Strong, complex female characters that express feminine traits are out there in fiction, and it's our responsibility to embrace them as wholly as we do the "Strong Female Characters" that we love so universally.