Sorry Religious Schools, Your Bathrooms Are Now A ‘Target’ Too
They have a goal in mind. They’re taking it one step at a time.Read More »
I read an article recently about the female characters in movies. It described many modern movies with female characters that have a hard-core kick butt entrance to the film then ultimately become weak useless characters. As I read I could begin to comprehend what they were describing in the article but the further I got the more I began to think. Unlike most people in my generation I don’t just read and article and believe it; I will spend considerable time pondering what I have read and then decide for myself whether or not it is meaningful. I have concluded this is a load of garbage on behalf of the author for this article.
My first issue with the article was these characters, despite ultimately accomplishing nothing, are a very needed component to the film. They brought up Valka, Hiccup’s mother in the new How To Train Your Dragons 2, Wyldstyle from the Lego Movie, Tauriel from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and Trinity from The Matrix. When you analyse what these characters do in the films you realize they play pinnacle roles in the building of the main character. When he needs them the most, they are there to support him, hence why they are “supporting characters”. They fight, they kick butt, and they take names which is what allegedly makes them a “strong female character”. Let’s analyse that phrase shall we? Strong FEMALE Character. Strong meaning powerful or meaningful; female meaning acts, thinks, and is a woman; character meaning the kind of person they are. Now the fact they are supporting characters means they will ultimately do nothing. They will support the main character in doing what he needs to do so he accomplishes his goal. People seem to forget that supporting characters men or women only support the main character.
My second issue that I thought about was the fact that they seem to not want “strong female characters” as they want “strong female characters with the consciousness of a man”. They don’t want them to be supporting characters, they want them to take the story away from the main character because they are women. Let’s face it, women will act differently apart from a man than they will in the presence of a man. Men tend to be most dominate personalities and women typically will be less dominate. If they have to they will lead, but if a dominate male is present, they will be more likely to follow, not because they are a weaker sex, but because that is how most women are wired genetically.
My last issue with this article, and the last nail in the coffin for credibility, is the fact they only brought up stories where the main characters were men. They avoided movies like: Lucy, Hannah, Ultra Violet (terrible film anyway), and Salt. These are movies with strong female main characters where they accomplish a great deal and kick butt. They also don’t mention strong female characters which do accomplish things in other movies like Thor: The Dark World where his mother totally almost kills the bad guy by herself and only loses because of the big dude who also beats the crap out of Thor himself and is only defeated because of Loki’s tricks.
My conclusion is that the article itself was only to start a controversy and outrage people needlessly. It was a waste of a read and a waste of time to write. I just got so irritated by it that I needed to put this article out there as a response so people know how crazy whacked out the idea of what it takes to be a “strong female character” means. You should not and can not have a strong female character that does not have the characteristics that makes her distinctively female.