What does it mean for a character to be described as strong? Recently on reddit someone said that they thought describing a woman as strong was like describing a black person as articulate: it implies that strength is an unusual trait in a woman. I agreed and thought it was a good point. For the poster, however, this was also tied back to how they didn’t like it when female characters were described as strong. Many feminists have voiced concerns about strong female characters.

But there’s a difference between describing a woman as strong in the real world as a word of praise and doing it for a fictional character. That’s because in the fictional world, unlike the real world, women characters who are strong really are much rarer than strong male characters. This is a product of the patriarchy: fiction involves erasing the strength of women and exaggerating the strength of men. So it really is good to see strong female characters, because they break the (overwhelming, patriarchal) mold.

Further, some of the complaints against strong female characters just don’t sit well with me, although perhaps, dear reader, I a misinterpreting them. I will try to summarize the arguments of numerous writers I have read over the years.

First, some feminists argue that strong female characters are problematic because by being so strong, they’re unrelatable, unrealistic, inhuman. We want to see them vulnerable because we are vulnerable. But we never see this argument with male characters. James Bond and Batman aren’t beloved by fans because they’re vulnerable: they are because they’re strong. No one ever complains that male superheroes are too strong to be relatable, unrealistically competent, or inhumanly lucky (even though they are). Somehow they’re allowed to have both strength and relatable humanness at the same time.

Second, some feminists argue that the strong female character is just one “type” and doesn’t represent the complexity possible of different characters. That is often true of female characters who are written in just to be “the strong female character.” But the problem isn’t that they’re a strong character, the problem is that they lack the complexity and development that they deserve. Taking away their strength wouldn’t necessarily give them complexity.

Third, some feminists argue that strong female characters are just women who act like men — that somehow their skill at fighting or competence or harsh personalities make them too masculine. That seems like a strange argument from a feminist point of view, since in every other context, feminists would argue that women can be strong and tough and competent and still be feminine. Femininity shouldn’t be defined by a lack of strength or by certain personalities.

I think a lot of the backlash against strong female characters is actually because we’ve been socialized so deeply since childhood that women are weak that when we see strong women on screen it’s still a fragile suspension of disbelief. When you add to that the fact that writers, also unaccustomed to thinking of women as strong, often write ham-handed, awkward characters, then in our cringing at that awkwardness, we want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But in reality we continue to need strong female characters– we just need them in greater numbers, complexity, and diversity.