"Strong independent woman" seems to have become the latest US phrase when discussing any female character. It wrongly attempts to define a character by a catch-phrase. It comes from the 1970's, it is a pat on the back- "you might be female, but you can be strong and independent as well". The rest of the secular world views this over-compensation with embarrassment.
Daisy Ridley was inevitably asked (in the US of course) if her character was "a strong independent woman". The English actress responded: -
"She is brave and she is vulnerable, and she is so nuanced; that is what is so exciting about playing a role like this. She doesn't have to be one thing to embody a woman in a film, and for me she is not important because she is a woman, she is important and it just so happens she is a woman. She transcends gender."
BRAVO
Why would we take women out of one pigeon-hole, and immediately shoe-horn them into another (namely strong and independent)? Why can a female character not be weak and needy? Why can a male character not be weak and needy? Why can a female character not be strong, but fall apart without the support of her family? I am male and I hurt without mine.
The problem is that Hollywood is two decades behind most of Europe. This subject annoys me more than most. I have a sister and nieces and they are given equal opportunities in the UK. Yet I see this social colonialism from Hollywood that intends to create division and dissent, that would not otherwise exist.
I wrote a piece earlier about how the all female casting of Ghostbusters annoys me. Not because they are female, but because Hollywood, the most backward, misogynistic industry in the western world has the audacity to lecture me, a Brit!
So can we please have real female characters; as flawed as they might be. As submissive or dominant; or scared, vulnerable, or confident; or angry, or passive; or any other of the many attributes people have, without forcing them into a catch phrase?
Daisy Ridley was inevitably asked (in the US of course) if her character was "a strong independent woman". The English actress responded: -
"She is brave and she is vulnerable, and she is so nuanced; that is what is so exciting about playing a role like this. She doesn't have to be one thing to embody a woman in a film, and for me she is not important because she is a woman, she is important and it just so happens she is a woman. She transcends gender."
BRAVO
Why would we take women out of one pigeon-hole, and immediately shoe-horn them into another (namely strong and independent)? Why can a female character not be weak and needy? Why can a male character not be weak and needy? Why can a female character not be strong, but fall apart without the support of her family? I am male and I hurt without mine.
The problem is that Hollywood is two decades behind most of Europe. This subject annoys me more than most. I have a sister and nieces and they are given equal opportunities in the UK. Yet I see this social colonialism from Hollywood that intends to create division and dissent, that would not otherwise exist.
I wrote a piece earlier about how the all female casting of Ghostbusters annoys me. Not because they are female, but because Hollywood, the most backward, misogynistic industry in the western world has the audacity to lecture me, a Brit!
So can we please have real female characters; as flawed as they might be. As submissive or dominant; or scared, vulnerable, or confident; or angry, or passive; or any other of the many attributes people have, without forcing them into a catch phrase?