Q10 is How does she relate to other female characters?

I think you misunderstood the question. One form of a weak female character is one that exists for men; is portrayed as, and acts as if, her only purpose in existing is to be pursued by men, to get married, to have children, to be sexually attractive to men or desired by men.

If a female character only talks to other female characters about men (finding men, understanding men, being rejected by men, being persecuted by men, hoping to be rescued by men, how to please men, or alternatively she only views other women as competition for men, to be defeated), OR about traditional "female" duties like children or housekeeping, she is not a strong female character.

For heterosexual males, consider the same-sex relationships you have: At work, in business, with friends, with charity or activism, in commerce with suppliers, even in politics: that have absolutely nothing to do with sexual attraction, fashion, trying to be pretty or trying to make friends or influence people.

One would think it obvious that women will have pretty much the same same-sex relationships; i.e. with other women, that have nothing to do men in their life, nothing to do with fashion or hair or makeup.

Although one would think that would be obvious, many male writers seem incapable of imagining these other relationships for heterosexual women.

The question is asking, does the female character relate to other female characters as if they are real people, or are their interactions limited to the roles sexist MEN define and allow for women?

The other questions are similar: Does she influence the plot (without getting captured or killed)?

If the plot is that a woman is captured and the man rescues her, she is a passive character being treated like an object, she could just as easily be a gold crown that got stolen. If the plot is she gets murdered and the man is out for revenge, her only purpose in the story is to motivate a man to action.

Strong female characters think for themselves, act for themselves, and don't define themselves exclusively in terms of what the men in their life want them to be. They are not objects to be acquired or won, and their "success" is not defined by whether a man wants them or marries them. It is defined in the same way a male protagonist's success is defined, they save the day, or save the world, or prevent disaster, etc. By their own agency.

Edit: Consistency

Saying a characters is "consistent" is tricky, because they may be consistent in always trying to please the person they happen to be with; which externally may make them seem inconsistent. For example, a person (man or woman) may agree with their boss about some political issues, but with their friends express the opposite view. In the voting booth they can express yet another view, the one they truly hold, when nobody can see them. Is that person consistent? Yes, they will lie to please whomever they happens to be with.

Consistency with some internal true state is important, and that can be shown through relationships and how the character treats other people (or even animals; e.g. a person may treat a dog or cat with kindness or cruelty).

It can be shown through non-personal reactions as well, but in the end most of our character is about moral decisions and these generally relate to how we treat other living things that can feel pain or despair. Even theft is not so much about the object stolen, but about the person(s) deprived of it. For example if you are walking outside and find a bill in the street with no obvious owner, pocketing it is not considered a theft by most people, while taking off an empty table in a restaurant would be.

---

(0)

Login to post a comment!