I totally agree with Elizabeth Swann. I would've loved to see her captaining a ship while she waited for her chances to see Will instead of sitting around in some picture perfect cottage moping.

I would actually *remove* River Tam from that list. The whole point of her character arc was that she was learning to be strong, overcoming whatever the hell the government did to her brain. In the end it's not her who needs everyone to protect her; it's them who need her to stay strong, not just as a protector but as a family and integral crew member. You can write a character as having a weakness without it being an attack on all womanhood. That list also completely ignores another woman of Firefly/Serenity, Zoe, who in many ways was the *strongest* person in the crew in terms of her emotions and capabilities.

I tend to agree with a fair portion of what the author said in this piece, except that I have a bone to pick regarding River Tam. The author ignores the fact that all of Joss Whedon's characters are flawed, complex individuals (rather than by-the-book archetypes). Another Firefly/Serenity character that I consider to be one of the most positive and role model-worthy women is Zoe, but even she is conflicted when it comes to her relationship with her "captain," Mal.

As for River, she has been manipulated and parts of her brain physically destroyed by a secret government agency, so the fact that she has difficulty being a "role model" and protecting herself may be because she's not supposed to be a perfect paragon of female power. The most powerful part of her story is (in Serenity) when she is able to take all the horrible things that have been done to her and claim them for herself in order to protect her loved ones. (I.e., use the martial arts info/training to kick the bejeezus out of the Reavers.)

Another thing I consider to be unfair in comparing her in particular to Padme and Elizabeth Swan is that River's story is incomplete. Firefly only began to show us her many layers (as well as all of the other characters') when it was cancelled. Serenity and the comics have filled in a few gaps, but as with Buffy, I'm sure Joss had a larger story in mind that would allow her to blossom as a strong woman (yet still realistically flawed) character. Especially in the cases of Padme Amidala and Elizabeth Swan, their stories are complete, and in fact end on them doing 'proper,' 'womanly' things.

Syan: I very much agree, I was writing my post when you posted yours! :)

BTW, if anyone still hasn't seen the speech that Joss Whedon made for Equality Now, go see it now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaczoJMRhs

[/geeking]

Yay, I'm glad Cracked made it on this site. Cracked does surprise me sometimes by making really good points on topics that reach out to an audience that, for the most part, is unlikely to read blogs like Feministing. Check out this article on Orson Scott Card's homophobia.

people have already articulated my issues with River Tam, so I won't. Character I would add-Lara Croft. because really? being bad ass just so guys want to sleep with you? Not feminist. also, perfect women bother me. Which is part of my I actually like River. Though the real examples I can think of are all Heinlein, not movies.

I'm going to have to politely disagree with calling out Lara Croft. Since when was she being "bad ass" just so "guys can sleep with her"?? As an avid gamer, all of the games have no romance story. Notable is the fact that she has male side kicks and back ups (butler and gadget man)and does battle with female and male antagonists alike. Some may complain about the daddy complex Lara has, but note that nearly all of the "Tomb Raider Legends" game was centered around Lara trying to uncover the death/disappearance of her mother.

As for the movies, I think they still pass the test. ESPECIALLY the "cradle of life", when Lara shoots dead love interest Terry Sheridan to uphold her values and keep unlimited power out of the hands of a mercenary (and return it to its source).

i'm also for removing river tam. i'd also bump eowyn farther up the list, just because hollywood managed to dumb down her character. they unnecessarily inflated the elf chick's part, and dumbed down the genuinely badass female character.

and, i'd add the queen from 300 to the list. what they did with that character ruined the movie for me.

How about characters like Idgie Threadgoode from Fried Green Tomatoes, Norma Rae from Norma Rae, Margie from Fargo, Violet Newstead from Nine to Five? Or do "strong women characters" also have to be young and sexy?

I can see how Lara Croft can be said to be legitimately powerful and ass-kicking, but her clothing choices are a tad ridiculous. I mean, short-shorts? Her legs would be cut up to shit. Maybe some cargo pants or something. (Then again, I'm speaking without having seen the movies, but I've never seen her wearing anything other than tank top, short-shorts, boots and firearms.)

Also, anyone seen Cracked's 9 Most Racist Disney Characters? I loved that one.

Um. I didn't understand the prompt. Ignore everything I just said.

So, what about Ripley? No particular opinions of my own, just interested in various viewpoints. E.g., should , or should I not name my next kitten after her?

Idgie Threadgoode from Fried Green Tomatoes? Hold your tongue, secretinside girl.

Let's add Erin Brockovich and everything Julia Roberts has ever starred in.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above comments on River and Zoe. What I'm wondering is why the sort of bad ass but ultimately insipid Trinity from the Matrix was not the list . . . with her destiny to fall in love and all.

Lately, I have been RANTING about the whole Star Wars series (probably because I have been hanging around feminist websites).

Think of all 6 episodes, then count the number of women who actually speak. My neighbor actually has the whole series memorized (because he is that kind of guy), and he was able to say all the lines of all the characters that aren't Padme or Leia in about 5 minutes. And yet, Star Wars often gets credit for being feminist because it has 2 feisty women.

And I have been just waiting for the chance to say something to somebody about it! Thank god for this post!

I think it's fair to mention(ok I'm a geek I'll just say that out front) that The Lord of the Rings originally wrote Eowyn as a much stronger female character. Likewise with Arwen and several others. Sure the book isn't totally devoid of poor feminine examples, it was written some time ago from a very male perspective. But I think that this is one of the areas where once again Hollywood dropped the ball on an adequate representation of the book. Eowyn didn't follow the troops to war because of Aragorn, she did so to protect her people. It was also a bit more of a twist in the book that Eowyn would slay the witch king over several other champions rather than the heavy handed treatment it received in the film.

The whole love triangle with Aragorn business was barely touched upon in the actual text of the book. There's some more in depth commentary in appendices, but as a fan of Tolkien, I think it's fair to say that he did try pretty hard to make any major female players in the book strong women with power. The fact that Hollywood botched it is just a clear example that major motion picture producers don't believe that they can use the original story, they must instead water down any possibility of a strong feminist character, alter the ending and make sure that you waste a good amount of time on war scenes and frame dissolves rather than interesting back story and creative mythos.

and, i'd add the queen from 300 to the list. what they did with that character ruined the movie for me.

You should see her character in the original comic. The movie version is practically Susan B. Anthony in comparison.

I would have added Sin City to that list.

C'Mon Jro, as an avid gamer, I'm sure you remember the code to make Lara Croft get naked (or the one where she blows up). The game's positive aspects are better than Hollywood's, but Hollywood is who we're talking about. They really played up the half dressed, big breasted, bad ass chick with guns theme, and I somehow doubt the intent was to empower women. I still like Lara Croft though- she is powerful. But Hollywood still gets a fail (as usual) as far as feminism goes.

I was glad to see Eowyn on the list precisely because Jackson screwed her up so badly. I thought her defeat of the witch king was a neat way for Tolkien to trump Shakespeare.

"I would have added Sin City to that list" Sin City wasn't even an attempt! Just blatant misogyny. But speaking of comics, nearly ever female comic character that managed to make it to the big screen was portrayed appealingly.

Does Kill Bill fall into this trap?

I agree with the whole list about the movies I've seen, including River from Firefly, alhough I'm a big Buffy and Joss Whedon fan in general.

I would add G.I. Jane, The First Wives' Club, Mona Lisa's Smile--all sad attempts at feminism.

I join in in decrying both the original article's choice of River Tam, and Ainomiaka's choice of Lara Croft. Aside from some unfortunate clothing choices, there is *nothing* about Hollywood's presentation of Croft that makes for Full Feminist Fail. To me, mistaking the effect the marketers expected the character to have on fanboys for an inherent aspect of the character herself is rather like blaming women for being hot. Croft does not do what she does in order to be sexy and attractive; that's a side effect, and it's kind of like saying that James Bond is misandrist because he's sexy and attractive to women. (Misandrist, not misogynist; I actually think Bond *is* misogynist, but he's a man's idealized self-image fantasy. Croft is supposed to be that for women, except visually appealing to men too.)

I will say "word" to Padme Amidala. My favorite spackle for this, actually, comes from a fanfic (I forget the name or link, sorry) where it is revealed that actually Palpatine sucked out Amidala's life force through her bond with Anakin, in order to heal Anakin enough that he could survive becoming Darth Vader. Since Obi-Wan was not experienced with Sith life-sucking powers and the doctors couldn't have known anything about it, they all just assumed that when Padme died of nothing being wrong with her, it was *her* choice to die ("giving up") and not something someone did to her. So she was actually murdered by Palpatine and claiming that she "just gave up" was kind of victim-blaming on the part of Obi-Wan and the doctors. But, as *presented*, her death was utterly full of suck. Why they couldn't say she died of a brain hemorrhage she suffered when Anakin attacked her...

My personal examples of Feminist Fail are Storm and Rogue from X-Men. In the comics, Storm is a natural leader, a woman from Africa who has immense personal dignity, a pacifist who will only kill when faced with the immediate death of innocents if she does not, and, aside from some utter stupidities when any (male) writer tries to get her into a relationship, is generally written as a very strong-willed and self-contained person. In the movie, all three of them actually, Storm is a far, far weaker character. Her leadership skills, her pacifism, her utterly eloquent diction of a type usually only supervillains and team mentors get, even much of her dignity were stripped away.

And Rogue was originally a former terrorist whose momma taught her to be a killer, who went insane when she tried to kill the wrong woman and ended up with the woman's personality stuck in her head, and who went from being an insane killer teenager to a dedicated, morally staunch superhero who, in the end, does what she does because it's right and it helps people -- originally she joined the X-Men because Xavier was going to help her with her powers, and while he was able to help her with the insanity, he never did cure her. She stayed and became a mainstay of the team because she grew up. In the movie, however, she starts out a weak little girl with a deadly power she's too afraid to use, which is used against her to make her a damsel in distress, and which after she has some experience as a superhero she decides to just get rid of because she wants to kiss boys. Ugh.

I'll second Secretinsidegirl: young and skinny shouldn't be a requirement. I'm thinking particularly of Dame Judy's portrayal of M in the Daniel Craig bond films. (I love the new Bond, not least because I love Craig for Layer Cake, and because he makes Bond, again, affirmatively a Scot, but also because the exchanges between him and M are so much richer than the usual Bullitt-knock-off relationship between the cop/soldier/spy protagonist and the antagonistic superior.)

Off the top, I can think of a few; someone already said Ellen Ripley, but Weaver's protagonist had a lot of company, especially in the second film: Jeanette Goldstein's legendary butch Vasquez (Bill Paxson: "Hey Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a man?" Goldstein: "No. Have you?"), and the less-known dropship pilot Ferro and medic Deitrich. Bechdel test? Yes, Ma'am. Vasquez never gets mushy: she and Gorman go out in a blaze of glory with the immortal words, "you always were an asshole ..."

Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor.
Corky and Violet in Bound.
Not to be cliche, but Thelma and Louise.
And, while Tarantino is always controversial, I'll agree with Marcotte about Deathproof: three female characters who refuse to give up and die; their only motivations are friendship, thrills, survival and revenge, and they stick together.

Pure mental toughness? Ada, Holly Hunter's character from The Piano.

(As an aside, "The Descent" is a horror movie virtually without men. It's all about a group of women, friends and sometime rivals, who adventure together, starring Scottish actress Shauna MacDonald. Her character was pretty awesome.)

But these are exceptions, not Big Hollywood Movies. Tarantino has made himself mainstream, but the Wachowskis were indy nobodies when they made Bound, and Thelma and Louise was explicitly a feminist project from the get-go. In that sense, Judy Dench is the most ground-breaking. She's a character in a big-budget popcorn seller, she's the boss, she's not young or thin or conventionally pretty, and she has her own motivations and relationships, including a complex and uneasy one with the protagonist.

Alara, thank you for talking about X-Men. I grew up on X-Men. In the films, they took the Kitty Pryde character and grafted her on to the Rogue powers; and they completely ruined Storm.

(What Marvel could never do with Rogue in the comics that the movie did attempt was to discuss her touch-active powers and their impact on her sexuality. But because they made her a completely different person in the movies, the freedom the film offered was wasted. The best female character in the X-Men films was Mystique, who is actually somewhat more three-dimensional in the films than she was in the comics when I was a regular reader.)

As for Sin City, the best that can be said is that it was true to Frank Miller's vision. The joke I've heard is that if you put a gun to Miller's head and said, "okay, write a female character who isn't a prostitute and doesn't die or get tortured", he'd say, "I got nothin'."

Just to be clear, when I said "I can think of a few ..." I meant actual strong women characters, not gender stereotypes with a few good lines. Ripley certainly qualifies. Beatrice Kiddo from Kill Bill is much more debatable, but I end up being a Tarantino fan, especially viewing her in light of Deathproof.

I'd add C.J. Cregg from West Wing. She's strong and feminist at times, but in the end the story line pushes all the women in the show to choose romance at the expense of their careers. She also doesn't do much talking to other female characters about anything other than men, despite the fact that she's Press Secretary and later chief of staff.

annabell: Lara croft has a variety of costumes. Yes, the shorty-shorts are the most famous, but every game/movie has an array of more suitable attire.

T-monster: Every game has its own easter eggs and un-PC quirks, I don't think tomb raider should get special treatment in that respect. As for the movies- of course it was watered down compared to what the game was (like most video games made into movies). But, unlike other heroines mentioned in this list, Lara croft keeps her integrity in both movies. She remains the star and does not become whiny/weak/married/pregnant/second to a male. If anything, she is the one feminine character who DOES pass the test.

On a final note: I do understand Lara croft was made up by men, I understand she was made sexy with shorty shorts for a purpose. It is for that reason I find that much pleasure in pointing out how much of a feminist Lara croft can be- the exact opposite of what her creators expected.

Hey Thomas are you listing feminist movies or movies that try to be feminists but fail like in the list, cause i didn't think ripley failed.

""I would have added Sin City to that list" Sin City wasn't even an attempt! Just blatant misogyny. But speaking of comics, nearly ever female comic character that managed to make it to the big screen was portrayed appealingly. " You would be surprised at the people i know who said that movie wasn't sexist cause the women got to have guns too.

I umpteeth everyone who objects to River Tam on that list. Her character is meant to demonstrate the way a woman can overcome things that stand in her way, and use experiences to make herself stronger. While parts of her character are problematic (Whedon creates flawed characters, none of his strong women are supposed to be perfect) she is an excellent example of women overcoming abuse to be stronger.

I also object to them using that screed from livejournal to defend putting her on the list. Sure, flame me if you will I don't care, but the way that author throws around the word rape so willy nilly actually does a disservice to feminism and all we try to do in fighting for rape to be taken seriously. If we use the word rape so trivially then how do we expect people to take actual rape seriously? Calling Whedon (and all men by default) rapists makes a serious fucking topic harder to take seriously. That screed does no one any good and only worked to increase that author's web hits.

Tersa, I was listing female characters that succeed in being strong, interesting and independent; the opposite of the list. Just listing shitty, weak female characters is too much of a bummer. I totally agree that Ripley is wonderful and I don't think the maternal relationship between her and Newt detracts from that at all. That's not about a man, romance or even a traditional role, really. She can both nurture and slay monsters with the skillful operation of heavy equipment; there's a working mom for ya!

I'd add C.J. Cregg from West Wing. She's strong and feminist at times, but in the end the story line pushes all the women in the show to choose romance at the expense of their careers. She also doesn't do much talking to other female characters about anything other than men, despite the fact that she's Press Secretary and later chief of staff.

Wha?

Okay, granted, there aren't that many other women on the show for her to interact with, period -- but I actually can't think of an instance of her yakking about men with any of the female characters. The scenes that come to mind are when she's with Nancy McNally or Abbey Bartlet -- always talking about something considerably more substantial than who she's dating, or would like to be.

Okay, scratch that -- I recall the moment where she realizes she's beginning to like Simon and brings it up with Carol. Other than that... And to limit the conversations being judged to those with other women leaves out the tremendous number of scenes in which she totally kicks ass among her male colleagues. I know the litmus test -- two female characters, talk to each other, something other than a man -- but there are other ways for a female character to grow beyond token status.

And she doesn't choose a relationship over a career, either. She specifically holds Danny off, knowing that dating him would create a conflict with her job, until Bartlet's term is up.

I mean, I'm not always crazy about how the show treated femaleness in general -- there was some painfully patronizing/misguided crap in even (especially?) the Sorkin seasons -- but even so, he created strong, assertive female characters -- C.J., Abbey and Amy Gardner stand out -- without ever doling out any dramatic comeuppance to them for having personalities and attitudes that weren't always palatable to certain male viewers I could identify. *cough*Dad*cough*

If you want to get into it about Kate Harper, well, that's a whole nother story. Shallowest character ever, and definitely a weak offering feminism-wise, what with her super-cool spy background and office-flirtation bullcrap. Plus she made Nancy McNally disappear, and that is so not cool. : (

Sorry. I'm maybe a little overdefensive. C.J. is the character who if I realized thirty years from now that I'd become her, I would be totally thrilled. Or Leo, but I should be realistic about the levels of awesomeness I could plausibly attain.

i REALLY disagree with River Tam
and I disagree with Eowyn.

River Tam as people have noted on here is a flawed character like the rest of the cast. Zoe is the strong female heroine. River is the girl who was tortured and is trying to get over it and doesn't even really know she has ass kicking powers...

Eowyn too I disagree with because she killed the main antagonist! She disobeyed orders and went and fought and kicked ass! Just because she got married, it means that she's not a strong heroine? I don't buy it. Then again, I read the books too.

There were waaaay many other characters they could have put on that list besides those two.

HA! Can't believe this made it onto Feministing...

I'm an avid Cracked reader (guilty pleasure), and when I was reading this article yesterday, I got confused as to whether I was reading Feministing or Cracked. So happy they decided to apply their funny to this kind of topic...

Okay, first off, I just have to say how much I loved this from the article:

Witch King: No man can slay me! Mine is an evil laugh!

Eowyn: Behold my vagina!

Witch King: * dies *

That made me laugh.

I agree that I don't think River Tam should be on the list, since I don't think she was meant to be some kind of feminist icon kick-ass hero type (at least, certainly not within the far-too-short time the series was on the air). I think River was meant to be an awesome female character who had some kick-ass powers, but that's totally different from a character who's meant to be a feminist icon. In fairness, though, Zoe couldn't have been on the list, because Zoe was full of win :)

A kick-ass female character that I think was actually done fairly WELL was Alice in the Resident Evil movies. She definitely has some of the tortured/confused/imperfect-ness to her (then again, that just makes her a more interesting character), but she's got these super kick-ass abilities, balls of titanium, and a protective (save the innocents!) streak that I think is mostly (not totally) done in a way that's pretty gender-neutral. Now, of course, the movies unfortunately were something less than awesome -- but still, I actually liked her character pretty well. Also, thanks to the first movie, I now have a crippling fear of elevators.

Eowyn too I disagree with because she killed the main antagonist! She disobeyed orders and went and fought and kicked ass! Just because she got married, it means that she's not a strong heroine? I don't buy it. Then again, I read the books too.

But it's made quite clear in the book -- less so in the movies -- that to her, marriage by definition means giving up all of her ass-kicking activities. (Apparently it didn't occur to Tolkien that she could have it both ways, even though so many of his -- non-hobbit -- male heroes are Renaissance men who somehow manage to be all things to everyone all the time.) So she gives several eloquent, passionate speeches to the effect that she'd prefer to continue doing what she's doing and be perceived as unladylike, because anything else would make her feel trapped and incomplete -- and then she goes ahead and marries Faramir. Thanks for the pep talk, Mr. Tolkien!

Her warrior character is still cool for as long as it lasts, but it still always felt like a ripoff to me. And then in the movies they just rip the whole thing down to its bare bones and it all suffers equally -- first, in TTT, she stands around looking pretty and making goo-goo eyes at Aragorn, and then in RotK she keeps going with the goo-goo eyes until he gives her the brush-off, and she does get her moment at the Pelennor Fields, but then (just like in the book) she just falls into Faramir's arms immediately afterward and that's it for Eowyn. And all of her dialogue along the way, which did so much to flesh out her character, gets skipped.

A kick-ass female character that I think was actually done fairly WELL was Alice in the Resident Evil movies.

Haha. Yeah, she is a kick-ass concept. But I find that hard to reconcile with the fact that in ALL three movies there was at least ONE full-frontal nude scene of MJ. Granted, in all cases it doesn’t seem very gratuitous, but you have to wonder whether that was actually the filmmakers pandering to the legion of Alica fanboys. I have to agree with you though…all three movies were really B grade…the stuff you buy from the bargain bin.

I don't get it.

what's the point? we have so little attempt anyway,... why would we want to patronize any attempt at feminism?! even if it's not successful. Is it to make us feel that we are the only ones who get it right?

how is this productive?

LOL. Thank you Thomas for bringing Frank Miller into this. Comic book nerds have joked about Miller's tendency to make all of his female characters hookers for a long time. Usually whenever he is being discussed it is a matter of time before an image of him is posted and captioned WHORES WHORES WHORES.

I don't get it.

what's the point? we have so little attempt anyway,... why would we want to patronize any attempt at feminism?! even if it's not successful. Is it to make us feel that we are the only ones who get it right?

how is this productive?

As I see it, the problem isn't that the attempts aren't "successful" in the sense of bringing their message to a large mainstream audience. In most cases these movies and TV shows are more than successful at that -- making money is far and away their primary goal, after all, and they need a large audience. The problem is that the characters in question don't successfully subvert patriarchal ideals of femininity; instead, they kinda-sorta show that girls can kick ass, but along the way they reinforce all kinds of sexist themes: unhealthy beauty norms; the obsession with being attractive to men, both in body and in personality; the idea that even the strongest women are flighty or untrustworthy or manipulative or hypersexed; or whatever the case may be. So they're not really feminist, successfully or otherwise. They're just pandering to female audiences while continuing to provide eye candy for men.

Eden from the blegghhh Doomsday movie kind of surprised me as a great example and step in the right direction. Add her to the list of NOT A FAIL. Though her acting seemed a little wooden causing her to seem too hollow and stoic, I thought it worked for her character. She is the way she is because it's her job. Smart, capable, and in control of every situation. She never has a doubt in her mind and always plans ahead. It's what I wanna see in any human, male or female. Awesome leader. I would have liked a bit of character development on her end, but hey, s'alright. I'm pleased with the end result. 2 cents. Oh wait, Doomsday is from the same director as The Descent. Well no wonder I like the lead role so much in Doomsday. Too bad the film itself was a big sigh..

A kick-ass female character that I think was actually done fairly WELL was Alice in the Resident Evil movies.

You call Alice a character?

If all a female character does is shoot a gun at things, is that really anything to cheer about? She was the sexy gun girl. Same with what she did in ultraviolet. Why do people - especially feminists - fall for this kind of pandering? A character like this is here to entertain the male audience and placate the female one.

I can't say that I really agree with Eowyn, but mostly that's because her issues as a feminist icon are not Hollywood's doing so much as Tolkein's.

I think films like Sin City are largely irrelevant on a list like this. It seems the main purpose was to challenge The Powers That Be when they tell us that they're giving us a strong female character -- obviously Sin City has never even come close to that category. But it happens so often, doesn't it? The promo material and critics tell us that we're going into the cinema to see strong female characters and we rarely question it. Firing a gun is enough, right? Even if they do give up everything for a man in the end.

I think that tough female characters who are shown to secretly be either emotionally or physically weak are pretty damaging. Perhaps more so than the "token gun babes".

I disagree that Sin City is inherently sexist. Sure, the main female characters are mostly prostitutes- but considering they're living in a time & place where humanity has rotted to its most base condition, they are prostitutes that run their town by their own laws and the police are too intimidated by them to even get involved so they just let them have it. It's not like any character is that movie is "good".

And what does everyone have against Kill Bill? It's a revamp of an exploitation film, yes. But it's a twisted version of the genre and the ultimate revenge film. She takes back control of her life and her choices. Everyone always complains when only men have roles such as this, but put a woman in the same position and that's sexist too! WTF? I would surely say that Kill Bill is a feminist movie. I think a lot of Quentin Tarantino movies have characters locked inside exploitive portrayals that they must fight their way out of. He seems to admit his own role in the industry as a White, male, film maker and gives his characters room to rediscover themselves away from control of the traditional White, male, film maker.

I guess I just respect films too much to see everything at face value...

Danyell, I'm with you on Tarantino; he has come to favor well-rounded and interesting characters as he has matured. But opinions vary widely. Lauren, Feministe's founder, is on record as a Tarantino hater and a Kill Bill hater, while Amanda Marcotte has praised the director and specifically Deathproof.

Tarantino loves lurid violence, and his lingering over grim things happening to women can be sickening; but he is obsessed with the violence itself and not using it to channel misogyny -- recall Michael Madsen and the ear in Reservoir Dogs, or Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames in Zed's basement in Pulp Fiction. He channels the violence of the genre fiction that his work grows out of, he lingers over any violence.

What Tarantino does that I love is to give his female characters a chance to get up and walk around a bit, to speak for themselves. They are not carboard genre types. Take Deathproof: one might expect a femsploitation tribute to start with just enough perfunctory dialogue to humanize the female characters who will then be butchered. Instead, Tarantino turn this on its head and lets female characters talk to each other, including about stuff other than men, for forty five minutes. He actually develops them.

***SPOILER***

When they then get killed, instead of being some misogynist wish fulfillment, the Kurt Russell character is an asshole who took these interesting women away from the audience. Then, we get another segments of women being friends and talking to each other, being people and not just coding types. Some of that is plot elements, like Zoe Bell's character's ability to do the things she later does and not die. (She is, BTW, a real-life stuntwoman who doubled Gabrielle on Xena.) But her and Kim have this complicated relationship between them that has to do with being stunt performers and adrenaline junkies, right down to their shared fascination wiht Vanishing Point, a cult classic.

Here's where I made up my mind about Tarantino: when Zoe manages to talk Kim into playing Ship's Mast (at this point, nothing inthe film tells us what that is), which they agreed to never do again, they try to exclude Rosario Dawson's character, Abernathy. She's having none of it, and she calls them out for their excuse, that she's a mother and therefore she can't be a part of the reckless but powerful bonding experiences then have. One can think a lot of things about Tarantino, but I watch that scene and I'm sure that he sees each of those women as a unique individual with her own motivations and relationships, not just a type or set of characteristics.

And then the misogynist serial killer folds like a card table as soon as his targets show some fight. What really made me sick was the response on the IMDB boards: the open misogynists were stunned and angry that Tarantino had pissed all over their wish fulfillment woman-killer and made him mentally weak and easily intimidated. What made me almost as angry was the number of people who reacted badly to the other thing Tarantino did: placed the three women in the position that usually only male characters get, of seeking justified, violent retribution. That's a horror staple and an action staple, and an homage to the subgenre of femsploitation, but we're so geared not to think that women deserve to vindicate themselves that some people just can't get on board with it. I, for one, couldn't get enough of Kim's trash-talk in the final chase. The last fifteen minutes is just one giant, deliberate F-U to any viewer who sides with the serial killer over the women in this kind of film.

Kill Bill is much more debatable. It's much more character-driven and not so didactic; it references genres all over the place but doesn't adopt the plot conventions in any consistent way, and it leaves much more open to interpretation. But Tarantino also passed up chances to dwell on violence against women that he would have rolled in earlier in his career -- in the US release of Volume 1, we do not see Beatrix torturing Sofie Fatale after she kills the Crazy 88 and O-Ren Ishi.

I guess I look back on Kill Bill with the benefit of hindsight. Having seen Deathproof, I give him a sympathetic reading on Kill Bill.

... which is not an across-the-board endorsement of Tarantino. While I like the way he has created well-rounded and strong women in his later films, he has an incredibly entitled stoner-whiteboy outlook and says racist shit all the time because he is so obviously clueless. I'd love to hear him apologize for his character's use of the N word in Pulp Fiction. Any day now ...

This list made me very sad.
I grew up on Lord of the Rings. My father read them all aloud to me when I was really young. I swear my first love was Aragorn. Also, I think my introduction to feminism was Eowyn. She remains one of my favorite literary characters, and also one that continuously drives me crazy. As a kid it made me so mad that she fell in love at the end and gave up being a bad-ass to go heal people. So in short, a little part of me cried to see her on the list, even if it's true.

Just to push the point home, not only should River Tam be off this list...

...but Joss Whedon is one of the most astounding, devoted, avowed feminists working in entertainment, today or anyday. Respect.

(Also, I love Elizabeth Swann...but yeah, that Easter Egg ruined it for me.)

The Lord of the Rings originally wrote Eowyn as a much stronger female character. Likewise with Arwen.

Arwen? Arwen wasn't even in the books. She was vaguely referenced in the first and only showed up at the end to marry Aragorn.

I love how all the Browncoats come out of the wood-work.

I think we can all agree, Zoe is a strong female character and role model. She is multifaceted and definitely physically, emotionally and mentally strong.

I'd nominate Sarah Conner. Terminator 2, she is fearsome, focused, strong, motivated, intelligent, and calculated. Definitely the person we want defending the human race from super-strong killer robots.

Lt. Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) hands down, emotionally tough (I don't think I could handle chest bursting aliens with that much composure). Pretty much an ultimate bad-ass.

If all a female character does is shoot a gun at things, is that really anything to cheer about? She was the sexy gun girl. Same with what she did in ultraviolet. Why do people - especially feminists - fall for this kind of pandering? A character like this is here to entertain the male audience and placate the female one.

- Clips

Well said Clips, well said.

Thomas,

Thanks for your insights. I have to say I completely agree with your views on Death Proof (one of my new fave films of all time).

As far as the "racist language", I heard a lot of criticisms of that, but as he explains, and I agree: the characters that he writes *would* talk like that in real life. In that these are career criminals. They are often racist, under educated, ignorant. There are people that use those words all the time without thought because its just how they grew up. They don't care about being PC or polishing up their language for certain company. Also, it's referencing films of this same type from the 70's when racial dialog was at its prime peak. I could go a lot more into it, but I hope you get what I mean. And they say it up the ying-yang in Reservoir Dogs, but you're only concerned that he himself says it in Pulp Fiction. I'd say he'd be a hypocrite to OK it for certain characters and not himself. If you're going to do 1970's grind house, exploitation throw back movies, the language has to come with it, or it will come off as half-assed and a cop-out (and little sissy, if you ask me). And it's not just the "N-word", he uses every vulgar term for every kind of person, but no one ever complains when someone gets called a "Spic", eh? (Further more, if it's ok with Sam L., it's ok with me. ^^)

But anyway...what I love most about Tarantino's writing is that he writes women just like he writes men. In that he acknowledges that there's no distinct difference between the sexes. They might use different terms, talk about slightly different things, but the dynamics are all the same. They are similar people, they have similar thoughts, actions they just happen to be female. I hate that people (mostly male writers) think you have to come from a different place to write women. When you start like that, you usually end up pandering and condescending. Even when his specific language says otherwise, Tarantino's film always come from a place of respect.

Also, Thomas, if you recall Tarantino's character in Pulp Fiction was a personal friend to Jules (Sam L. Jackson) and his wife, Bonnie, was black. I think this is a case of actions speaker louder than words.

Why are Eowyn and River on this list?

They may have changed Eowyn's character from the books, but she followed the men to war because of Aragorn? WTF? I've watched those movies lots and lots of times and I have no idea where they got that. It's absurd.

Also the livejournal review cited for River, yah, I've read that before, was she watching the same show I was?

Oh and wow, really?

"Why do all the boys want a piece of her sweet, boobless ass?"

How fucking progressive of them! Let's insult women for not living up to our beauty standards while trying to pretend we understand shit about feminism!

The two kinds of women described below are from a non-fiction book by Susan Isaacs, and it's called "Brave Dames and Wimpettes: What Women Are Really Doing on Page and Screen." Isaacs takes dozens of examples from books and movies and gives her reasons for whether they’re brave dames, wimpettes or something in-between.

[i]The Brave Dame philosophy
A brave dame is passionate about something besides passion.
Even in the worst of times, a brave dame does not give up. She is resilient.
A brave dame is competent.
A brave dame is willing to face moral and physical challenges.
A brave dame has high ethical standards.
A brave dame stands up to injustice.
A brave dame is a true friend.

Wimpette philosophy
All men are really little boys at heart.
Your worth rises in direct proportion to your masochism.
A wimpette always opts for indirection and subterfuge.
Men are strong and women are weak.
A wimpette has low ethical standards. She is a moral lightweight except in matters of virtue, and even then, her abstinence usually has to do with her perceived value to a man rather than any deeply held belief.
A wimpette betrays other women, including her friends.
A wimpette does not take responsibility for her own actions and blames her lack of action on others.
A wimpette looks to a man to give her an identity.[/i]

Isaacs makes it a point to demonstrate that women characters of past eras were not necessarily lower on this scale than are modern women characters, and cites numerous examples of brave dames in past cultures and wimpettes in the modern one.

Applying this test to Elizabeth Swann in the Pirates trilogy versus Padmé Amidala in the SW prequels, one finds that, in key areas of character development, they are polar opposites.

[i]The Brave Dame philosophy
A brave dame is passionate about something besides passion.[/i]
Padmé: At first, is passionate about public service and protecting her people. Later, becomes fixated solely on Anakin.
Elizabeth: Dreams of a pirate’s life from an early age. Displays a passion for justice and fairness in her dealings with other characters. Passionately rallies the pirates to stand against the British.

[i]Even in the worst of times, a brave dame does not give up. She is resilient.[/i]
Padmé: At first, risks her life to save her planet. Later, goes steadily downhill and gives up the will to live.
Elizabeth: Survives the early damsel in distress situations she’s thrown into. Suffers adversity and loss, but bounces back. Never gives up, even when facing almost certain annihilation.

[i]A brave dame is competent.[/i]
Padmé: At first, an effective leader and warrior. Then, supposedly due to forbidden love and pregnancy, is made incompetent and ineffectual. As the political crisis mounts, is the weakest link among her group of opposition Senators. Delivers a half-hearted petition to Palpatine and has no comeback for his non-answers. Fails to deal effectively with Anakin’s deteriorating mindset, until finally confronting him on Mustafar, but by then it’s too late.
Elizabeth: Smart and resourceful. Grows into an increasingly skilled fighter and strong leader. Ten years later, is evidently (from the style of clothes she’s wearing and the song her child is singing) a successful pirate leader and mother.

[i]A brave dame is willing to face moral and physical challenges.[/i]
Padmé: At first, faces the challenges of the Trade Federation Blockade. Later, develops a relationship with Anakin, which in the eyes of the system in which they’re living is immoral, but in more enlightened eyes is moral, yet fails to clearly express whether she thinks it’s moral or not. Faces physical challenge on Genosis. Lets pregnancy paralyze her and, from there on, wimps out of every challenge, except for confronting Anakin on Mustafar. Dies in childbirth of a broken heart.
Elizabeth: Faces all physical challenges. Faces the moral challenge of calling off her arranged marriage to Commodore Norrington and arranging to marry Will Turner instead, having decided there’s nothing immoral about loving a pirate. Commits a major moral infraction, when she feeds Jack Sparrow to the Kraken, but feels guilty about it, and sets out to make it right. Fails to confide in Will, but makes up for it by forgiving a similar failure on his part. Faces the challenge of her meteoric rise among the ranks of the pirates, despite not really having sought the positions she acquires. Faces the challenge of being married to the new undead captain of The Flying Dutchman and raising their baby on her own.

[i]A brave dame has high ethical standards.[/i]
Padmé: True, though there’s an argument that, due to the antiquated social values incorporated into the love story, her secret marriage to Anakin leaves her morally compromised.
Elizabeth: Under the system in which she was raised, is considered a very bad girl, but, in more enlightened eyes, proves to be highly moral, having developed a strong sense of justice and fairness. Her father is proud of her, in the end.

[i]A brave dame stands up to injustice.[/i]
Padmé: Fails to stand up to the Jedi, over their separating Anakin from his mother. Stands up to the Trade Federation, refusing Palpatine’s advice in the process, but later fails repeatedly to stand up to him as he amasses power. Fails to stand up to Anakin, until finally confronting him on Mustafar, but by then it’s too late.
Elizabeth: Stands up to injustice everywhere she encounters it.

[i]A brave dame is a true friend.[/i]
Padmé: True, in that she doesn’t intentionally betray anyone, yet isolates herself from her friends over time.
Elizabeth: True, except for one instance, over which she has a crisis of conscience and sets out to make right.

[i]Wimpette philosophy
All men are really little boys at heart.[/i]
Padmé: Anakin certainly is.
Elizabeth: Though young in years, Will is a grownup. Though older in years, Jack never really grew up. Elizabeth chooses Will, instead of Jack, and says to Jack, “It would never have worked out between us.”

[i]Your worth rises in direct proportion to your masochism.[/i]
Padmé: At first, suffers from not being able to express human feelings, due a bizarre notion of how a woman politician is supposed to look and behave. Later, is mauled in a sexually suggestive way by a beast in the arena on Genosis. Suffers helplessly from the fall of the Republic and Anakin’s turn to the Dark Side. In the end, dies the most stereotypically masochistic death ever devised for a woman character.
Elizabeth: After an early, very bad experience with a corset, stops wearing corsets. Suffers guilt over feeding Jack to the Kraken, but takes action to remedy it. Risks having unspeakable things done to her by Sao Feng, in order to free her friends, but makes it clear he’ll have a fierce fight on his hands. Determined that if she’s to go out prematurely, it’ll be with a bang, not a whimper.

[i]A wimpette always opts for indirection and subterfuge.[/i]
Padmé: Plays identity games with her lookalike bodyguard. Reveals her true identity to enlist the Gungans’ help in fighting the Trade Federation. Later, is disguised as a guard when assassins kill her lookalike. Though it isn’t her idea, masquerades as a refugee to go into hiding. Comes out of hiding in a bold, if foolhearty move to rescue Obi-Wan. Hides her marriage to Anakin and her pregnancy. Lies to Obi-Wan. By the time she confronts Anakin directly, it’s too little, too late.
Elizabeth: At first, hides the medallion and her life-plans that go with it. That changes very quickly, once her environment changes, and she reveals a side of herself that’s surprisingly direct and forceful with people. Later, resorts to playing tricks on others (they’re fun tricks though), but, after the big one, atones for it and reasserts her direct and forceful side. In the end, it’s by being honest, brave and true that she’s able to win Will back and lead the pirates to victory.

[i]Men are strong and women are weak.[/i]
Padmé: A nominally strong leader at first. Includes women bodyguards in her entourage. Leads the commando raid to take back her palace. Yet frequently dependent upon male Jedi to protect her. Becomes increasingly dependent on Anakin. Makes a failed attempt to use Anakin to act upon Palpatine, in lieu of taking action herself.
Becomes the weakest link among her group of opposition Senators. Watches helplessly, as Palpatine declares himself Emperor. Gives up the will to live, when Anakin breaks her heart.
Elizabeth: Not on your life!

[i]A wimpette has low ethical standards. She is a moral lightweight except in matters of virtue, and even then, her abstinence usually has to do with her perceived value to a man rather than any deeply held belief.[/i]
Padmé: Has high ethical standards, unless one interprets her relationship with Anakin as unethical. Remains true to Anakin to the point of dying of a broken heart over him.
Elizabeth: Proves to have much higher ethical standards than the 1700’s British society that sees her as a misfit and later a criminal. Commits one, major unethical act, but, knowing she did wrong, literally goes to the end of the world to make it right. Calls off her arranged marriage to Norrington, who sees her as something of value, in favor of marriage to Will who loves her without regard to value. Remains true to Will, even after he has become the undead captain of The Flying Dutchman.

[i]A wimpette betrays other women, including her friends.[/i]
Padmé: N/A.
Elizabeth: N/A.

[i]A wimpette does not take responsibility for her own actions and blames her lack of action on others.[/i
Padmé: Never really owns up to her mistakes, though it’s suggested she silently blames herself for much of what happens.
Elizabeth: Takes all of the responsibility for her actions onto herself, sometimes to a fault.

[i]A wimpette looks to a man to give her an identity.[/i]
Padmé: Is torn between two identities. Responds ineffectively to her mother’s insistence that she give up her career as a Galactic Senator and “settle down.” (Has this civilization, that’s had space travel for thousands of years and covered a whole galaxy, never heard of women being able to both have fulfilling careers and raise families?) This, despite Padmé having risen higher in stature and influence than any other woman in the Galaxy, and leading the effort to save it from splitting apart and going to war with itself. Through writer’s machinations that stack the deck against her, the political, career-minded side of Padmé’s personality weakens, and she increasingly looks to her relationship with Anakin for her identity, allowing him to destroy her.
Elizabeth: Dreamed of a pirate’s life, before ever meeting a pirate. Not satisfied with the identity that marriage to Norrington would bestow on her. Looks to Will for love, which furthers her entry into the pirates’ world, yet her identity remains her own. Despite going through a bad phase in her relationship with Will, rises to the top of her game as a pirate and becomes their leader. In the end, is evidently still the pirates’ leader, even though married and raising a child whose father is no longer a pirate but the undead captain of The Flying Dutchman.

In all, Padmé Amidala begins as a semi-brave dame then deteriorates into the wimpiest of wimpettes, on all but a couple of the questions. By contrast, Elizabeth Swann begins as a semi-brave dame, goes through a crisis of conscience over a wimpettish act, then comes out of it the bravest of brave dames.