TV, the new bastion for strong female characters

[chikusho]

You might be right. Please provide some examples though. In my perception, women in anime are handled rather poorly as a rule, so I would love to have you change my mind.

I am not sure how effective that will be if you have never seen the shows in question, but very well.

Angel Beats! - Yuri Nakamura, Kanade Tachibana, Eri Shiina and Masami Iwasawa.
Blood + - Saya Otonashi
Code Geass - Kallen Statdfeld, C.C, Nunnally Lamperouge, Milly Ashford, Cornelia Li Brittania and Euphemia Li Brittania.
Darker Than Black - Amber, Kirihara Misaki and April.
Ergo Proxy - Re-l Mayer.
Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood - Izumi Curtis, Riza Hawkeye, Lan Fan, May Chang and Olivier Armstrong.
Ghost in the Shell - Motoko Kusanagi.
K-On! - Yui Hirasawa, Mio Akiyama, Ritsu Tainaka, Tsumugi Kotobuki, Azusa Nakano et al (AKA the main cast).
Mardock Scramble - Rune Balot
Neon Genesis Evangelion - Misoto Katsuragi and Asuka Langley Soryu.
Puella Magi Madoka Magica - Madoka Kaname, Homura Akemi, Mami Tomou, Sayaka Miki and Kyoko Sakura (AKA the main cast).
Spice and Wolf - Holo and Nora Arendt.
Texhnolyze - Ran.
The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya - Haruhi Suzumiya, Yuki Nagato, Mikuru Asahina and Tsuruya.

Note: These are only the characters with significant roles in the shows. Minor characters with a couple of lines, or no real plot relevance were not included.[/quote]

I've actually seen a number of these, though it was a while ago and I haven't really considered them from this perspective. Motoko in GITS is fantastic. Blood+ makes no unnecessary noise about Sayas gender either, even though I was disappointed in the show in general. I've only seen a couple of episodes of Angel Beats, but I find most female characters in there to be very traditional anime-girl archetypes. Maybe I should pay closer attention.
I also find your example in Evangelion to be somewhat undone by how they treat Rei and Asuka, and Misoto is kind of a minor character as well. I hardly even remember Ran from Texhnolyze, and I find Amber from Darker than Black to function more as a plot device than a fully developed character.

Either way, wouldn't you say that these shows are exceptions rather than the rule?

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

There's also that show "Continuum" that has a good female lead.
Man, I love that woman, every time I see her on screen I place her in my mind in a role of some female character from a good book I've read.

 

[Legion]

I've only seen a couple of episodes of Angel Beats, but I find most female characters in there to be very traditional anime-girl archetypes. Maybe I should pay closer attention.

I wouldn't know what a "traditional anime-girl archetype" is. It's not the way I tend to look at things.

I also find your example in Evangelion to be somewhat undone by how they treat Rei and Asuka, and Misoto is kind of a minor character as well.

Rei I did not mention, as her lack of personality is one of her defining features.

Asuka is at the rank of Captain at the age of 14 and the most capable Eva pilot out of the three, as well as being the most strong willed. Shinji avoids anything he finds unpleasant, and Rei does whatever she is told. Asuka knows what she wants, and isn't willing to give any quarter.

Misoto is minor? She is the person in charge of the operation of the EVA's. She plans their attacks, organises the pilots training, and is the reason Shinji came back both of the times he tried running. In terms of the story, without her they would have lost each encounter. That's hardly minor.

You seem to be looking for characters with no flaws, or downsides. It is possible to have a strong character with problems and issues. It's essential if you want to actually make them believable.

I hardly even remember Ran from Texhnolyze

... Couldn't have the show without her.

I find Amber from Darker than Black to function more as a plot device than a fully developed character.

I guess that depends on perspective. She is essentially the primary antagonist of the series, even if she doesn't appear until around two thirds of the way in.

Either way, wouldn't you say that these shows are exceptions rather than the rule?

I never tried to claim they were the rule.

I repeat: My point wasn't about the ratio, it was about the amount of decent female characters compared to other forms of media. I was not comparing good anime characters to bad anime characters. I was comparing the amount of good anime characters to the amount of good non-anime characters.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't see how that is an inherently good thing. What's wrong with a show aimed at men (or women for that matter)? You can't always please everyone.

The catch there is that something like 90% (not a real statistic) are aimed at a male audience. Women are seen largely as a secondary or specialty audience, and women who don't like shows about romance or cooking are kinda screwed.

I'd argue the male-oriented show is never going away, but I would see it as overwhelmingly positive if men's shows no longer dominated the marketplace.

Yes, I pray towards Joss Whedon five times a day. But he's an exception rather than the rule.

I'm always a little amazed to see Joss Whedon propped up in the sense of positive women. Buffy was a neurotic basket case with daddy issues whose life fell apart whenever her surrogate father wasn't around. His treatment for Wonder Woman wasn't exactly positive, either. Then again, the creator of Wonder Woman had some pretty screwed up ideas, so it sort of fit.

I meant anime has some extremely good female characters, not that the vast majority of female characters were good. The amount of "strong characters" in anime eclipses pretty much any other form of entertainment by a long shot.

I have trouble believing that, even with the qualifiers. You specifically to go on and defend some cheesecake because the girls can fight, which isn't enough to really make a character "strong" in my book. I'd like to see some examples, but I don't think I'll be holding my breath.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm always a little amazed to see Joss Whedon propped up in the sense of positive women.

Me too. Mind you, he has a very devoted fanbase, and at least knows enough to go through the motions sometimes. The bar isn't set terribly high.

 

[generals3]

I don't see how that is an inherently good thing. What's wrong with a show aimed at men (or women for that matter)? You can't always please everyone.

The catch there is that something like 90% (not a real statistic) are aimed at a male audience. Women are seen largely as a secondary or specialty audience, and women who don't like shows about romance or cooking are kinda screwed.

I'd argue the male-oriented show is never going away, but I would see it as overwhelmingly positive if men's shows no longer dominated the marketplace.

Wowow. Where did that stat (or even the idea it's close to that) come from? I doubt that 90% of the shows are aimed at men. Maybe 90% of the shows you watch, but that's something totally different. To quote myself:

There is a little problem with such discussions on this forum. Most people here watch shows/movies which are aimed at an audience dominated by males. As such the view on things will be extremely skewed. I doubt you have many fans of the romance genre here (which is typically more oriented towards women like the action or fantasy genre being typically more oriented towards men).

And one could also say that men who do like romance are kinda screwed.

 

[Gorrath]

I'm always a little amazed to see Joss Whedon propped up in the sense of positive women.

Me too. Mind you, he has a very devoted fanbase, and at least knows enough to go through the motions sometimes. The bar isn't set terribly high.

I'm fond of some of Whedon's stuff and not so fond of other stuff, but he's hardly just going through the motions when it comes to female characters.

As far as this whole discussion is concerned I think we have a great example of the fractal problem of this issue. There is no concensus what so ever on what a 'proper' portryal of a female character should even be. Depending on an individual's thoughts on what constitutes the check-boxes for 'proper' female characterization, they may come up with vastly different ideas about what female chracters are good or bad examples. For my self, I find characters to either be compelling, or not and I have no litmus test for whether a character has reached the proper level of progressive or not. Honestly I think the whole idea is rather absurd. Media targeted at men tend to have women objectified and poorly constructed as characters. Media aimed at a general audience tend to portray both sexes in a rather neutral light (see: Breaking Bad, the Wire, a lot of comedies ect.) Media targeted at women tend to have men objectified and poorly constructed as characters (see: romance novels, Charmed, Rom Coms ect.)

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

If I watched any TV I might be able to say something intelligent, but since I don't, I'm just going to say I hope nothing is taking any steps towards gender neutrality. Males and females are different. Especially in contexts where melee combat is a large part, men should be largely the main combatants. I have nothing against female characters that break the mold, but to have warriors 50/50 male and female is stupid, which is gender neutrality as far as I know.

 

[Aramis Night]

I think a large part of the problem with people expecting certain media to change is that they fail to realize that the people creating these forms of media are largely men who had the creativity to do so and a story they wanted to tell. Men can empathize with women and try to view things through what they believe might be their eyes when trying to create female protagonists, but the truth is that men and women do not often see things in quite the same light. Sometimes a male can convincingly pull it off, but its as much luck and guessing as it is understanding.

Until more women are behind the scenes in the creative process and capable of coming up with compelling stories that people want to watch, media will continue to be biased in how women are betrayed. People are usually going to write what they know. Until more of those people doing the writing are women, this will not likely change much.

I'm not accusing these industries of bias. That's too easy and convenient an explanation that i'm a little sick of seeing and does nothing to encourage women to be anything other than victims. That kind of thinking only serves to discourage women from trying. I also would hate to see this become yet another area of work where suddenly diversity programs and hiring quotas rear their ugly heads, leading to less qualified people ruining what could be potentially good media with mediocre average writing. We have enough of that already.

 

[runic knight]

I find your optimism regarding this latest wave to be slightly naive. Have show creators realized the value of using more varied and deeper female characters? Perhaps, in the same way one realized the value of chunky pasta sauces. It is something most didn't realize people would latch onto as they tried to chase previous ideas that worked. I do agree it is good to see better developed characters in general, especially given the reality tv deluge that followed the sitcom crash. I think that it relates less to gender though and more to people just reacting well to better developed characters in general, male and female. The shows you mention have interesting characters all around and perhaps because of that, it leads to broader audience appeal and success (which in turn leads to others trying to follow that success.).

I think concentrating too much on this as a female character growth may be a bit of wishful thinking though. It is good, and I plan to enjoy it as much as I can, but I can't see this related to gender in that way, not from a creator's intent purpose and not from a general audience reaction. Perhaps designed with more awareness of how to avoid alienating the audience, or with a more open target demographic, but I can't see it as "this will make us more politically correct" so much as "this will increase likelihood of greater demographic audience and thus more profits"

 

[maninahat]

I don't see how that is an inherently good thing. What's wrong with a show aimed at men (or women for that matter)? You can't always please everyone.

The catch there is that something like 90% (not a real statistic) are aimed at a male audience. Women are seen largely as a secondary or specialty audience, and women who don't like shows about romance or cooking are kinda screwed.

I'd argue the male-oriented show is never going away, but I would see it as overwhelmingly positive if men's shows no longer dominated the marketplace.

Wowow. Where did that stat (or even the idea it's close to that) come from? I doubt that 90% of the shows are aimed at men. Maybe 90% of the shows you watch, but that's something totally different. To quote myself:

There is a little problem with such discussions on this forum. Most people here watch shows/movies which are aimed at an audience dominated by males. As such the view on things will be extremely skewed. I doubt you have many fans of the romance genre here (which is typically more oriented towards women like the action or fantasy genre being typically more oriented towards men).

And one could also say that men who do like romance are kinda screwed.

I disagree. Though romances are typically made with women in mind, by virtue of the plot requiring a heterosexual male and female relationship, there is always going to be a primary male character for men to be able to identify with. For that reason, men are still represented fairly well in romances, and especially so in the harem-esque romances you get in East Asian tv. This is far less the case in orientated sci-fi/fantasy shows, in which the plot doesn't specifically require both prominent males and females. You could easily make a sci-fi show a complete sausagefest, without inconveniencing the sci-fi premise at all (not that this happens).

The only genre that tends to be fairer to both is the detective genre. There is almost a 50-50 balance in those shows, and both females or males regularly feature in the lead roles.

There is also an inconsistency in budgeting. Sci-fi and fantasy shows invariably cost more to make than romances, so males tend to get far more spent on them. It's even more egregious with blockbuster movies. Only now are we starting to see bigger budget genre movies aimed at women (one of the few positives of the Twilight franchise).

 

[Defeated Detective]

I can't really say, Whedon has been making shows with a lot of really empowered women, Buffy and Angel had them and they're really old.

 

[generals3]

I disagree. Though romances are typically made with women in mind, by virtue of the plot requiring a heterosexual male and female relationship, there is always going to be a primary male character for men to be able to identify with. For that reason, men are still represented fairly well in romances, and especially so in the harem-esque romances you get in East Asian tv. This is far less the case in orientated sci-fi/fantasy shows, in which the plot doesn't specifically require both prominent males and females. You could easily make a sci-fi show a complete sausagefest, without inconveniencing the sci-fi premise at all (not that this happens).

The only genre that tends to be fairer to both is the detective genre. There is almost a 50-50 balance in those shows, and both females or males regularly feature in the lead roles.

There is also an inconsistency in budgeting. Sci-fi and fantasy shows invariably cost more to make than romances, so males tend to get far more spent on them. It's even more egregious with blockbuster movies. Only now are we starting to see bigger budget genre movies aimed at women (one of the few positives of the Twilight franchise).

I can't really agree with the first sentence. I've once had the unpleasant experience of watching a romantic comedy which i hoped would have been more focused on the comedy aspect than it was where the male characters weren't given a lot of attention. The one who ended up with the female protagonist was simply a prize which was given the bare minimum attention needed for the viewers to realize he was a catch. Now i don't know how often that happens (i try to avoid such movies like the plague) but it does happen that the sausages are given very little space in the script.

And i don't really see how big budgets is some kind of necessity for whatever this is about. I mean the budgets are usually so big for the typically male shows/movies due to their nature (like you said). And thus as long as the tastes of the viewers don't change I don't think this will change very soon. And since I don't believe in the inherent goodness or evil of people's tastes I don't see why we should care.

 

[Altorin]

this is the bastion alright, only noone else came

Bastion jokes aside.. if there is really an issue, it's never been with female or male characters. It's been with the very notion of characters. Characters aren't people. they aren't even properly representational of people. Even the best written, strongest, characters are still basically at best two dimensional, men and women.

Stop thinking of characters like people. Very few writers manage to capture anything of a real person in their characters, so we shouldn't be foisting our societal garbage onto them.

 

[Rednog]

I don't know about that, I think it really depends on what you watch. You're talking about a medium that has an insanely large scope.
The problem I have with this kind of argument is that for every positive example you have like 10 more Skylers and Lories. Are there positive examples of female characters out there? Sure. But at the same time there are just as many if not more "I'm passive aggressive and look at me act so emotionally when I yell" female characters out there.

 

[AgedGrunt]

The "inherently good thing" is that the general perception of what is considered a "men's show" is changing. That you can create a show, aimed at men, that doesn't end up in just a muscle contest. That the other half of the worlds population is still treated with the same respect that men are.

I never grew up thinking TV needed to balance gender; the thought irks me. In my experience, shows dominated by males didn't really disrespect females or end up "in just a muscle contest". Maybe I've been watching the wrong stuff.

Spoiler: Example Shows

Boy Meets World - Topanga starts as adorably weird, but is morally and intellectually superior throughout the series. Cory is actually a jerk to her at first. Minkus was a genius, but cast as the stereotypical nerd and didn't last. Cory, Shawn and Eric ranged from arrogant to impossibly bone-headed in order to learn a lesson about life. A lot of other minor male characters had glaring deficiencies.

Step-by-Step - Lots of strong female characters. JT was thick-headed, Mark was a nerd and Cody was the original dudebro.

Fresh Prince... - Phil and Vivian were both strong, and while it was dominated by Will Smith, he was the furthest thing from perfect. Hillary may have been a ditz, but then there's Carlton.

The Simpsons - Marge and Lisa are held back by pathologically stupid family. It was literally stated that the Simpson "dumb" gene only affects men.

Smallville - Lana, Lois, Chloe?

Supernatural - It's the Dean and Sam show, but there are often-featured females that don't play to weak stereotypes. Dean is full of flaws.

[Insert Crime Drama] - Haven't seen one without strong, intellectual females, and they lead.

Not saying everything is peachy and this is some wacky feminist ideology; I despise TBBT for playing to stereotypes, especially Penny. Pro-wrestling is obscenely sexist. But the idea of creating characters with politically correct attributes should gross people out. This one is "the gay one" and so on.

So while I see where we're coming from in all of this, I would resist changes to art that want to satisfy some sort of social contract protecting the work from criticism. You can't expect equilibrium in life, so why insist on modeling it? This is not to forget there are many other factors that go into media production, such as marketing.

In sum, I'm all for diverse content, but this big picture idea that we're trying to re-condition media makes my skin crawl. If you're going to create something, don't do it for appeasement.

 

[Whatwhat]

I think that the best example of strong female characters is Once upon a time and by the way what is the opposite of a sausage fest? The only good male character there is Rumplestiltskin/Gold and the others are just one-dimensional (Charming is about as interesting as a waffle, Hookis a self.serving "probably hot"(according to women) pirate that gets destroyed by any woman he meets (basically girl empowerment show ) and all the others are consistently killed off or otherwise disposed (Bael, Pinnochio, Glass etc.)). On the other hand you have tons of female characters that are quite fleshed out (Belle, Regina, Snow, Mulan etc..)
I am not saying this show is bad but sometimes it gives of that vibe about the power of love and how it can overcome everything... (but what would I expect from a show about fairy tales). This is most prominent with Snow and her pet Charming who constantly stupidly throw themselves in the face of danger only to survive due to some deus ex machina...
All in all I would like for there to be more of Gold, dearie

 

[mecegirl]

You might be right. Please provide some examples though. In my perception, women in anime are handled rather poorly as a rule, so I would love to have you change my mind.

I am not sure how effective that will be if you have never seen the shows in question, but very well.

Angel Beats! - Yuri Nakamura, Kanade Tachibana, Eri Shiina and Masami Iwasawa.
Blood + - Saya Otonashi
Code Geass - Kallen Statdfeld, C.C, Nunnally Lamperouge, Milly Ashford, Cornelia Li Brittania and Euphemia Li Brittania.
Darker Than Black - Amber, Kirihara Misaki and April.
Ergo Proxy - Re-l Mayer.
Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood - Izumi Curtis, Riza Hawkeye, Lan Fan, May Chang and Olivier Armstrong.
Ghost in the Shell - Motoko Kusanagi.
K-On! - Yui Hirasawa, Mio Akiyama, Ritsu Tainaka, Tsumugi Kotobuki, Azusa Nakano et al (AKA the main cast).
Mardock Scramble - Rune Balot
Neon Genesis Evangelion - Misoto Katsuragi and Asuka Langley Soryu.
Puella Magi Madoka Magica - Madoka Kaname, Homura Akemi, Mami Tomou, Sayaka Miki and Kyoko Sakura (AKA the main cast).
Spice and Wolf - Holo and Nora Arendt.
Texhnolyze - Ran.
The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya - Haruhi Suzumiya, Yuki Nagato, Mikuru Asahina and Tsuruya.

Note: These are only the characters with significant roles in the shows. Minor characters with a couple of lines, or no real plot relevance were not included.

I'm gonna add to the list in a minute. But first I feel the need to state that anime is not a genre but a medium. Anime(manga as well) is made for everyone, which is why there is one that covers every topic under the sun. Some genres within anime are better at depicting female characters than others. It is perhaps because the media in the West is so often male focused that the ones we are more often exposed to follow the same conventions. It is why anime/manga in the romance genre are so prevalent in the west as well.

For my additions to the list

Anything from Ghibli studios


Anenobashi Shoping Arcade
Angelic Layer
Appleseed
Card Captor Sakura
Cowboy Beebop
Gokusen
Magi
Medabots
Metropolis
Nadia
Noir
Occult Academy
Otome Youkai Zakuro
Ouran Highschool Host Club
Outlaw Star
Paprika
Read or Die
Saiunkoku Monogatari
Sailor Moon
Samurai Champloo
Seirei no Moribito
Serial Experiments Lain
Taisho Yakyuu Musume
The Last Exile
Tokyo Godfathers
You're Under Arrest

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Books and anime are the two best places for female characters overall. Anime does have it's fair share of fan service, it's true, but it also has a much higher percentage of women who are equal to or better than their male peers. Hell, I'd say 9/10 of the best female characters I can think of come from it.

The reason other genres or forms of media are less inclined to show it is largely down to money. They are often still stuck in this backwards notion that audiences want something in particular, when the reality is that many would be just as happy with more variety.

It's one of those things: Do the audiences keep buying these products with males typically in one role, and women typically in another because they want it? Or because they aren't given many options if they want something else?

Personally I am more inclined to believe it is the latter, but as they know that things will sell as they are, they keep on churning it out under the guise of "giving the audience what they want".

This is kind of why I mostly watch anime now. Most anime series never feel like they were made with an audience in mind or trying to chase some kind of market so they don't turn out bland and boring like prime time tv shows. Just about everything on tv nowadays is a freaking crime drama or crime drama comedy. We complain about shooter saturation in video games but its nothing compared to the crime dramas on tv.

On topic, its probably because television producers see women as a large audience so they're making more shows with good female characters that aren't damsels in distress. And it can have the extra effect of selling the show to men if the lead is attractive.

I still think prime time tv has a ways to go before it cuts out the bad characters and stereotypes. My sister was watching this show about firemen or something and there's a scene where the straitlaced fireman goes to talk some sense into these drug dealers in his neighborhood. Who are these drug dealers? Well obviously 2 black guys and they're playing a generic shooter video game. These are clearly qualities of dangerous people/man children. Especially in contrast the uniform wearing, shirt tucked in, blond haired, white fireman character