top of page
Working at home

Why ‘Strong Female Lead’ Is No Longer Enough

Murray Close/Lionsgate
Murray Close/Lionsgate

I’ve always loved cinema – the snacks, the screen, and the magic of getting lost in a story. And, like many filmgoers, I have become to know the “Strong Female Lead” inside and out. You know the type: physically strong, markedly heroic, emotionally untouchable. Take Wonder Woman, or Katniss Everdeen, for example, both smashing stereotypes with grace and nerves of steel.


These women helped destroy the whole damsel-in-distress cliché and ushered in a new era of strong, independent female characters. For that, they deserve credit. However, lately I’ve started to think that maybe it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. This version of female “strength” has become very basic, very limiting. If “strength” only means to be emotionless and invincible, what space is left for the reality of womanhood?


When “Strong” Starts to Feel Shallow

There’s no doubt that these characters changed the game. Katniss didn’t wait around for someone to save her – she hunted, fought, and even led a revolution. She became a symbol of courage and empowerment, especially for those who'd never seen someone like her on screen before. She represented a feminist milestone in cinema. But beyond this, it’s not quite so straightforward.


The thing is, we hardly get to see her emotions. She always has a calm coolness, delivering the kind of sharp one-liners that are guaranteed to be crowd-pleasers. But this just lacks emotional depth.


Even when she cracks under the weight of trauma in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (Lawrence, 2014), it’s framed as a moment of brief collapse – a moment of brokenness which she moves past quickly, with little screen time devoted to her healing.


And that’s the problem. The “Strong Female Lead” suggests that to earn respect, women have to be flawless – or at least look like it. Vulnerability becomes something to suppress, instead of something to process and overcome. It turns depth into a box-ticking exercise:

  • Bow? Check.

  • Arrows? Check.

  • Emotions? Maybe in the spin-off.


The Missing Pieces: Flaws and Vulnerability

To me, the “Strong Female Lead” trope ignores what it actually means to be human. Strength doesn’t mean being unbreakable – it means being resilient, getting back up no matter how hard things look or feel. It’s doing your best when things are difficult, not magically moving to your next scene without a scratch.


But here’s the biggest problem – male characters are allowed to carry emotional baggage. Think of Severus Snape in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (Yates, 2011) - given the space to reveal the emotional weight behind his coldness. Or Tedd Daniels, whose struggle with PTSD-induced hallucinations is almost romanticised in Shutter Island (Scorsese, 2010). Neither of these characters are labelled as “weak” or “overly emotional” like their female counterparts – they just have depth.


To make matters worse, this double-standard doesn’t just shape the characters we see on screen – it subtly influences us on what’s “acceptable” in real life, too. The result? Many women watching movies feel pressured to hide their vulnerabilities instead of embracing them – and honestly, that’s awful. Cinema should reflect real people, not restrict them.


The One-Dimensional Feminist

Real strength, to me, includes flaws and vulnerabilities – so the typical “Strong Female Lead” feels limiting and one-dimensional. It squeezes feminism into a narrow box that misses what being a woman really means – the kind that equates power with independence and emotional detachment.


You can see this everywhere, like in the predictable face-off between:

  • The cool, competent boss lady

    versus

  • The woman who just…wants to be a mum


The first is always framed as strong and aspirational; the other, not so much. It’s a frustratingly narrow take on female power that misses what inclusive feminism really celebrates - the messy, complex, human stuff.


Feminism was never meant to be about chasing perfection – it’s about celebrating the layers we have. It should celebrate the women who lead revolutions and cry in bed, not the ones who seem invincible (because none of us really are). That’s real life. That’s real power.


Where Do We Go From Here?

If we want richer female characters, we need to move beyond the action-hero template. Don’t get me wrong, I do love a good fight scene – but I also want to see women who seem real. Who are complex, unpredictable, and unapologetically human.


Pheobe Waller-Bridge’s shows Killing Eve (2018-2022) and Fleabag (2016-2019) have started to pave the way for change. Their female leads aren’t perfect – far from it – but they’re compelling because they’re flawed. They’re bold, funny, chaotic, unpredictable, caring. And people love them for it.


What we need now isn’t just women in screen, it’s more real women on screen. Hollywood – take notes!


What Strength Really Looks Like

To me, strength has never been about self-containment and silence, it’s about honesty. It’s about allowing space for failure and for growth. The “Strong Female Lead” did break some old patterns – but now is the time for the next chapter.


Let’s give female characters the room to be as complex as the women watching them. We’re not done with heroes - it’s just time to see one’s that feel a little more like us.


References

Lawrence, F. (Director). (2014). The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 [film].


Scorsese, M. (Director). (2010). Shutter Island [film].


Waller-Bridge, P. (Director). (2016-2019). Fleabag [series].


Waller-Bridge, P. (Director). (2018-2022). Killing Eve [series].


Yates, D. (Director). (2011). Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 [film].

 

 

 

Comments


bottom of page