The Problem with Strong Female Characters (with an emphasis Moffat)

To preface: in the following argument, I am not attacking any of the characters mentioned for being a "bad character" or a "bad female character". I'm attacking the idea that only a very narrow range of characters fits into the category of "strong female characters"

In geek culture, at least, Joss Whedon and Steven Moffat are often used as great examples of guys who write strong female characters. Possibly because they spend a lot of time patting themselves on the back and bragging about how they write such strong female characters, but that's another bone to pick entirely, and can basically be summed up as, if you're a dude, don't run around claiming you're the savoir of women's representation in geek culture. But I digress...

Since I'm not super familiar with Whedon's work (I've watched a bit of Buffy, a lot of Dollhouse and Firefly, and the Avengers, but I don't think I have enough grasp on his writing to really comment), I'm going to focus here on Moffat, though I think it's safe to say Whedon falls into many of the same pitfalls. Steven Moffat's written a lot of badass ladies in recent years, as you can see in Doctor Who with River Song, Amy Pond, and the not-yet-fleshed-out Clara Oswin, and in the recent BBC Sherlock Holmes reboot of Irene Adler. I'm fond of all of these characters in one way or another--the actresses who play them are all talented and captivating people, and many of the storylines they feature in are engrossing and well written.

But the problem with all of Moffat's badass ladies is that, when you boil it all down, they're all incredibly similar. All are clever, sassy, sexy, flirtatious, and badass--they all embody the "strong female character." And that's fine--when done once or twice. However, once you get past the shock of "Wow! A cool, powerful woman!" you realize that Moffat is rehashing the same cool, powerful woman again and again. They banter with the men they're with. They use their sexuality to their advantage. With disturbing frequency, they claim some sort of bisexuality (or in the case of Moffat's Adler, homosexuality), but in the end, they always, always fall for the leading man, which is all kinds of problematic.

There are slight differences in their characters, but the overall framework is the same. Moffat doesn't have a range of strong female characters, but variations on the theme of the "strong female character". Because in its modern connotations, "strong female characters" aren't any well-rounded, believable portrayal of a woman in media, but a very specific character type, sexy and clever and fearless. And that's not okay. That's only a step up from having armies of docile Lucie Manettes.

Here's the solution: rather than holding up one character type as what a "strong female character" is, we need to strive for diversity by recognizing any well-written, well-rounded, realistic woman in fiction as a strong female character, whether she's smart or not, bold or shy, sexy or prudish or anywhere in between. We need to break away from hailing the "strong female character" as the savior of women in geek culture, and usher in an era of diverse female characters who are all strong, despite their differences in character.