Post History
There is a certain social image of what being a woman "means" - there are expectations both of how a woman would act, and how a woman would be treated. A particular female character is bound to eng...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40954 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40954 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
There is a certain social image of what being a woman "means" - there are expectations both of how a woman would act, and how a woman would be treated. A particular female character is bound to engage with that image, whether she accepts it, rejects it, does something else with it. You, as a writer, cannot simply ignore that image - the image is already in the reader's mind. What does that mean? Before you write a particular female character, consider women's place in general in your world. Are they limited in any way by society? Are they the group that rules? Is there truly no difference between men and women in how they are treated, in what options are open to them, in what is expected of them? Next, what character traits are considered "positive" in your world? Violence or diplomacy? Individualism or or social harmony? You have assigned to your character behaviours that are in our world considered typically male, and typically "better", "stronger". **You have sort of subconsciously decided that "strong" female character means "character who exhibits typically male behaviours", and you do not engage with that idea in any way.** Compare that to [@user49466's example](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/40945/a-critic-made-a-comment-that-my-female-character-sounds-like-she-was-written-by/40946#40946): the character's behaviour is understood as "typically masculine" _within_ her society, her behaviour is _compelled_ by the realities of her world. There are other ways your character can engage the reader's expectations: the character's behaviour might lead to negative results, presenting "typically male" behaviours as weaker than "typically female" behaviours, whether exhibited by a male or a female character. The character might acknowledge the fact that she is very macho-man - whether this behaviour is compelled, or she just likes it that way. There is also the way society treats your character: is she considered "stronger" because she is "manly"? Is she treated negatively because she's "not feminine"? Or are women like her as common as men like her, behaviour no longer being "typically male" or "typically female"? There are many ways in which you can engage the gender expectations. Writing under the subconscious assumption that "strong" universally equals "manly" doesn't engage those expectations at all, instead very much intrinsically accepting them, for both men and women. Which, I guess, would be why your critic made the comment he did.