Analysis Of Elizabeth Alsop's Article: Why TV Needs 'Weak' Female Characters

In the current era of progressive feminism, a hotly debated topic has been what constitutes a strong woman, whether fictional or real. One side of the discussion argues that women must be shown as equal to men and therefore display manly or ‘macho’ traits. On the other hand, some women contend that, instead of filling the mold of what society deems strong (which often happen to be traditionally male traits), women should instead break that mold and redefine strength. In Elizabeth Alsop’s article, “Why TV Needs ‘Weak’ Female Characters,” she describes how female characters in some specific television shows today prove that other traits, particularly vulnerability, are just as important to display as strength. Alsop discusses how television shows

While some other shows attempt to present flawed female characters, they fail in making the viewer sympathize and understand them. Instead, the viewer sees these characters as “unlikeable” and often the women end up at the receiving end of a joke and then serve no further purpose. Alsop argues that newer television shows such as Transparent, Fleabag, and Girls have characters with multiple flaws, some that may even seem irredeemable, but the characters do not let those flaws define them. This causes the viewer to empathize with the characters on a deeper level. What the author of the article may not know is that of those three shows mentioned, the writing, directing, and producing credits go mostly, if not exclusively, to women. Perhaps this is the difference that makes these television shows stand out in today’s feminist dialogue and allows the viewer to empathize with the characters rather than judge

Strong women can be sad, angry, and emotional. Characters should not be written off as weak if they display these characteristics. This proposition is not even exclusive to women, everyone has faults and makes mistakes. Perhaps it is in arguing this ideology that Alsop is least successful. Though she may mean to give off a satirical undertone through her title, it could discourage people from ever reading the article. Additionally, as Alsop describes what traditionally are viewed as strong traits, she dismisses them as ideals that women should not even want to attain. This may be in part due to the criterion originally outlined as ‘feminist’ when the movement started. However, Alsop needs to make sure that her point is coming across to the reader in the way that she wants it