Three issues I wish were less common with strong female characters.

1 She's a strong female star...unlike the rest of her whiny gender
I've seen a fair few strong female characters who hang mainly with boys. Not a problem, until it's revealed she so does because she doesn't have the patience for the giggling, boy obsessed simpletons that make up the rest of the female population. This is, to me, a dangerous one, because on the surface it's feminist, the tough tomboy who can cut it with the lads, but it's actually fairly sexist. It's not representing a world where women have the potential to be tough ou smart, it's a character who par some anomaly mutated into an ovary haver without the inherent lameness of being female. The sweeping generalisation, often mentioned in passing, the idea she can't have female Friends because she doesn't care about shoes and likes to be outdoorsy, perpetuates the notion that the vast majority of females are still that shrieking stereotype of a girly girl. It always bugs me seeing an otherwise solid female role model casually write off the rest of her gender as worthless. The amount of girls relating enough to these main characters to buy their stories proves those characters have enough similar females, yet the idea thrives. The sad thing is it's an issue I see slightly plus often in livres written par women.

2. Tomboy = tough, Girly = not
Some seem to feel the quickest way to let the audience know which female characters they're meant to see as tough and which as weak is to tell them who likes things like camping vs who likes shoes. Like it's automatic in some writer's eyes. Girly girls are the bitchy antagonists ou at best the kindly damsels, tomboys are tough. Not having time for girly nonsense is practically a free pass to ass-kicker land, regardless of actual strength. As someone in some ways fairly girly myself, and also someone who could kick plus butt in a pair of heels than my brother can in boots, it's not an idea I'm thrilled with. Not only are girliness and strength not mutually exclusive, but liking things like sports ou mechanics does not automatically make toi Rebelle ou strong. Unless you're fictional.

3. Strong women can do anything...except fail
If there's one thing certain feminists and certain sexists seem to actually agree on, it's this. As soon as a female character fails she is worthless. One type of character I'd l’amour to see a female version of is the 'Malcolm Reynolds' type. One who, while maintaining respect in the audience's eyes, sometimes fails, has skill but gets their cul, ass kicked a fair share of the time, does morally shady things but remains good. Basically, a character who occasionally kinda sucks at being the hero, but still is. Even from writers I trust to provide me with strong and diverse females I struggle to think of one with similar success to sucking ratio as a Mal. I think it's in part fear of audience response, as it could risk scorn from both sides. Certain types of feminist could view it as sexism that this woman was struggling with her role as strong, sexists would take it as proof that this girl butt kicker wasn't up to scratch. That kind of mindset, holding female characters to standards the males don't face, does nothing but hold us back from getting the same range of fictional representatives men have (and who doesn't enjoy watching a Malcolm Reynolds style character? Serial killers, that's who)

I should say, the basics of these points aren't all necessarily bad, it's when it's done a certain way. A female character who hangs around mainly with males has as much potential to be great as one who hangs mainly with other girls, a tomboy can rock and a character with a high success rate can be realistic and cool. It's only bad to me when done in the ways mentioned above, which are too common for my liking.