There is no version of this genre of discussion that does not end in a mess. And internet-stalking misogyny is squick raised to the power of wtf.
But even the trope-busters are, themselves, tropes (cf. Joss Whedon's parade of badass waifs).
I have one personal nitpick, though:
> The messages these popular characterizations send — women are weak and need men to protect them;
Taking a very narrow of definition of "weak", strength sports demonstrate that actually, men are generally physically stronger than women. (I leave emotional strength to another discussion).
Granted, a female strength athlete will generally drastically outperform Joe Q Couchmaster on something like a snatch or a bench press. But compare like with like -- powerlifters with powerlifters, weightlifters with weightlifters -- and men lift more than women in every weight class.
I've noticed that any time we hear "strong" or "weak" (in discussions such as these) we always assume the definitions to mean physical attributes and abilities, and then it is ultimately comes down to performance, agility, pain tolerance, etc.
This is dangerous as it looks to add credence to the concept that it is okay to portray women as weaker because under some averaged metrics they perform less than the average man.
However, the "women are weak" quote isn't exclusively, or sometimes at all, related to physical ability. I would say that weak would be any situation or scenario where a person is not able to escape or solve (Princess Peach may not be able to defeat Bowser physically, but the writer's haven't had her try and out-smart him either.)
"Women are weak" isn't exclusively in their ability to win in combat, its their ability to outsmart, to plan and problem-solve, and ultimately to look out for their safety. Very few games show female characters doing even that...
> This is dangerous as it looks to add credence to the concept that it is okay to portray women as weaker because under some averaged metrics they perform less than the average man.
I'm not trying to add credence to anything. It's objectively verifiable that on physical tests of strength, men outperform women on average and at the elite level.
> "Women are weak" isn't exclusively in their ability to win in combat, its their ability to outsmart, to plan and problem-solve, and ultimately to look out for their safety.
I agree with you. It sucks.
But to me, "... and need men to protect them" implies pretty clearly that the article was talking about physical strength and/or personal harm.
> Granted, a female strength athlete will generally drastically outperform Joe Q Couchmaster on something like a snatch or a bench press. But compare like with like -- powerlifters with powerlifters, weightlifters with weightlifters -- and men lift more than women in every weight class.
Even if you compare average men with female volleyball or basketball athletes men seem to have higher upper and lower body strength.
But even the trope-busters are, themselves, tropes (cf. Joss Whedon's parade of badass waifs).
I have one personal nitpick, though:
> The messages these popular characterizations send — women are weak and need men to protect them;
Taking a very narrow of definition of "weak", strength sports demonstrate that actually, men are generally physically stronger than women. (I leave emotional strength to another discussion).
Granted, a female strength athlete will generally drastically outperform Joe Q Couchmaster on something like a snatch or a bench press. But compare like with like -- powerlifters with powerlifters, weightlifters with weightlifters -- and men lift more than women in every weight class.