I’ve spent much of my professional life as a woman working in predominantly male environments. More than once, I’ve been the only full‑time woman in my specific role sitting in meetings, training, or at the decision‑making table. Those experiences have influenced how I think about equality, capability, and influence. They’ve also contributed to my discomfort—not with women pursuing opportunity—but with the version of feminism that often shows up in popular culture.
Being a superhero fan myself, I deemed Marvel Cinematic Universe as a useful place to apply Sellnow’s feminist perspective. In response to long‑standing critiques of patriarchy in superhero storytelling, Marvel has made a visible effort to correct gender imbalance by elevating female heroes into positions of strength, authority, and narrative centrality. Characters like Captain Marvel are framed as overdue answers to male‑dominated heroism—confident, powerful, and largely unencumbered by relational or emotional dependence. Through a feminist lens, this functions as a corrective to stories that historically positioned men as saviors and women as supporting figures. 
Where this corrective becomes complicated is in what Marvel defines as strength. Rather than expanding the idea of power, many of these narratives narrow it. Heroism is still measured by dominance, self‑sufficiency, and emotional detachment—traits long coded as masculine. Female characters are not so much invited to redefine heroism as they are asked to embody the same model with a different gender attached. Equality, in this sense, becomes sameness.
This is where the feminist reading begins to feel incomplete for me. The Marvel universe leaves little room for faith‑based understandings of purpose rooted in service, stewardship, sacrifice, or calling beyond the self. Power is internal and self‑justifying. Meaning is achieved through independence and personal strength. Relationships often exist in the background, and reliance—on others or on God—is framed as limitation rather than unity. As someone who believes men and women are equal in the sight of God while designed for complementary roles, this version of empowerment feels narrow.
My critique is not a rejection of women in power. Capability, position, and opportunity should be merit‑based and personally pursued. In many of the male‑dominated spaces I’ve worked in, respect came not from ideology but from competence. What gives me pause is when popular culture replaces one rigid hierarchy with another—where worth is validated primarily through visibility, dominance, and power, and where alternative sources of meaning are quietly dismissed. The problem then has not been solved, but inverted.
Applying Sellnow’s feminist perspective to Marvel helped me see both why these narratives resonate and why they fall short for me. The lens is useful in exposing assumptions about gender and power, but it doesn’t require agreement. I find myself drawn instead to influence rooted in goodness—quiet acts of doing right, treating others well, and choosing service with conviction. Difference does not imply lesser value. When rightly understood, difference can create unity rather than division.
When popular culture presents empowerment primarily through power and independence, what forms of meaning or fulfillment are left out? Can a feminist lens make room for faith‑based ideas of service, complementarity, and eternal purpose, or are those frameworks inherently positioned in opposition?
I think you have made an excellent observation of pro-feminist portrayals in pop culture. It is reasonable that an action film with a strong female protagonist would kick butt and exert dominance in action sequences. But humans are multi-dimensional creatures, meaning that we are complex creatures with thoughts and feelings, even conflicting feelings. Your observation that Marvel's portrayal of a strong woman is more male-esc in nature than female. You said, "Heroism is still measured by dominance, self‑sufficiency, and emotional detachment—traits long coded as masculine." This is true. It is also a derivative of ancient Greek thinking. The mythological heroes had these qualities, and to show "stewardship, sacrifice, or calling beyond the self" was seen as weakness. It is why some struggled with early Christian teachings, because they called for these attributes. And yet, there is real strength in self-sacrifice or investing oneself in another for the other's benefit, regardless of the emotional hurt it causes. These are known as virtues, which is a concept that seems to have been lost. These are qualities that should not be categorized as merely feminine but should be pursued by both men and women. By breaking down the barriers of categorization, a woman with these characteristics can be a role model for a man, which is a reversal of almost every strong female lead in film. And yet, as a male, I can name several women whom I believe are role models. So, instead of a strong woman being portrayed through masculine characteristics, why not portray a strong woman with an even stronger characteristic of "stewardship, sacrifice, or calling beyond the self?"
ReplyDelete