Another vote for Melon and Sep's definition of Faux Action Girl. I never saw that as in question.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Well, writers may feel compelled to have Action Girls to not look sexist and end up writing a Faux Action Girl because they didn't give her, you know, any actual Action.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanAction Girl doesn't require competence. Neither does Badass, even if male. Shouldn't it be that the author failed to make the character (not girl) competent?
As I said before, the point of the trope is to point out a Double Standard. If we're abandoning that, it becomes an entirely different trope altogether.
Sure, I'm not proposing anything myself. I'm fine with Faux Action Girl keeping it's current name.
Remeber this isnt about Faux Action Girl, this is about Action Girl
That said i think most agree, Faux Action Girl is when being a woman of action is an Informed Attribute which usually means failing at her stated competence level or Super Weight.
Taking that into consideration Action Girl in the broadest sense becomes 'having a competence level equal to or greater than her male peers and living up to that standard'
edited 26th Aug '14 10:37:54 AM by acrobox
I don't think Action Girl can require competence as a supertrope since its subtropes have no such requirement.
So if a woman gets into a Wimp Fight where all they do is ineffectually slap at their opponent, they would still count as an Action Girl?
Okay, I'll insert the assumption that we're supposed to consider the character in your example as a combatant. In that case I would say that Action Girl as a supertrope will still be a subtrope of Badass. If they qualify as a Badass then yes. If they don't, then they aren't an Action Girl either. Holding them a standard greater than that, however, would probably be outside the scope of how we are trying to define this. In the event that the ineffectual weakling was supposed to be, say, a Little Miss Badass then I guess the chain backward would be Little Miss Badass -> Action Girl -> Badass by necessity.
So the answer is not quite clear or definite depending on context. However, what Action Girl can't be is something that defines itself as being dependent on the male characters in the story or that kind of thing.
edited 26th Aug '14 11:13:24 AM by Arha
And that about competence and comparison with Indy, that's pretty much why I emphasise what situation the potential Action Girl puts herself in, rather than how competently she solves problems. Indy might not be the biggest badass there is, but he's certainly not letting that stop him from engaging in all the action he can, as he's constantly putting himself in danger. There's also a lot of non-combat action (man vs environment type) going on there, which I think is a neglected part of the trope (which may or may not be a qualifier of its own, but still about physical action).
She can be dependent on others, if others are also dependent on her.
As I mentioned before, that's a No True Scotsman argument waiting to happen. And it's also a Double Standard in and of itself. Basically, it's an argument that the only "real" way to break a stereotype is to completely shatter any sign of it to some arbitrary standard set by the judge. To put it in perspective, it's like saying the only way to break the Scary Black Man trope is for said Black man to be Kawaii while at the same time, a man of no other ethnicity has to go to such lengths.
That's why I suggested that she be someone who "tends to resolve her problems with force". Just putting herself in danger isn't enough, either, because that would qualify the 1950s version of Lois Lane, who very much wasn't an Action Girl, but was constantly putting herself in danger. "Force" also covers non person-to-person violence, like Man vs Environment.
edited 26th Aug '14 1:20:02 PM by KingZeal
That doesn't work with the winning option on the crowner, though. Wouldn't a Lady of War often try to avoid conflict altogether?
edited 26th Aug '14 1:41:38 PM by Arha
Not necessarily. A Lady of War can have a fairly aggressive mentality, just with the grace the trope requires.
![]()
You can just as easily tilt it in the other direction, by claiming a not-quite-so-feeble-yet-mostly-harmless woman is breaking the stereotype. Or that black dude merely being intimidating rather than scary. Line has to be drawn somewhere.
Otherwise I more or less agree. I didn't claim putting herself in danger was the only qualifier, but it's an important part of the trope.
Check out my fanfiction!
Crown Description:
Action Girl is filled with Zero Context Examples. The definition is bloated and nebulous.

Great.