I started this thread because there is finally hope that there will be some female characters on this show who are as much fun as the males. My first season reluctance to get fully engaged had to do with there being no truly engaging female characters. The second season seems to be trying to fix that (except for Maya and Molly).

I am fully engaged with Ma Petrelli and Monica. I have hopes for Auntie Nichelle Nichols (Micah's Great-Aunt), possibly Claire's Mom (the fact that I can't remember her name does not bode well, though).

I am rabidly looking forward to Joanna Cassidy playing a scientist who was one of the Originals.

They had an engaging female character and her name was Eden. But of course, they had to kill her off. Niki could have been awesome if the writers would just give her the kind of attention that they give Claire.

Eden was certainly the most engaging first season female character, for me. The way they killed her off was so satisfying, though, (damn, she turned the gun on herself so Sylar could not take her powers) that I do not begrudge them her death.

I find it amusing that Eden was hated widely throughout her appearance on the show, and only seemed to gain popularity after she died, but that's a different topic entirely.

I think Heroes did and does have good female characters - Audrey comes to mind. Audrey's boss. Kimiko Nakamura. Charlie. Dale Schwimmer. Sandra Bennet. Meredith Gordon. Claire. Heidi. Angela. Jessica. Monica. Nana Dawson. Caitlin. Yaeko. Judging from the picture, the Elders seem to have had quite a few female members as well, which promises a few meaty characters, too.

Really, the ones I mostly have problems with are Niki and Maya, because they are mostly pushed as dependent victims, and I assume that will change. One thing I'd really like to see change is that more of the interesting female characters should be regulars instead of recurrings or guests, because that would likely elevate the high death rate as well.

I think the hate started to "turn" when it was revealed she was working with HRG. Before that, she seemed convenient and wooden. I remember hating her in Season 1, but when I re-watched on DVD, I liked even her early scenes. I think the problem was we didn't suspect she had a "purpose" or see her real/total character until close to her death.



I'm not a big Claire fan... I don't hate her, but she's just not really compelling to me as a character. I didn't mind in Season 1 because she felt more like a cog that the story revolved around and not a real character to me (in a good way). Sure, we saw some of her teenage angst, but I feel like we're seeing way more this season. And I hate Yaeko. I think Claire and Yaeko, in their respective generations, both fit the "spunky princess" archetype, and I hate that archetype more than anything else.

I never liked Audrey or her boss. I don't know why they had to be hostile bitches just because they're in law enforcement, nor do I understand why Audrey had to be a "hostile bitch who's really an insecure nervous wreck deep down"---another of my least favorite cliches.

My problem with Heidi was her "Give me hope." But apparently, now that she can walk, she throws Nathan out and takes his kids away at the first sign of trouble (unless something I REALLY don't know about has happened). Which, sadly, makes her a little more compelling, at least until I figure out why she did it... But she was played by Rena Sofer, who I've always liked, so I kind of liked her.

It seems like they write older women better: Dale, Angela, Sandra, Meredith. I do wish we'd see more of Kimiko though.

This season, I think they've done a lot better. I like the Dawson ladies, and I like Caitlin. I even like/understand Maya. Unlike Nikki being a hapless victim to herself because of the thing that shouldn't make her a victim (superstrength), Maya is afraid and feels ashamed of her powers. I can see how she'd see it as a curse and an affliction, and she probably wonders what sin she committed to bring it upon herself. And she seemed proactive in the conversation with Sylar, and I like that she (and not Alejandro) is the one who speaks English and has to translate for Alejandro. So, there's more a symbiosis going on than her being a hapless victim.

Unpopular Opinion: I don't think Angela Petrelli is "all that." She's evil and Evil Woman characters have always been powerful. That's often the point: "Trust a woman with a little power and see what she turns into." One way to alienate audiences from strong female characters is to make them evil. I like my strong female characters on the side of Good.

This was one of my biggest complaints last year: the "good" female Heroes were appallingly weak, afraid not only of their powers but of their own shadows -- except, of course, the ones who died (Eden, Charlie, Dale) and the one who died in the "alternate future" (Hana). I don't agree that Claire is deteriorating; despite the bad West relationship, from what I can perceive, she is growing, becoming more curious about her abilities and interested in putting them to good use. I found her "I-just-wanna-be-normal" schtick last season irritating in the extreme. Anytime a female character can leave that old line behind, that's a good thing. However, instead of letting her explore the possibilities on her own, the writers have decided to pair her with a bossy, domineering male who will do the thinking for both of them (and unlike Rick Blaine, he won't do it wisely or unselfishly). It's as if The Writers Giveth, and the Writers Taketh Away. And Niki? Still the same infuriating Weak Sister she was last season.

If you want to make me an unambivalent fan of the show, Writers, here's what you do:
First, give me a female Hero who actually wants to be a Hero, who has some measure of idealism as well as curiosity about her abilities.
Second, be sure she gets a decent amount of screen time (in short, don't abuse her the way you abused Hana Gitelman).
Third, DON'T KILL HER OFF!! Please don't manipulate the situation so that the only Live Females are Immature Claire (though I do still have some hope for her), Weak and Moronic Niki, and Evil Angela.

And while I have my Wish List on the Brain... it might be nice if one of the female Heroes on the side of good had a college education and an actual cultivated talent (as opposed to just a superpower). It might be nice.

I agree. This wasn't the first sign of trouble, and I doubt that the Las Vegas incident was, either.


Personally, I was okay with that, because Niki and Claire felt that their lives were unravelling, and I think trying to find control and themselves isn't weak, even if they came off as whiny every now and then. Despite having super strength and being able to regenerate (or maybe because of these traits), their greatest battles were internal, and they succeeded, for the most part. YMMV.

I think Maya gets a really unfair rap. She has this horrendous curse of a superpower, but instead of throwing herself off a cliff or becoming a recluse, she a) buys a science book to LEARN about what's going on with her, and b) bravely ventures all the way to America on a longshot that Dr. Suresh can cure her.

By all her actions Maya is THE most proactive female character on the show - much moreso than Niki, Candace and even Eden, all of whom were basically pressganged into working for the Company. But because Maya cries, she is weak? I don't agree with that at all.

ITA--though I find Maya's story to be repetitive (although it picked up a bit in the last episode), the fact that she's emotional doesn't render her weak or spineless to me. Claire cries quite a bit too, and I wouldn't call her weak, either. Confused, conflicted, in many respects a bratty teenager, sure, but I don't see anything weak about her. "Women are weak because they're emotional" is an archaic and inaccurate stereotype, IMO, and I'm glad to see this show presenting proactive, brave female characters who also aren't afraid to be emotional.

Widely is an overstatement. Unless you're just referring to TWOP. She was actually well-liked in other boards. I always think she's beautiful and knows how to use her power when it suits her. She can be morally gray if she has to but she's not completely heartless and still has moral core. The conflict between what she needs to do as an agent and her morality was interesting to see.

I'm not a big fan of Claire either. I get the impression that she's supposed to be naive (especially in S1) but HP doesn't do naive very well due to the fact that she's been in the business for a long time and it shows on her face (where she often looks exasperated). I do like Niki despite the general opinion about her but I've been an AL fan even before the show started.

Maya would have been more interesting if the writers didn't give her such a debilitating (and almost useless) power. What were they thinking? This is what happens when you prioritize the story instead of the characters. The character ends up being nothing more than chess pieces. Monica has the potential and I hope they don't mess this one up. Claire and Yaeko are too much of 'girlfriend' archetype so I am not that enthused about them.

For the most part I like Maya and do appreciate that she's trying to be proactive in finding out about her power and seeking out Dr. Suresh.

Yes, her power seems debilitating now, but I'd love to see her gain more control over it...not only bringing it on (like when she was trying to break Alejandro out of jail) but being able to pull it back. I'd like to see her storyline progress to where she is not dependant on someone else (particularly a guy) to help her.

I like the little I've seen so far of Monica. There's lots of potential there.

I think the addition of Kristen Bell will give the show a great strong female character. In an interview Kristen decribed Elle as someone who does what she wants and believes what she does is right no matter how her actions may be perceived, and also is probably the most comfortable hero in terms of using their power, as in fact she loves having her power and uses it frequently.

My point was---Heidi didn't care that Nathan cheated on her, as long as he lied about it. So, I don't get why a little drinking (again, unless there's something I don't know) and depression caused her to toss him to the curb.

Maybe she didn't want the kids to be around it?

I always saw it as Heidi wanting everything to outwardly appear to be perfect and happy, no matter what the truth of the matter was. Infidelity wouldn't be a problem as long as Nathan was discreet about it. His drinking problem and depression, on the other hand, were a lot harder to ignore or cover up. With the facade gone, she couldn't pretend that everything was sunshine and puppies anymore, and that's why Nathan had to go.

Ah, this makes sense to me. But makes me like Heidi less. I hope they clue me in as to how this set of events happened, personally. So far, we haven't seen Nathan really do anything crazy. Even when he's drunk, he's just sort of depressed and morose. He's not running around acting like a lunatic. I mean, the beard was ugly, but not grounds for taking away his right to see his kids.

But it makes sense to me that Heidi would be primarily about appearances. Though in "Six Months Ago," she seemed to have some substance to her.

Also, there is such a thing as supervised visitation. Nathan seems like he'd be cool with only visiting if either she and someone else was there to make sure he didn't spazz out.

Another idea though it makes her looks even worse is that she and the kids left after seeing Nathan all charred. But it makes it look like she only cares about the sickness and in health when it works in her favor.

The best way is Nathan asking for space and her granting that request. Or if she found Nathan's involvement in Company affairs = a danger to her and her kids which is also legitimate. I just think that she needs (and the show should grant her) a chance to explain herself.

Mind you, Heidi should be wondering how and why is Peter dead? And if Nathan was crispy, why he was crispy.

[not intended to be 'board on boards']

Last year there were a number of female characters introduced who were defined by their relationships to men and others who were not. Across the fandom, women like: Noah's daughter, Noah's wife, Nathan and Peter's mother, Hiro's girlfriend, Peter's girlfriend and Micah's mother were liked or at least accepted. Women who were primarily defined as themselves: Candace, Eden, and Hana; were reviled. There was a lot of abusive language concerning Candace's percieved appearance which was never directed at a male character.

The fandom does have some influence on how the characters are written. If there is distaste at Niki ONLY when she isn't being a good enough mother and no appreciation when she is a strong and aggressive woman they they will focus on her as mother. If a woman is unacceptable UNLESS she has a boyfriend/father figure/overly protective brother to control her than that's what we'll get.

AS for me, I want to see women who have plots that aren't romances. Especially when the romance is her entire story and a side story for the man. (I'm looking at You! Peter and Caitlyn)

There are many issues that could have caused Heidi to leave him: Learning about Claire, Nathan and Peter's powers, Nathan ultimately choosing Peter above his wife and children when he was willing to die for Peter, the rigged election, the entire bomb plan and Nathan's involvement, Nathan falling into deep depression, drinking and hallucinating and according to Angela not caring that he drove his family away etc. I love Nathan but he was hardly a fitting husband and parent over the past months and if Heidi learned only a fraction of the things above it would be enough to drive any sane woman away.

To quote Tracy Jordan, "You got two types of woman in this world, ones who give you strength and ones who take strength from you, like Delilah took strength from Samson.......in that movie".

I dont think Heidi is a strength giver.

I didn't have a problem with Hana. She was barely there. Eden actually got MORE interesting the second she wasn't just a potential love interest for Mo. I find Ma Petrelli because she's part of something bigger, not just a mom.

I actually find the opposite. Love interests who are purely love interests are the ones who seem to bug people. Claire is taking a tumble because she seems to be a love interest for West to puppeteer instead of letting her be a mentor to someone else and self-searcher of her own truth. I like her interaction with Zach because she was in the lead, the one deciding to jump, the one searching for self-identity. This season is the opposite.

People are loving Monica not because she's Micah's cousin but because she's someone taking care of her family and NOT caught up being some boy's whiny stooge. Her complaints are the type people are OK with: being a breadwinner, being denied promotion for no good reason, losing everything to a natural disaster.

Except Claire wasn't introduced as "Noah's daughter." HRG was introduced as "Claire's father." And Sandra was introduced as "Claire's mother" first and "Noah's wife" second. Charlie wasn't introduced as "Hiro's girlfriend." She was just a waitress in a diner they happened to pass through. If there had been a male waiter, and Hiro were a female character, would it be a gender statement?

I think Nikki was also the center of her story, as Claire was hers, and thus I thought of DL being presented as "Nikki's Husband" and Micah as "Nikki's Son"---since she was most prominent and introduced first. I mean, the male characters mentioned also had interconnecting relationships with women, so I'm not seeing why the women were all weakened by that (in your view) but the men weren't. For example, I would call Janice "Matt's Wife" (because he was the primary character and introduced first), the same way I'd call DL "Nikki's Husband."

I think there are an array of women presented, and many different archetypes available. I do think that Kring&Co write men slightly better than women. Since the majority of them are men (I think---based on writers' names I've seen), I see why it's possible. But I do think they're improving. I don't think it's a statement, so much as they simply developed a few less nuanced female characters in the beginning and struggled to find their voices there. And the Nikki/Jessica story being a confusing debacle, but I don't think that was a "She's a girl and we can't bother writing her a decent story" so much as a concept they found really cool and didn't ground properly.

The high death count is an issue, but I think that's simply because so many of the core players they initially envisioned Season 1 were male. There ARE substantially more men (in quantity) on the show as regulars, so that could be the greater issue.

I liked Hana and later liked Eden (once she actually had a purpose besides giving Mohinder someone to talk to). I didn't really like Candace because she was a brat, but that had nothing to do with her being a woman. Simone was a "weak" woman, defined by everyone else, and she seemed rather despised, so I'm not sure your theory holds. Regarding the Candace's percieved appearance stuff: I've seen some rude stuff spoken about Matt's weight as well, if you mean that... In fact, in the episode thread this week, I believe... I thought it was more appropriate for Candace because the character actually brought it up, and it did seem to be key to her characterization and her feelings about people, as was further fleshed out in the Betty comic.

Well everybody was kinda like that, nobody really took having powers that well, and if they did they were killed off on that same episode because there really is no engaging conflict that much if they are all happy about their powers. Even Tough Top Nathan (who also has long eyelashes like a girl!) was pretty emo about everything.

But yeah, self-loathing women and gay men who need big strong masculine straight men to swoop down and save them until the very end until they somehow find their own strength through a series of heavy-handed writing and deus ex machinas seems to be a theme on TV.

Monica is the best chance we have even if she does seem to be a tad on the Mary Sue side (Lord knows it's not hard to like that woman, however) though I'd personally give my left nut for a gay man that has a power, isn't whiny and obnoxious about it, but also can be spunky and doesn't have to be some Republican Nerd that likes football, but is openly GAY GAY GAY and doesn't think it's something to hide in ANY way. GIVE US POWER DAMNIT, along with the wimmins. I do not just sit behind pretty straight girls buttering up their self-esteem all the time. Gag me with a spoon. While I've always been friends with women, we don't view our relationship like that, but more of supporting and empowering one another. Not to steal the thunder from y'all ladies, but misogyny and homophobia tend to be cousins, and all that. Brothers, sometimes.

Another thing is I personally don't feel Maya should be considered in the league of Powerful Women. To me she's a bloody caricature. She represents the kind of false power that homophobic men are inherently afraid of: the raw OMG black-eyed really intense power, (which is unfortunately how all sides of the issue tend to view power in others), so the only way to calm them down is to have a man present; ie her bro. Because men are calmer and not as emotional and that can stop that evil chick from being a curious, wandering squirrel that likes to eat sinful apples!

Am I the only one really offended by that? Maya still relies WAY too much on her brother to be considered a powerful woman. I understand it's okay to depend on people and all that, but not in that context, and I could be reading into things too much, but a lot of shit is created by how things are perceived by an outsider, not how they actually are, which is why art and drama is some serious business. The idea that women need a calm, "More-rational" man to make them not go all buggy-out evil is just as offensive to me as assuming women are weak little wallflowers that require a hairy-chested extroverted male. I still think the storyline would work better if they were two women or two men, but maybe that's just own biases showing. It's like, I perceive a lot of shit on TV as really offensive and heterosexist, but I think I turn out to be right more often than not.

BY ME, I just hate 'love interests' and that's likely biased me to how I thought the characters were presented.

Simone was the example that was strongest to me. As one of the Legacy Children she should have been presented as strongly as either Hiro or the Petrellis. As it was she didn't have any scenes about her OUTSIDE of her relationship with Peter or with Isaac.

BY ME, most of Claire's plot had her as the quest object, "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World" and all that. I did like her character development and her friendship with Zach (who was one of the male characters defined by his relationship with a woman). But ultimately she (as a person) was the object instead of the subject of her own story. She served as a motivation for other people and their stories. And in this season she has ended up completely dependent on her father and her expression of rebellion is through a boyfriend. BY ME, I preferred her rebellion through experimentation with her powers and trying to reach out to other people like her. (But again, the initiative for that was taken by West, not her.)

With Noah, half of his story was as Claire's father. But he had a different story as the HRG. In this season he has scenes about life in Smallville which could be Claire-based, but he's still doing espionage work with Mohinder and the Haitian which have nothing to do with Claire.



But other than her death she didn't have many scenes without Hiro. While Hiro had a lot of plot without her. Her role in the story was as someone that Hiro knew. (Yes, I'm aware that also applies a lot to Ando. But Ando does have a story of his own when Hiro isn't there.)



There have been negative comments about Matt's weight. Matt was not called a "Slut who deserves to Die" on his first appearance.

I like that Monica, so far, has her own dreams and goals. I hope she doesn't get turned into a caregiver for Micah.

I hope that they explore Mrs. Petrelli as herself and not as Nathan/Peter's mother. I want to know what her power is and where she got it since she didn't have a power in the comic.

I want Claire to take back her own power and not serve as a vehicle for Noah's fears or West's hopes. If West turns EVIL I want Claire to deal with it rather than having her father, or her uncle or her birth-father jump in to save her.

All in all, I want the women to be written as just as valid as the men.

Some good points here, all. Glad to see this discussion is thriving.

The good news is that we're seeing more female Heroes this season, and therefore the writers are giving themselves more chances to get it right. Last season, if we saw a female Hero and she wasn't Claire or Niki, it was practically a given that she was either bad news (Candace) or not long for this world (Charlie). Maybe this season the writers will have sense enough to let the "supporting" female Heroes live and work as forces for Good.

Specific problems I've had:
With Niki, there are too many to name, and I've said it all before, anyway. Niki's lapses in Good Mothering haven't turned me against the character; it's her utter lack of autonomy and self-definition that bugs me to the core. The problem is NOT Ali Larter. She's proven she can act. My dislike of Niki rests squarely on the shoulders of the writers. If Niki "bought it" and Ali Larter was brought back to play another, smarter, more confident and capable character, I would welcome her. But thus far in Season 2, the writers have shown no sign of giving this character a brain cell or a spine, so I'll continue to despise her. I'd much rather watch a character I like in action than one I despise.

With Claire, my main Season 1 problems were crystallized by those moments when she defined herself as just [fill-in-the-blank]: "I'm just a cheerleader," or "I'm just a waitress." Dialogue like that shows clearly that she hoped to become LESS than her capabilities would allow. As I mentioned earlier, I'm pleased we don't see as much of this in her this year, so at least the character is changing. But West is a new problem.

I had no problem with Candace's appearance or clothes. I had no problem with her cunning in her use of her power. I had no problem with the fact that she wasn't defined by her relationship with another character. My problem with her was very simple: she was a sadistic little b**** who got real pleasure out of causing others pain. If anything, the way her character was juxtaposed with Niki suggested a more serious problem: independent female characters, those who are not defined by their relationships with other (male) characters, are bound to be sadistic little b****** who get real pleasure out of causing others pain. Not a very happy message for female fans.

With Hana, I had only ONE problem: she got way, way, waaaaay too little screen time. Other than that, I loved her.

Since I got involved with the show late, I didn't have a chance to get to know Eden. In the first ep I saw, Charlie quickly established herself as my favorite female character -- and wouldn't you know, she died in that same episode. Still, I never had a problem with Eden. I found her power interesting.

So, my reactions to the women seem to be the reverse of those Aunty Mib describes, and I doubt I'm alone in these reactions. The audience WANTS to see female characters who are both powerful and good.

TWOP, lj, the 9thwonders board - I'd say that is pretty widely, although I also agree with berrieh, that the tide turned a bit once she was revealed to be in league with Bennet. A really popular character she only became in hindsight, though. (And for the record, I liked her, I am talking about the general reception. Of course, YMMV, as usual.)

As for Heidi and her reaction to Nathan, I'll reserve judgement on that until I've actually seen what happened. For now, he didn't seem to protest the restraining order at all, which says to me that he admits to some culpability, and he also didn't deny anything when Angela said he drove his wife and kids away. In addition I bet Nathan doesn't make the nicest drunken depressive, and who knows what he did and what he told her, and whether he did that in front of the children.

Another thing about the way the characters are written in relation to the others: I would make a difference between main and recurring characters here. Yes, Angela is first and foremost the mother of the Petrelli brothers, and Sandra is mostly Bennet's wife and Claire's mother, but they are both supporting characters for main characters. They are treated the same as Lyle, who is Noah's son and Claire's brother, Ando, who is Hiro's sidekick, and Det. Fuller, who is Matt's partner. I think it gets a lot worse when someone like Maya, Claire or Monica become passive "sidekicks" in their own storylines.

I definitely agree with this...Claire's storyline is being dragged down by West right and at this point I consider him to be an unnecessary character. I loved Candace from when I saw her are more than one dimensional and she wasn't just 'evil', but she felt that 'people sucked' and Linderman actually was going to make the world a better place. I also liked Eden, except when it seemed like she was going to be a love interest for Mohinder, because I didn't want her storyline marginalized to where she just got categorized as 'Mohinder's girlfriend that may have ulterior motives', which is basically the female version of West right now. While I love Maya and I understand why she's upset, etc, she's definitely the weaker twin....however, I will say I think it flows better than if their roles had been reversed and Alejandro was weak and Maya was the one helping and protecting him. That would have worked if Alejandro was her younger brother, but in a twin situation, it seems to flow better the way it is now...of course, I want to see Maya develop more and grow less dependant on Alejandro, but I can absolutely see why it started that way. Monica started off strong and I do like her, although I hated her Southern accent, but she's toned it down now. Her best friend also got on my nerves with the whole,'You've wanted to be someone your whole life and it never works out'. Some best friend there! Not to mention, Monica apparently did well in school and got into college and that only changed when her mother died and she couldn't afford college anymore, so where does her best friend get off acting like Monica is some big recurring loser in life? She's had loss, but I don't see her (at least not right now) as some pie in the sky person that always has ideas, but never has any follow through.

Honestly, I think the only exception to me not liking those that are pretty much just love interests or it seems like that's where the focus of their storyline is going, is Charlie. I loved Charlie. But then, I guess there's always an exception to the rule.

My problem with Niki/Jessica is smugness, pure and simple. Both in her "weak" and "strong" incarnations. I don't find it appealing in men OR women. I loved Eden, Candice, and Charlie. They had power, but also weaknesses and foibles. And for that, they had to die! ;-)

Interesting and relevant article here on perceptions of women's roles in our fear-laced post-9/11 society.

Please keep this discussion on the topic of the female characters themselves, not on fandom's (or TWoP's) reactions to them.

I liked Charlie because she didn't drag Hiro down (at least not much) and it was a sweet storyline where neither party was creepy. That was a power-power relationship where nobody was playing manipulative games. Hiro doesn't insult, demean or bully Charlie, which is something I hate about Claire/West. Hiro also just wanted to save Charlie's life.

Mine was that she was either weak or bitchy. It took me a long time to love Niki, even though I love Ali Larter and that's probably because I had no respect for her for a long time as the central focus of her storyline seemed to be about her weakness. Maya may be the weaker of the twins and is dependant on Alejandro, but they're going to find Dr. Suresh, so while Maya maybe be emotionally weak, given her power, I can understand and empathize with it more than Niki and the journey to find a cure is more the focus of that storyline, rather than just her emotional state or dependency on Alejandro.

I guess my issue with that would be that I don't believe that being emotional equals being weak. Every woman is different, of course, but I tend to roll my eyes at characters who are portrayed as either nothing more than whiny, powerless cryers or as butt-kicking babes who never experience emotion. Both seem like extreme stereotypes, which is why I like Maya--so far, she's show that she's capable of strength. She's making a dangerous trek to America, she's not afraid to use her power for personal gain (to bust her brother out of jail), and she's taken the initiative to learn English (whereas her brother hasn't). Although I feel that there's been a disproportional emphasis on her emotionality, I generally find her to be a well-rounded character. I guess when I see a female television character cry, I don't automatically jump out of my chair, point my finger, and go "Aha! She's weak!" I'm a woman, and with the exception of Niki, I wouldn't label any of the female characters "weak" because they openly express emotion.

And I certainly agree that many of the male characters aren't exactly paragons of "strength" either: Peter was emo and whiny; Nathan lacked the strength to stay faithful to his wife and also lacked the balls to confront his power head-on until the bitter end; Mohinder, at least season, was portrayed IMO as more of a dolt than Matt at times; Matt allowed himself to be pushed around by both his wife and his superiors, and refused to acknowledge his dyslexia; and Hiro very quickly became an asexual caricature whose powers, for a time, seemed to be tied to his moods.

So it's interesting to me, this question of what makes a "strong" character. For me, it's not tied to the expression of emotion; it's more about being proactive, taking advantage of situations, overcoming obstacles, and making difficult choices. Maya can cry all the way to New York, but IMO she's a far stronger character, for example, than Matt (who happens to be my favorite, but whom I'd never label as "strong"), who consistently allowed those around him to think the worst of him and rarely stood up for himself.

I think this post is my soulmate. I've wanted this for like every female character I've ever cared about not only in tv but in comics as well. Because the sad thing is that this is exactly what happens to most of them. For some reason male characters are able to have both and not get lost in the process, but female characters end up becoming totally defined by their relationships. Not to mention that a lot of these women end up becoming damsels in distress even though they should be more than capable of taking care of themselves. I always hold out hope that this won't happen but it always does. Because it seems the standard formula for female characters. I'd love for the show to prove me wrong, but they destroyed Simone because of this and I live in constant fear that they will soon do the same to Niki.

Heh...I think your response is a clearer picture of her character and the reason why I do actually love Maya, even though I mentally categorize her as 'weaker' of the twins. As you aptly stated, that's obviously not the entire picture.

I think Heroes does ultimately slant in the favor of male characters, BUT I also question some of the standards that female characters are held to.

If you had switched the genders of HRG and Claire - made it a mother who was determined to do anything to protect her special son - would that be a problematic portrayal of a female character (defining her solely by motherhood)? If so, why isn't it objectionable to define HRG solely by his fatherhood?

If you had made Peter a sister to Nathan instead of a brother, would we not have almost exactly the same complaints as we do currently about Maya? (An emotional, needy person who needs to be calmed down in order to control a mighty power)

If Hiro and Charlie had switched genders, and we had seen a female superpowered person devastated to the point of powerlessness by the death of her waiter boyfriend... would that be a problematic portrayal of a woman?

I'm not asking all these questions to be a smartass or because I have all my own answers to them - because actually, I don't. I guess I feel that weakness is a necessary part of any interesting character. But I think male weakness comes off as statement about *that individual character*, whereas female weakness comes off as a statement about an entire gender. So where should the line be drawn? When does it become sexism?

I do feel that Simone was treated abysmally and that we are seeing a preponderance of men among the main heroes, so I'm not suggesting Heroes is pure as the driven snow in terms of gender. I do, however, think they're trying pretty hard this season to rectify some of the issues they had last season, and I am wary of putting TPTB in a "can't win" scenario.



I see what you're saying, but speaking for myself personally, I do not see Maya's strength as stemming from her superpower at all. To me, Maya's strength is how she DEALS with her superpower - she realizes she has a problem, and she's risking everything she has to find the one person who might be able to solve it. To me, that is what makes her a kickass character, not what she can do with her eyes. Peter fans will tar and feather me for saying this, but I honestly feel Maya has taken more action to solve her problems in three episodes than Peter "I'm the bomb" Petrelli did all last season.


ETA: "Waiter boyfriend" not "waitress boyfriend." Heh.

I hated Simone and all, but I disagree. Most of her scenes were with those two characters because they were who she knew. She had other plot points: her father dying (yes, she told Peter, but the scene wasn't about Simone and Peter; it was about her father dying) and the whole art/Linderman connection. She didn't have her own story, mostly because she didn't have a power. But also because she was part of the NYC story. Also, very few characters had stories that were completely their own with no other characters in them (Mohinder did talk to himself or an empty dial tone an awful lot, though). I don't know how you classify something as "their own story." I mean, did Nathan and Peter have their own stories? Or did they share a story?

I think giving Simone two romances was stupid, annoying, and painful to watch, as neither couple interested me in the least---but at the same time, with the whole Simone/Peter relationship, you can't say they were painting her as a "girlfriend" type. She did have that scene where she was a little, "Wham, Bam, Thank You, Man" while he was all "We've got standing weekend plans now, right?" (not literally stated, but that was the general notion). There was some interesting gender "reversal"/dynamic there.*

*Reversal in "" because it's not really a reversal, though perhaps a subversion of typical gender dating expectations.



I'm not sure that's a good analogy, though, because that's because Hiro was a series regular and Charlie wasn't even recurring---she was a 2 episode Guest Star. For being a 2 episode Guest Star, they did some fairly good characterization to have us still talking about her. I'm just not sure it's a fair comparison was my point.



Very true, and I actually think I said in another thread that I preferred the Claire character as an object (a cog the wheel of the story turned around). Not because she is a girl and doesn't deserve any better, but because she's a teenager and there's only so long I can watch HS cheerleading/boyfriend/science class nonsense. Wake me up when she graduates or the Butlers go "so deep [they] forego jobs and school altogether," will you?

However, despite being an "object," we did see a proactive Claire, and I think she's assertive enough. Of course, as I said above, I'm not a big Claire fan. She's got the whole spunky princess archetype thing going, and that bores me silly.



Gotcha. I thought you were speaking of her perceived weight (when you said "perceived appearance"). I didn't know you meant her way of dressing. Well, Candace did kind of deserve to die if anyone did, but I base that purely on personality and vapid evilness. I don't care how short her skirt is. Of course, the irony is she could really have been wearing sweat pants, and we'd never know! I found Candace to be an interesting "lesson" in gender dynamics, as she clearly chose the form that she felt was most advantageous and she did seem to want to use her sexuality to advantage. I don't think creating a character like that is inherently wrong, because there are women like that and Candace, particularly, seemed to have such a cynical view of it. I love that it simply didn't work for her in the end.



Yes. I practically scream, WHAT IS YOUR POWER, every time she appears. I'll be very upset if they don't explore Angela.



Claire has saved herself more than once. Sometimes, others helped her, but she's never sat by as a helpless bystander. When Jackie was being attacked, Claire ran towards the attacker. Granted, she knew her power, but that's still brave. She also jumped out a window to get to Peter and help him at Kirby Square. She sought out her birth-parents on her own. She had hopes, goals, and thoughts. I hope she continues along the same lines.



Major Word. This is why I like Maya, especially now that we've seen some proactive behavior. She seems to be the one navigating and the one who speaks English, so it's not like Alej is carting her there and she's just weeping and limping along. She's less whiny and emo with him than Peter was with Nathan in S1.



Actually, I really hope they give Caitlyn her own story eventually. That's pretty high on my Heroes Wish List.

Anyway, I think the major problems with women in Season 1 stem from 4 things:
*Having substantially more major characters and powered characters who were men than were women, so it was easier to write men badly/throw men out without us noticing. (I mean, Matt was lamer than Nikki, but we had plenty of other good male Heroes.)
*The writers simply write men more naturally/better than they write women, to some degree.
*The original conception had only 3 main female characters: a 16-year-old cheerleader, an internet stripper with a complex, ill-defined power (see #4), and an unpowered very-killable object of many affections.
*Nikki's power. I still don't know what Jessica is. Possibly MPD. Possibly a power. Always confusion-inducing.

I certainly have no objection about the female characters being "emotionally expressive". I've been known to burst into massive racking sobs in public a few times.

So that is not the issue for me. The plots are not really the issue, either, for me. It is the personalities, and lack of any sense of humor or joie de vivre in most of the female characters that makes them unappealing to me.

The female character that had or have at least a little sparkle--they enjoy something about their own existence, maybe-- are Monica, Ma Petrelli (in a twisted sort of nasty way), Eden, Charlie, possibly Auntie Nichelle Nichols (she has not had much chance to show yet)...Audrey...

When Claire was in her scenes with Zach she had some of that, but I have not witnessed it in any of her other scenes. Hayden herself seems to have it, so i don't know why they don't incorporate more of the actress's insouciance.

Yaeko had some in her first scene...but not since.

I think Maya's plot would be fine if even in the throws of terrifying events she had a personality, maybe some sense of irony or something.

Niki...she is just no fun at all. Simone was no fun, either.

Someone upthread had questioned Heidi's actions - how she has essentially deserted Nathan this season, but I can kind of understand it.

I might put up with alot from a guy, if he were someone was battling his demons, wracked with guilt over the loss of his beloved brother and the betrayal of his mother.

However, if I suddenly were the only stable adult in my 7 and 9 year old sons' lives (after their grandfather and uncle had died, and their father and grandmother totally lost it, and became self destructive), I would probably try to protect them, distancing them from the turmoil just like Heidi did. Especially if I had just miraculously recovered from an incapacitating injury. Heidi's recently been given back her physical independence...it's not surprising she took some action. I find her much more interesting, given her actions this season than she was all last season (when she was pretty much just a victim/plot device for Nathan's angst)

I think this can't be emphasized enough. The show has a wider range of male character types, and they tend to get more screentime so they have more shades to their personalities. That's only gotten worse as the show went on and female characters were discarded (and note that four male characters escaped seemingly certain death in the finale, while there was no such contrivance for Eden, Charlie, Simone or Hanah, nor presumably for Candace.) Season two began with only two major female characters, Maya and Claire; and while I have no problem with Maya pe se, I do have a problem with the writers not doing anything very interesting with her storyline. And Claire's storyline seems to be narrowing down to her choice over which male should have more influence in her life! Meanwhile Angela Petrelli, who we thought was a mover and a shaker, doesn't seem to be doing anything at all, and Nikki has been all but written out.

So it's great that they're adding two more female Heroes, but they've still got a ways to go. And it remains to be seen if they've solved the Nikki problem. I hope it turns out that she's part of HRG's conspiracy and the real reason she's going to OWI is to commit espionage and serve as Mohinder's protection.

I'm not concerned that some of the women might cry or not. I'm not concerned that some of the women are mean. I am concerned on how little screen time the women characters get that aren't about them being mothers/girlfriends.

Claire was quite good last year with exploring her story line but this year she seems to have become a supporting character in West's story line. With Zach they showed her taking the initiative, especially with trying to rebuild the friendship after his mindwipe. This year West has become the initiator.



Candace was/is potentially a very dangerous Big Bad. Not only does she have a strong power but she has a sadistic and mysanthropic streak. She didn't need to be played by any one actor. There were a lot of missed opportunities of her as a supervillian.



My point is that HRG is NOT defined solely as a father. He has the major story line of being the head of the catch/release or the catch/vivisect program who decides that he's had enough. It's possible to cut out every family scene with Noah and still have a full character.

Concerning Simone


Peter's story: a younger son who has been taught all of his life to see himself as being not quite good enough. He takes a chance on jumping off a roof since he would rather be dead than to keep thinking of himself as nothing. He finds his power and realizes that it is linked to how he feels about the people that he knows. He finally comes to the realization that his attempts to save the World may be the thing that has doomed the world. (Incidentally, he's Nathan's brother, Claire's uncle and Simone's boyfriend.)

Isaac's story: a talented painter who fears that he can only tap his talent through drugs. After getting clean and sober he comes to the horrific realization that the only way he can prevent a disaster is by allowing himself to die. (incidentally, he's Simone's ex-boyfriend)

Simone's story: Does she dump the Junkie for the Emo boy? She dies.

Simone was supposed to be a major character not a plot device. We got far more emotional development from many of the day players. She was a career woman where we never saw her work. She was in the middle of the "Exploding Man" story but didn't try to figure it out.

Random observation: the characters with the most powerful super abilities are men.

Also, if the mods collapse the two gender threads, can we call it Sheroes and Heroes?

I have to disagree. The reason HRG decides he's had enough is directly because of his personal stake in Claire.

Or, accepting your argument, why can we not say the same thing about Niki? If you cut out all the scenes with her family, you could still salvage a storyline about a woman with MPD struggling to break away from a ruthless mob boss.

I think she actually had to be killed because her power is too powerful and potentially confusing. With Candace alive, anything we see on screen is suspect. That is too deux ex machina. Some people say Peter's too powerful to live, but he has real, clear limitations. I think it was important that Candace die and no one get her powers for that reason. I don't want an 80s style fake-out, and with Candace alive, I felt like I always had to look over my shoulder for an "It was all a dream" moment. At any time.



I completely disagree. He'd be as flat as Thompson, and he would still be with The Company. Everything would be different if it weren't for Claire.



But you're missing parts of Simone's story: She grieves for her dying father, whose last words seem to echo Peter's assertion that he can fly. She helps Hiro (via Issac's art and her art connections) have a reason to see Linderman, getting him in. She brings the painting to show to Nathan, watches it destroyed, and decides---though she's not sure she believes him---to give Peter the polaroid. She tries to convince Nathan to tell the world what they can do. I think Simone's place in the story was meant to be that of a normal person, who had no connection or stake in the whole "powered people" thing (unlike The Company or Mo) and be our sort of Rosetta Stone for that.

That's sort of true, but I actually think overall the women we've seen are at least on par with the men. Obviously leaving Peter and Sylar who are overpowered IMO out of the equation. Eden and Candace in particular had the potential to be extremely powerful, and Niki should only really come behind Peter, Sylar, and Hiro in terms of powers. Except of course that her story always stalls and she's gained even less control of her powers than Matt!

As for Simone, sure her storyline was tied to the people in New York that still doesn't mean they wrote her well or developed her well. Yes she didn't have powers, but neither did Mohinder, a male who received about a 100 times more development than Simone. We've seen him at work, we've seen into his past, his family etc. I guess he was meant to be a more central character than Simone, but still. Why didn't Simone have any major scenes with her own father? Why was Charles' most important scene one in which he gave Peter advice from beyond? There were a lot of avenues they could have taken with Simone and they didn't. They developed her only in terms of Peter and Isaac, and as a result she was just this object that drove THEIR stories. And then when they realized how poorly they'd written her, they killed her off.

Like they had to kill the character who can time travel and possibly rewrite history? The writers have written around the inherent problems of other high-powered characters. I don't buy that they had to get rid of Candace.


I think you've proved my point about the power imbalance.

I don't have time to do it right now, but it might be interesting to figure out the percentages on active powers like telekinesis versus passive powers like precognition and see if there's a gender imbalance.

The HRG discussion is interesting. He's the nexus point for a lot of plot stuff, and I think that all that stuff defines him. So in some ways he's more of a reactive than proactive character. But on the other hand he has/had a lot of power, he's shown to be smart and active and competent, he gets a lot of screentime...and he's a supporting character that was given space to grow into something vital. (An opportunity that doesn't seem to be in the cards for Angela Petrelli, even though that's a similar case of a plot-servicing character that the fans seem to want to see more of because the actor is rocking the part.) So I think it's an oversimplification to say that he's only defined as Claire's father. Perhaps overly defined as her dad.

I've read several posts from people who were unhappy that Heidi didn't stick by Nathan. And I've read probably an equal number of posts from people who were unhappy with Matt because he DID stick by Janice. Not enough of each to make an ironclad case for a gender-based double standard, but enough that I noticed it.

Thanks Hasienko, this is the type of thing I'm talking about.

We are talking about generalities. It's possible to say that the average woman is shorter than the average man. The counter example of a 6'7" woman doesn't invalidate the generality.

BY ME, when one compares main cast to main cast, secondary cast to secondary cast and bit players to bit players; the women characters had less attention paid to them as persons than the male characters. Simone compared to Nathan, Hiro, Peter, Isaac and Mohinder had a role in the exposition but little look at her dreams. Audrey, Candace and Eden were less developed than HRG, Zach, Sylar and Ando. It isn't until you hit the bit characters where one can say that Mrs. Bennett, Mrs & Mrs. Petrelli, Charlie and Hana were as well developed as Ted, Mr. Darkside, Claude and Linderman.

BY ME, I consider Maya to be the centre of her story. She is going to New York City to find a doctor who can cure her of her curse. Alejandro is accompanying her. Niki was the centre of her story-but I wanted Niki to be absorbed by Jessica who was more proactive. Claire was the centre of her story last year but seems far too passive this year.

I don't dislike any of the female characters on the canvas right now. My problems are with their storylines. So, I'm willing to cut all of them some slack because I think that each of the actresses has done a decent to good job with the could-be-alot-better material they've been given.

However, I will say that, to this day, I think TPTB missed the boat bigtime by not doing more with Hana.
Because, IMO, despite appearing in only a few brief scenes, she was the most kickass gal I've ever seen on Heroes.

Hiro's power has always be shown to have clear limitations. Candace's power, in Sylar's hands, caused a major audience fakeout. It was good once, but the idea of it always being possible (every character in every scene is suddenly suspect with "Maybe it's Candace" if the actor even seems one iota out of character) is strenuous on the writing staff. That's not true of any other power.

As for Peter and Sylar... I don't think Peter's anywhere near uber. His powers are tied to his emotions and can misfire at anytime, still. Sylar doesn't currently have any power. We don't yet know why. But I don't get why Sylar lives either, personally, and that's for another thread anyway. Still, I think it's actually Sylar that proves Candace's power shouldn't be around. Had Peter or Sylar managed to get Candace's power, they'd have to be killed as well, for narrative purposes, IMO. So, I applaud the choice (a) not to let them, and (b) to do away with their deux ex Candace.



With a character who has many powers but has trouble using them consciously and with a character who's lost all of his powers? I'm still not buying the Sylar thing, but Peter's and Hiro's limitations have been consistent. Candace didn't seem to have any limitations beyond her limited imagination. (And, yeah, she's dumb. But as there have been intelligent women on the show, I think that's just a statement on Candace, not women.)



I tried to do this, but it made my head hurt. Depends what you consider passive. I consider both Sylar's and Peter's original powers passive, but they acquired both active and passive powers. Is flight an active power? Is persuasion a passive power? What about Micah's technopathy or Molly's uber-mapquestyness?



I don't think HRG is any less defined by his fatherhood as Angela Petrelli is by her motherhood. He is, however, a more regular character with greater screentime.



Didn't HRG become a regular last Season, so is it really fair to compare, say, Audrey to HRG?

I thought Eden was as well developed as any recurring character on the show. I think she was actually better developed in the first season than many regulars, including Mo, Matt, Isaac, etc. I think everyone had better character development than Sylar. I don't really think Sylar is a character. He's like 4 characters that don't make sense together, but again: For another thread.

How well developed a character was Isaac? I thought Simone had better character development than he or Matt did. I think the problem isn't that the writers don't want to develop female characters. I think it is that they simply started with too few. Simone was a no-win character. They put her in as an audience cypher, clearly, and the audience didn't immediately identify with her, as they believed she would. That's my theory.

They start at the same place, one story line is dropped the other becomes a regular. That's a pretty accurate comparison.

If it happens once-it is the thing itself. If two female characters have their story lines dropped while equivalent male characters get bumped up it's a coincidence. If it happens more than three times with no counter-example...

Maybe I'm not remembering a female character who was introduced as a minor character who became a regular.

BTW, I did like Eden's story and Charlie's story and thought that their deaths were meaningful.

I focus on Simone since her character was supposed to be important: daughter of Charles Devereaux, businesswoman who was the link to Linderman, one of the first people to find out about the Exploding Man. Even if they hadn't given her the birthright power she deserved she could have been the one working to figure out who the exploding man was and how to stop it from happening, especially so when both Isaac and Peter were out of commission. She could have had the learning-to-believe-in-magic-and-to-trust-her-instincts story. Instead she became the bone that two dogs fought over.