If a movie is about assassination, murder, torture and brutality, and showing a woman who is good at those things is bad, then should women not be included in movies such as these? Or must they always portray a passive, pacifist role? I'm confused about what you two are trying to get across here, because it sounds as though the only way a female character can "overcome sexism and prove themselves" is by being adept at some pre-approved, womyn-friendly skill, or have some pre-approved, womyn friendly traits which, to an outside observer, seems just as bad as "defining themselves as components of a man's fantasy reality," except replace "man's" with "some other woman's"."women shouldn't only be able to overcome sexism and prove themselves with assassination, murder, torture, and brutality"in the case of QT's films, those are reoccurring themes that involve all of his characters. So women who excel at those things in the context of his movies are not positive examples of strong women? because the things they do aren't 'feminine'? or because they fulfill, perhaps, his (and by extension his male audience's) 'male fantasy reality'? What puts those themes at odds with femininity?I think a girl with a good career who likes to read books is hot. That's my male fantasy, should women not pursue these things because they fulfill it? Or are you trying to say that women should not pursue these things for the express purpose of fulfilling it? The former is foolish, the latter is understandable. But the difference between the two is not one so easily discerned with relation to QT's films (and tons of other films we'd likely have this same disagreement on)