Which is to say: There is a metric by which female characters may be judged as adequate to the sisterhood or not, and I, personally, find it repulsive. I find it repulsive when applied to real women, too, but I'm here as a writer, so as a writer let me rant.
Which is to say--there's a complex standard for women in fiction. If they're not "womanly" enough, they may be adjudged "men with tits." Or, you know, in a much more valid critique, they may be adjudged persons who do not do any of the maintenance work by which society is, well, maintained. (In a fair world, the adjudger also notes if the men do this stuff, or if they just faff about worldsaving and never have to hold down a day job or take out the trash?***) If they are too "womanly,"* then they are insufficiently feminist.
Yanno? In real life? I know feminists who knit, sew, costume, interior design, wipe baby's asses, clean, and crochet doilies. Many of them also write books, perform research, and run companies. These are human tasks, not women's tasks or men's tasks.
(One of the characters of my own who I consider most personifying a strong woman is an accomplished huswif. She's also a mother and a wife and a consummate manipulator. I don't like her much, mind you, but she's one tough broad.)
My only traditionally feminine skill is cooking, but that's because I was raised by lesbians**. It also means I didn't learn about the baby powder on your thighs in summer trick until I was 21.
I was fucking deprived, man.
The moral of the story?
Write people, man. Not political theories.
* Where, by womanly, we mean--homemaking, comforting, nurturing, etc
**I know at least two lesbians who knit
***Aaron Hotchner takes out the trash. That is why he is The Man.