WHY DO WE LIKE ANTI-HEROES?

 

dead pool image

This post will focus on the increasing popularity of anti heroes in TV series, to name a few : The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, House of cards, True Detective etc.. This type of character seems to have increased in popularity lately… why? Does it say something about us as a society?

But first let’ s define the anti hero and why we find him/her so interesting. As more nuanced characters, anti-heroes  have more issues and questions. You get a glimpse into their thoughts and emotions, and are able to see why they end up choosing exactly what they want to do. Anti-heroes can have moral failures and hypocritical beliefs, whereas traditional heroes tend to know what’s right and do it immediately. Because they are so strong in their moral beliefs, traditional heroes can be harder to relate to, and people enjoy characters they can understand.

Due to their lack of moral rectitude, anti-heroes have a tendency to be more relatable than heroes. They have more issues than heroes do, and they don’t just say okay and fight the bad guy. They question the bad guy, ask about his life, antagonize him and debate whether the fight really should happen. They tend to be more complex, which allows their storyline to be more three-dimentional, in other words more human.

Ultimately the anti-hero is more of a person, while the traditional hero is just that—a hero.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Why are there so many TV anti-heroes?    Popular culture from the BBC

Morally reprehensible characters like Breaking Bad’s Walter White are all over our TV screens. But how did the anti-hero become such a fixture? Alan Moloney reports. (21 October 2014)

It’s the show that has already been labelled by many critics as one of the greatest ever made – and it has only two episodes left to air.  For the uninitiated, Breaking Bad follows the actions of Walter White, a high-school chemistry teacher who, on being told he has lung cancer, decides to ‘break bad’ and start making crystal methamphetamine to provide money for his family. The show’s creator, Vince Gilligan has said the plan was to tell a story about a man who transforms from “Mr Chips into Scarface”.

So how has it come to pass that a drug-dealing, murderous sociopath is now the lead character on a primetime American television show? A show that has only become more popular as Walt has descended further into the moral abyss?

As Daniel D’Addario of entertainment website Salon points out, the portrayal of leading TV characters has altered greatly over the past two decades. “Characters seem to get worse and worse – the fact that it seems hard to believe that there was a time when protagonists of TV series were, by and large, unambiguously heroic points to just how much has changed.” This trend was in evidence as early as 1993, with the airing of police drama NYPD Blue, a series that was described by the American Family Association as “soft-core porn” and featured in Andy Sipowicz a central protagonist who struggled against his own alcoholism, sexism and bigotry.

Moral maze

Why the change? The moral shift in television characters was undoubtedly facilitated by the rise of American TV cable networks. Networks gave programme-makers freedom to create content that didn’t need such wide appeal, and allowed programme-makers to push the boundaries of what could be shown.

Maureen Ryan, television critic of the Huffington Post, sees the moral compass of these characters as far less fixed than their forebears, “Now, there’s much more flexibility on where even mainstream comedies and dramas can draw that line. And at places like HBO, Showtime, AMC, FX and other cable networks the line can be just about anywhere, as long as the story behind the transgressive behaviour is compelling and the actions the characters take are, in some way or other, justifiable.”

The character that is routinely identified as breaking the traditional ‘hero’ mould is Tony Soprano – the central character in HBO’s The Sopranos. Tony is a man who cares deeply about his families (both the traditional and criminal one) and seems to yearn for a simpler time in American history. “What happened to Gary Cooper?” he asks in the series’ pilot episode, “The strong silent type. That was an American. He wasn’t in touch with his feelings. He just did what he had to do.”

Tony may have wanted to be Gary Cooper but he actually embodied television’s new American anti-hero, the man who indulges in his own transgressive behaviour and justifies his actions as being for the greater good – even if the greater good very often equated to his own.

Donna Bowman, a writer for entertainment newspaper The AV Club sees the anti-hero as “driven by the imperative of success and the imperative of security to do horrible, horrible things.” She adds: “We understand how conditions today don’t allow us to remain clean, and that it’s just a matter of how dirty we’re willing to get in pursuit of what we’ve always been told we should want.”

LA story

Tony Soprano may have come of age in a more troubled and complicated post-9/11 America but it was a Los Angeles police corruption scandal from the late 1990s that inspired a show that showed just how dirty one man was willing to become to get what he wanted.

The Shield debuted on US cable channel FX in 2002 and presented its central character, Detective Vic Mackey as, in his own words, “a different kind of cop”. For seven seasons he indulged in behaviour worse than the criminals he was chasing, while operating behind a badge of public trust. As Daniel D’Addario explains, “A TV show will go as far as it’s allowed. If there are effectively no structures, a show will place its star in far more dodgy situations.” And compared with Tony Soprano, The Shield offered Mackey, “even less chance at redemption.”

Maureen Ryan sees The Sopranos and The Shield as two of the most influential shows of this era. “A few years after The Shield and The Sopranos debuted and once the handcuffs were off in terms of how you could depict people and their motivations, it was as if a dam had been burst.” She adds that, “Creators were not only allowed to delve into difficult areas, they were encouraged to by a great many ‘me too’ cable networks, all of whom wanted to make their mark with shows that were perceived as dangerous and subversive.”

The Sopranos may have introduced the torch-bearing anti-hero, but Tony has since been joined by a plethora of others (both on US cable and network television). 24, House, Dexter, The Wire, Deadwood, House of Cards and Mad Men as well as countless others have all come to challenge the traditional notion of what it means to be a hero, asking just how far you can push a character and expect the viewer to stay with them. Tony Soprano, Vic Mackay and Don Draper all still have their advocates – despite their often despicable behaviour. Bowman believes that for these types of characters to engage with an audience, “We have to understand why they do what they do; their actions have to flow from character and circumstance that we comprehend.”

What then of Walter White and his transformation from “Mr Chips to Scarface”? Perhaps only when the series has ended will we be able to properly assess where he stands in the rogues’ gallery of television’s anti-heroes. But even death or redemption (if that is even possible) can’t change the dreadful effects of White’s actions over five years.

As Maureen Ryan puts it, “Lesser shows make you pump your fist and root for the lead characters, no matter what they’ve done. But first-rate shows never let you forget that the lead character is not someone you want to emulate, and at times, they make you question why you empathise with them at all.”


The Rise Of The Anti-Hero In Popular Culture

Why anti-heroes make me worry for the future. By  Sam Sachs, Feb 8, 2016 (https://www.theodysseyonline.com/)

We live in a society that has idolized the hero. They started as the Knights of the Round Table, then they were the Phantom, and Superman. Heroes took over popular culture, especially in the form of comic books. In the 1960s, the protagonist characters who were normally heroes took a turn towards something darker.

Heroes became complicated, they went from characters who filled every ideal of the perfect champion of justice and turned into grim, weary men and women. Batman, Spawn, Rorschach from “Watchmen,” Alan Moore’s V, Walter White, all of them were characters who strove to achieve justice or do the right thing, but without the same rules as the rest of the heroes of their times.

So what is it about these darker characters that makes them so popular with audiences? Some writers explain the anti-hero’s popularity on wish fulfillment fantasies. Author Auden Johnson explains it through describing the characters as not being “restrained by consequences,” fulfilling a fantasy that many people feel in their day to day lives. Characters like Rorschach, violent vigilantes, take the law far past into their own hands, acting as judge, jury and executioner.

It fills a certain visceral need people feel to mete out retribution for legitimate or perceived wrongs. This frustration with the state of things has continued to grow, especially in recent years. As humans, we need outlets for our angers and frustrations. Unfortunately, we can’t punch someone in the face just because they bother us, we can’t just scream and break things when our days don’t go well.

The rise of the anti-hero is a result of both mounting anger in readers and a desensitization to violence that has increased as the years have passed. Such desensitization to violence makes men and women not be shocked by nor put off from it. A University of Alabama at Birmingham study from January 2016 found that “Exposure to violence at high levels or across multiple contexts has been linked with emotional desensitization, indicated by low levels of internalizing symptoms.”

When we don’t react to violence due to lack of emotional sensitivity to it, it becomes something cool. Violence and retribution aren’t discouraged, they’re viewed as entertainment. Anti-heroes fill this niche in what we read, watch and play, assuming the role of a character who “takes no sh*t” from anyone and does whatever they want, while still fulfilling the role of a champion. Outlaws have become romantic figures, idealized as misunderstood heroes rather than men and women who act outside of any laws but their own.

AMC’s “Breaking Bad” was a hugely popular drama for five years. A chemistry teacher dying of cancer just wants to be able to leave his family enough money to live comfortably when he dies, but as a teacher, he earns little. When combined with the insanely high costs of medical care, he turns his knowledge of chemicals into cooking methamphetamines to save money for his family. Throughout the show, Walter transitions from loving family man with a dark secret to full-on villain-level scheming and darkness.

Despite his actions, viewers loved Walter more and more, and hated the more moral characters who got in his way. The line between justice and righteousness, and self-fulfillment has become blurred, with anti-heroes surging in their popularity as a result. These characters who defy authority more as a personality trait than as a choice are indicative of a growing problem in our society.

People are angry and frustrated with their situations. Gas prices are too high, a public figure famous for family values is revealed to be a child molester and adulterer, the government is allowing corporations to buy off policy changes and prevent progress. Walmart moved the kitchen supply aisle from one side of the store to the other without any warning.

The rise of the anti-hero heralds a new social climate, where acting on your frustrations is respected more than showing restraint. It shows a society where due process and rationality are knocked aside in favor of instant gratification. With role models shifting from heroes to anti-heroes, what’s to stop someone from copying them and acting on their fantasy, taking justice into their own hands?

The right answer should be the people themselves. Looking at the state of the world, I can’t trust that answer.

Can you?


5 types of anti-heroes (https://thewritepractice.com/anti-heroes/)

The Classical Anti-Hero

Traditionally, a classical hero is a character who always wins their battles, with sharp intellect, unshakable self-confidence, and excellent judgment.

So it stands to logic that the classical anti-hero, which is the original anti-hero, is terrible in a fight, is not the brightest crayon in the box, riddled with self-doubt, and makes decisions based on self-preservation instead of bravery. The classical anti-hero’s story arc follows the conquering of his own fears and coming to terms with himself to fight whatever threat faces him.

Frodo falls into this category, since he’s a decent guy, but there’s a lot of baggage that comes with carrying that ring through three books.

The “Disney” Anti-Hero

This is what most people tend to think of today when they think of an anti-hero. At his core, the Disney Anti-Hero is still fundamentally good, but doesn’t have the relentless optimism of a classical hero.

They tend to be sarcastic and more realistic, and tend to put logic before honor, but they won’t outright perform acts that are morally ambiguous. Like the Classical Anti-Hero, odds are pretty good that this type of anti-hero will develop into a classical hero by story’s end.

Haymitch Abernathy from the Hunger Games trilogy and Severus Snape of Harry Potter fame are two good examples of this type of anti-hero.

The Pragmatic Anti-Hero

The Pragmatic Anti-Hero is basically exactly what it sounds like. Generally no worse than neutral in morality, the Pragmatic Anti-Hero takes a big-picture view of his role, and if something or someone needs to be sacrificed for the greater good, so be it.

They won’t kill indiscriminately though: anyone who dies at the hand of the Pragmatic Anti-Hero either had it coming, or had to be killed in order to achieve the higher goal. These anti-heroes are equally as likely to defect from classical heroism by the end of the story as they are to convert.

Harry Potter himself, by the end of the series, fulfills this role, as he is constantly breaking rules, and uses two unforgivable curses and robs a bank by series’ end in order to off Voldemort once and for all.

The Unscrupulous Hero

This is as dark as you can get with your anti-hero while still being technically good.

The Unscrupulous Hero lives in a world that has a morality that is made up of varying shades of grey, with their grey being slightly lighter than that of the villains. Often they live in a really crappy setting, which accounts for their distrust of humanity and penchant towards violence. They’re big on revenge, and when they take their revenge, count on it being something to see. There might be some collateral damage in their actions, but that doesn’t faze them.

Jack Sparrow of the Pirates of the Caribbean film series and the Blues Brothers of the titular film are examples of this type of anti-hero: their intentions are good, and they are fighting on the moral high side, but they don’t really care how much damage they cause or who they double-cross on their way to achieving their goals.

The “Hero” in Name Only

These anti-heroes fight on the side of good, but they have no good motivation. Either their intentions are completely selfish, and they only happen to be pointing their weapons at the token bad guys, or their motivations are only slightly less terrible than the villains’. Sometimes they’re just bored and need someone to point a gun at.

You’ll still root for them, but you won’t agree with a lot of the ways they do things.

Sherlock Holmes in the BBC’s re-imagining of the character is an example, since he explicitly describes himself as a high-functioning sociopath, and makes it clear that he only takes on cases that he finds mentally stimulating. Dexter of the TV series of the same name walks the line between this and a villain protagonist.

Which is your favorite anti-hero type?

PRACTICE

Pick one of these types of anti-heroes and write for fifteen minutes, introducing your reader to the character. Give a sense of your anti-hero’s motivation.


Anti-heroes What makes them different?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYD6AQ6e60

antiheroes

Publicités

HOW HAVE OUR HEROES CHANGED?

How Have our Heroes Changed? By Mark Tapson (from Pop Culture matters)

The fourteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks this past Friday was a somber reminder to Americans of the first responders and their heroic sacrifice on that terrible morning. Three hundred and forty-three firefighters perished that day, as well as sixty police officers and eight paramedics, all rushing to the aid of others with a disregard for their own safety. That selfless service, says author Tod Lindberg, that willingness to put their own lives on the line for the lives of complete strangers, is precisely the quality that defines the modern hero—and distinguishes him or her from heroes past.

In his short but deeply considered new book The Heroic Heart: Greatness Ancient and ModernLindberg examines greatness from its most distant origins in human prehistory to the present. Through character studies of heroes both real and literary, he explains the conception of heroism in the ancient world, how it differs in our time, and the ways in which these heroic types have shaped the political realm and vice versa.

Whether ancient or modern, the distinctive characteristic of the heroic figure, Lindberg begins, “is the willingness to risk death.” A hero overcomes what Thomas Hobbes called our “continual fear of violent death” and is willing to embrace his fate “in accordance with an inner sense of greatness or exceptional virtue.”

The model hero in ancient times was of the conquering, killing sort, a warrior earning renown by slaying piles of enemies on the battlefield. Think of Homer’s Achilles, whom Lindberg examines at length: a self-centered, petulant demigod, perhaps, but a warrior of superhuman caliber. Or Julius Caesar, a man so determined to be the greatest man in Rome that he would destroy the Republic in a civil war rather than rein in his ambition.

But over the centuries, the slaying hero gradually fell out of fashion, thanks in large measure to the horrors of World War I and Vietnam, not to mention the rise of the literary antihero such as The Catcher in the Rye’s Holden Caulfield. Our ideal of the hero morphed instead into a courageous soul who is no less afraid of death but more focused on saving lives than taking them. Achilles’ modern counterpart acts not to kill and conquer, but to serve and save others. “From slaying to saving,” writes Lindberg, “from the highest, riskiest expression of self-regard to the highest, riskiest expression of generosity and the caring will.”

Lindberg uses the history of the Congressional Medal of Honor—the U.S. military’s highest decoration—to demonstrate this evolution of heroism. He reviewed the award from its creation during the Civil War to the present, and concluded that “the percentage of citations that include a saving narrative [as opposed to a killing narrative] has increased markedly” over time. The significance of this shift?

If the military itself . . . now designates its highest heroes not on the basis of their infliction of violent death on an enemy but on the saving of lives, then we have perhaps reached the point in the development of the modern world at which the modern, saving form of heroism has eclipsed the vestigial forms of classical heroism and their slaying ways for good.

The hero as slayer versus the hero as lifesaver: That is the crux of the difference between the classical and the modern form of heroism. Greatness versus equality. Ego versus generosity. “I am someone” versus “I can do something for someone.”

The modern hero sacrifices, as Lindberg puts it, “in service to a greater purpose. Their purpose has not been the classical hero’s purpose, namely, the actualization of their sense of inner greatness.” Instead, “the modern meaning of greatness is service to others.” (his emphasis)

Curiously, though, Lindberg points out that the spirit of modern heroism, the antithesis of the conquering hero, is most grandly embodied in the ancient figure of Jesus of Nazareth, the “Savior” God who died on the cross to redeem the human race. Today that spirit is personified in such heroes as the World Trade Center responders on 9/11, the medical personnel from Médecins sans Frontières, the three unarmed Americans who recently took down a heavily-armed jihadist aboard a French train. They and others like them constitute “the modern face of heroism.”

For Tod Lindberg, this evolution is a positive development—but we cannot be complacent. There is no guarantee that the more destructive form of hero—the  conquering, slaying sort—won’t return, unless we prevent him. His chilling example of a modern slaying hero?

Osama bin Laden.


Who Are the Real Heroes in Today’s World?  Updated on July 13, 2017 Pamela Mae Oliver 

Who Are Your Heroes?

Are they sports champions that may have carried a team to an award winning season, or maybe they’re an Olympian who took home the gold?

Is your hero a celebrity who takes home the awards from starring roles in movies or television, or plays music for thousands of screaming fans in sold out stadiums?

Or maybe your hero is the CEO of a large cooperation who keeps the profit margins high for investors, a political figure who has successfully served the people for several terms, or a religious leader who has led many people on their spiritual journeys.

While all these professions certainly do include many people who inspire and lift our expectations of ourselves and others to a higher plane, giving them the title « Hero » doesn’t always apply.

Pick a Hero

Who would you bestow the title « Hero » on?

  • A Teacher; who gives personal time to help a struggling student.
  • Oprah Winfrey; a television icon, and philanthropist.
  • A Firefighter; who risks his/her life to save someone.
  • Jon Bon Jovi; a rock star, and actor.
  • A Soldier; who risks his/her life keeping others safe.
  • Steve Jobs; an innovator in technology, and CEO of a high profile company.
  • A Police Officer: who risks his/her life to protect others.
  • Emit Smith; a professional football player, and award winning dancer.

Defining a « Hero »

So, what is the difference between a person who is a « Real Hero, » and a person who is an icon, an idol, a mentor, or is setting a good example? And, why is it important to split hairs on this point?

Because, if we’re not conscientious about who we honor with the extraordinary title of « Hero, » then it will come to mean very little.

For example, the word « Awesome. » The Northern Lights are awesome; inspiring jaw dropping ‘awe’ and eye popping ‘wonder’ at the beauty of the natural spectacle. But, in recent times, the word awesome has come to be used as slang; as in, « Wow, your new shoes are awesome. » While shoes can be pretty, nice, or even fabulous, shoes can’t be considered awesome. Societies’ incessant use of the word ‘awesome’ has diminished its meaning; thereby, diminishing what really is awesome.

The same goes for word hero. With diminished use of the word, comes diminished meaning of the title. We, as a society, soon lose sight of what it really means to be a hero, and real heroes lose the degree of respect they deserve.

Definition of « Hero. »

  • A Hero is someone who rises up, from whatever their station in life is, or whatever their circumstances are, and comes to embody a representative of the highest level that a human being can attain.
  • A Hero is someone who knowingly and voluntarily makes a conscious decision to sacrifice something of one’s self for the greater good of others.
  • A Hero doesn’t seek notoriety or praise for personal glorification, but instead, uses whatever attention he receives to perpetuate his achievements to a greater degree.
  • The actions of a hero make a positive impact on another, or many, so as to change or alter the outcome of a situation that would otherwise be detrimental.
  • A Hero contributes something beneficial to the world for the betterment of humanity as a whole, or for the spiritual world in creating a path that leads us all in higher directions.
  • A Hero does not expect compensation for their heroic deed.

Not a Daisy

Many people define a hero as someone who is in a traditional hero role or profession; such as, a firefighter, a police officer, or a soldier. But, wearing the uniform of these noble professions does not automatically elevate an individual to the status of hero.

According to an article in thetimes-tribune.com, « Firefighters who start fires, and why they do it, have long been part of an American obsession with true crime. » Firefighter-arsonists are a problem that is often downplayed for department morale reasons, but it is a real problem, which many believe stem from a « hero complex. » The need to be a hero becomes so overwhelming to the disturbed firefighter, that they set a fire, become the first one there, and perform heroically in order to receive the accolades.

Police Officers encounter extraordinary amounts of illicit circumstances, which predisposes them to corruption. According to an article in the dailymail.com, « Anti-corruption units across the country are wrestling with a workload of 245 cases every month, a rise of 62 per cent from the year before. In most of the investigations, eight out of ten involve officers accused of illegally disclosing information to criminals and third parties. »

Soldiers certainly aren’t exempt from corruption. Just this week, a jury selection is being held for a U.S. soldier who killed 16 Afghan civilians. According to an article featured in worldnews.nbcnews.com, « A U.S. service member shot dead at least 15 members of two Afghan families as well as a 16th person before turning himself in, officials said Sunday. U.S. officials said the soldier was a staff sergeant. Some witnesses said more than one soldier was involved, but Afghan President Hamid Karzai in a statement cited only one shooter in what he called « an assassination, » adding that nine of the dead were children, and three were women. The soldier reportedly left his base in the early hours Sunday and went to two villages just a few hundred yards away. He then opened fire on Afghan civilians sleeping in their homes. »

The point here is not to discredit these noble professions, but to show that it takes more than a uniform and a title to be a real hero.

Not A Daisy, but a Rose

What it takes is exemplified by many every day who not only wear the uniform, but also walk the walk and talk the talk. Take for instance Sgt. 1st Class Alwyn Cashe. According to an article in Stars and Stripes (www.stripes.com) Sgt. Cashe became the ultimate hero.

« When the roadside bomb detonated, it ripped through the fuel tank of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and ignited like napalm. The seven men seated inside were knocked unconscious and had no chance to escape the fire.

But the gunner, Sgt. 1st Class Alwyn Cashe, managed to crawl out of the burning wreckage. Wounded and drenched in diesel fuel, he pulled the Bradley’s driver from his seat before the flames reached there, dragging him to safety.

And then he went back.

The 16-year Army veteran had seen a dozen of his men die on that tour in Iraq, and he couldn’t bear to lose another. His uniform caught fire as he desperately tried to open the Bradley’s hatch.

By the time he got in, all he had on was his body armor and helmet, the rest of his uniform in ashes or seared to his skin. With help, he carried one of his dying men out of the fire and back to horrified medics trying to triage their charred colleagues.

And then he went back.

Soldiers couldn’t tell what rounds pinging off the Bradley were from insurgents’ weapons and which ones were from their own ammunition ablaze in the vehicle. As he reached the next soldier, Cashe tried to douse the fire on his uniform, only to realize that his own skin was peeling off from the heat. As another soldier helped pat out the flames, Cashe moved the next wounded friend to safety.

And then he went back.

Cashe was the last of the injured to be evacuated from the scene. Doctors later said he suffered second and third degree burns over 90 percent of his body, but he still walked off the battlefield under his own power. »

Sgt. 1st Class Alwyn Cashe, and five of the men he saved from the blazes, succumbed to their burns and wounds weeks later in Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. Cashe was able to tell his family that he was glad that at least his men had been able to say « goodbye » to their families.

Sgt. 1st Class Alwyn Cashe is one of my heroes.

NYC Firefighters Raising the Flag 911

Never Forget

No one will ever forget the courageous acts of heroism by New York City Firefighters and Police Officers during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the Twin Trade Towers and The Pentagon. Three hundred and forty-three firefighters and 60 police officers gave up their lives for what they truly believed in.

In responding to the screams of people who were trapped inside the burning buildings,these brave heroes ran to, and entered a building they knew they may not exit. Because of their brave, selfless efforts, hundreds were saved.

These courageous souls are my heroes.

Sheroes

Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Malala Yousafzai

Lifetime Heroes

There are many everyday heroes, whose heroic acts go undocumented, unheard of, and unappreciated.

Teachers who notice a student with reoccurring bruises, or mismatched shoes, or no lunch money, and take the initiative to get involved.

Doctors who perform their services free of charge for someone who has no insurance.

The homeless person who struggles to feed himself, but shares what he has with a starving animal.

Some spend their lives as a hero, or as a « Shero. »

Mother Teresa spent her life caring for the poorest of the poor in Calcutta, India. She devoted her life to caring for the sick, the poor, and established a hospice center for the blind, aged, and disabled; and a leper colony. Mother Teresa exemplifies what it means to sacrifice your life, in a lifelong effort, for others.

Malala Yousafzai is a 15 year old Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban, because she « promoted Western thinking » in that she had criticized the Taliban’s actions against women. Malala stated her belief that all girls should have the opportunity to go to school, and for that, she was targeted and shot. Now, after her recovery, she is bravely doing just that and returning to school. Malala is living a very dangerous life on a daily basis, standing up for girls and women’s rights everywhere.

Who Are Your Heroes/Sheroes?

Icons, idols, mentors, or heroes? Where do you see the differences?

Who are they? What have they done that you honor them with the title « Hero? »