Is ‘hero’ applicable to females?

There was the following sentence in today’s (June 4) New York Times written by its Op-Ed columnist, Nickolas Kristof under the headline, “There’s a Kind of Hush.”

“Aung San Suu Kyi should be one of the heroes of modern times. Instead, as her country imposes on the Rohingya Muslim minority an apartheid that would have made white supremacists in South Africa blush, she bites her tongue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/opinion/kritstof-theres-a-kind-of-hush.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

I understand “ hero” here is used as a generic of brave or great persons to cover both male and female 'heroes' ?

However, OALED defines ‘hero’ specifically as male, as;

1. A person, especially a man, who is admired by many people for doing sth brave or good.
2. The main male character in a story, novel, film / movie etc.
3. A person, especially a man, that you admire because of a particular quality or skill that they have.

CED also defines ‘hero’ as;

1. A very brave person, often a man, that a lot of people admire.

2. The main man in a book or movie.

Can I apply ‘hero’ when I’m refering to Aung San Suu Kyi singly as “Aung San Suu Kyi is the hero of Burma”?

Solution 1:

I think that this extract can help: Hero:

Many writers now consider hero, long restricted to men in the sense "a person noted for courageous action," to be a gender-neutral term. It is used to refer to admired women as well as men in respected publications, as in this quotation from The Washington Post: "Already a national hero in her economically troubled South Korea, . . . [Se Ri] Pak is packing galleries at [golf] tournaments stateside." The word heroine is still useful, however, in referring to the principal female character of a fictional work: Jane Eyre is a well-known literary heroine. Ninety-four percent of Usage Panelists accept this usage.

The increasing usage of hero referring to women is also shown in Ngram.

Solution 2:

Whether you like it or not, masculine terms can be given a universal meaning (especially in the absence of a gender-neutral term) that their feminine equivalent cannot take. This no doubt reflects a male-chauvinist point of view, but one that is so widespread that one has to accept it.

So while saying “All men are created equal” is interpreted by most as including women as well, saying "All women are created equal” will be interpreted by most as excluding men; this makes it a rather different kind of statement altogether, which could easily be taken for a sexist insinuation.

Similarly, if one took the following statement: “Margaret Thatcher was among the most prominent statesmen of her time" and turned it into: “Margaret Thatcher was among the most prominent stateswomen of her time”, this would significantly water down the meaning of the statement.

Therefore, “Aung San Suu Kyi should be one of the heroes of modern times” should not be changed into “Aung San Suu Kyi should be one of the heroines of modern times”, which is a weaker statement. And the argument does not really depend on the particular word “hero”, but would apply to the use of any term without a gender-neutral form.

Solution 3:

There are two completely unrelated uses of "hero" in English

1. Admirable/famous real person. (Margaret Thatcher.)

2. Main character in a book. (Lara Croft.)

In the case of (1), yes, it is now common in English-speaking areas to use "hero" for both sexes.

Indeed if you do use heroine in the female case, it is a little unclear .. indeed it could be almost - just about - diminutive or "mocking", sarcastic.

In the case of (1), you should use hero for both sexes. As I say, if you use 'heroine' there is a very slight risk of being offensive/mockingish.

In the case of (2), use hero/heroine per the sex. {FOOTNOTE: as neminem points out: indeed furthermore, 'hero' is today, indeed, often used for the female lead in case (2).}

Important: below in the comments NewWorld raises the point that this is a real language judgement call. For me, it's a clear case of "sexist language," if you will: for me, it's clear that (today, 2014) the masculine form "hero" much more clearly indicates a type1 use of hero. (Maggie Thatcher, etc.) And if you use heroine for type1 it tends to be diminutive, or could even be mocking. I.e., it TENDS TO SUGGEST in a mocking way a type2 heroine (Lara Croft, etc). But I can only say "in my opinion". But then it's critical to note that every single point on this entire site, from spelling to grammar to language etiquette, is pure opinion. What's the best way to spell colour right now, in New Zealand, if you're a computer programmer? Is it OK to say 'aks' in Texas right now if you are a member of XYZ socio-ethnic group? It's pure judgement call based on 'looking around'.

For the record, in case (2), if the main character happens to be "bad", they are usually called lately an "anti-hero." (See the charming children's film "Moi moche et méchant" :) ) I doubt you would say "anti-heroine" in the rare case of an evil female villain -- you'd probably just say "anti-hero" the same.

Solution 4:

In Ancient Greek it is

ἥρως hḗrōs (male) ἡρωίς hērōís (female)

The English phrase is heroine. You should use it when you refer to the greek mythology or use it in a sarcastic sense.

Solution 5:

What has not been said is that, even if one uses the somewhat archaic definitoin of heroine, "a female hero," such a use would not be equivalent. "Aung San Suu Kyi should be one of the heroines of modern times," would mean that she was only to be numbered amongst other women, and not amongst other men.

"Hero" can be gender neutral, while "heroine" cannot be. Hence, when one wants to be gender neutral, one must use "hero."