And in addition to that, they tend to glorify the use of force and power by women as a desirable end in itself, due to that over-correction of viewpoint which you mention. Thus, in properties like Song of Ice & Fire, Wheel of Time and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the questionable use of power by attractive teenage female characters is applauded because they are exerting themselves and using force or exerting authority, when an examination of their reasons, justifications or rationales, or the results and effects, or their attitudes toward that power, all fail to stand up under scrutiny. I call it after Buffy, because on that TV show she was portrayed as a hero, despite not being very heroic. Random chance gave her great power and she was urged to use that power to fight evil, but most of the show was about her trying to reconcile the conflict between using her power to do good and save lives, and her desire to slough off those responsibilities to indulge herself in frivolous teenage activities. The worst of example was ironically during a story arc that is widely considered the creative peak of the show, where her boyfriend turns into an evil vampire. When they have their initial fight after she spoils his dastardly plan, he taunts her with the ending of their relationship and she kicks him in the crotch, but is unable to kill him. That moment is generally applauded by fans and critics as "awesome" and "girl-power" and whatnot, because she put the oppressing male in his place. Over the course of the next few episodes, the villain she failed to kill because of a selfish sentimental attachment is shown to repeatedly murder innocent human beings, with no real effort on her part to rectify the situation, until he kills someone in her inner circle of friends, and after that, she goes on a vendetta to stalk and kill him. The focus on the entire arc is about her feelings and dealing with the tragedy and how wonderfully strong she is, when all she is doing is belatedly stepping up and doing what she should have, and correcting a mistake. Yet, she is both handled with kid gloves, treated like she's much weaker and more fragile, and hailed and praised for her heroism in doing what she should have in the first place, and averting a danger she should never have allowed to happen. I feel fairly certain that a male character making similar mistakes would not have been given so much narrative sympathy. As in the case of exaggerating the strength and physical prowess, her heroism, virtue and sense of responsibility, various intangible qualities that is, are exaggerated, almost entirely because she is a girl. She is routinely placed in situations calculated to manipulate the audience into pitying her, despite the theoretical theme of female empowerment underlying the entire show. That is the most egregious, in-your-face example but there are many other intellectual properties that do the same thing, and it is solely because the moral scale is rolled back to accommodate anything a woman might take it into her head to do, often selfishly, but because she is the one doing the acting upon, it is considered acceptable.

A loathsome term. There is only racism. That term itself, in the context in which it is used is racist, because it implies that only blacks can be victims of racism.
And what is worse, an egregious abuse of authority (which she did not actually have anyway, as a foreign national and commissioned officer of a foreign military force) and an uncalled for over-reaction and a complete misunderstanding by the writers (and by extension her character) of the basis of military authority, which has nothing to do with physical force or power. A male officer in the same position would not be remotely right or justified and few films would portray him as such. Even setting aside issues like respect and command authority, this "badass" moment of "proving herself" did not come as a result of fair combat or anything remotely resembling a genuine proving of her toughness or fighting spirit: she effectively ORDERED him to step into her punch and hold still! That in no way shape or form proves anything about the toughness of any individual who does that (aside from the guts/discipline of the man who can TAKE that punch), but because she is a girl, that's all that matters! A girl hit a guy! Whoo hoo! Grrrl Power! Yay!

And what about later in the film, when she catches Steve Rogers kissing another woman (despite absolutely no relationship existing between their characters in any overt or explicit form) and she promptly expresses her jealously by firing a gun at him without warning? The scene in the carefully edited trailer made it look like he was being cocky and questioning the efficacy of the shield she was arming him with, and too teach him a lesson, demonstrated its sturdiness in a way that made him flinch. The actual scene in context strips the cool, badass connotation implied in the trailer, and makes her a petty, emotional woman who overreacts to a romantic disappointment, and pretty much confirming every sexist stereotype of that era about "dames" and why the men have to do the fighting and whatnot (not to mention the only other woman in the film being an insatiable slut who can't restrain herself from pouncing on Steve and kissing him at the first opportunity - which was basically the extent of her characterization). But all of this is forgiven, because in the movie, the girl shoots bad guys! She throws punches! She is Badass and A Pioneering Feminist Icon! In reality, she is condescendingly held to a lower standard of behavior, discipline and emotional judgement than any male character in similar straits would be.

No, it isn't. I went on at length about this as just one aspect of the erroneous portrayal of combat ethics, military honor and virtues and the exercise of power and force in that same movie on this very MB. It was not well received, so maybe it IS just us.