This is definitely a thing among some younger women. I’ve been accused of misogyny for saying that there’s a physical difference between females and males, that women are vulnerable relative to men. The reasoning, if you can call it that, is I think that there’s a value judgment attached to the type of physical strength that men generally have more of.
So yes, we see all these totally unrealistic films where women regularly beat the crap out of men and are practically invulnerable and we’re supposed to think this is a great step forward in how women are portrayed, and a win for feminism.
Except of course it isn’t, because it’s saying women only have worth if they’re female versions of men rather than for our own selves. And it actually consolidates the idea that people who are physically more vulnerable and not able to easily overpower a would-be assailant are somehow “less”, and consequently less deserving of respect - which is not just anti-woman but also hugely ableist and anti-child.
While there’s a win in having more female characters, this trope is hugely anti-feminist as it’s saying only women who are “as good as” men are inspirational role models; women can’t be valued for the reality of who we are; and the kind of strengths we tend to have more of - eg stamina, endurance, emotional strength, and the small matter of the capacity to grow another human being inside us - are worth less. Worthless, even. Completely unvalued, completely out of the picture when it comes to assessing the social status of a human being.
Patriarchy as usual.
It breaks my heart to see younger women falling for this reinvented version of the same old hierarchy, and deluding themselves their worldview is feminist.