When people say "Strong" for women, it's isn't the actual attribute. Strong Male actors would typically bring Vin Diesel, Arnold, Dwayne to mind.
For females, strong usually has a connotation of "spirited", "determined", "stoic", etc. Which is equally appropriate.
In response to Cryptimus' post is actually a statement around classifying movies that use women as props, or women as protagonists. I recently binged with the family on the Fantastic 4 . They rebooted it 2015 for a reason. The 2005 version https://youtu.be/eF0TQHNvrbs?t... is the 'women as prop", there is the completely unnecessary "she's naked and invisible - woops - now she is naked in front of the public". The 2015 reboot has the women as a peer protagonist.
Answering the question @Ostracus has, a lot of it comes with peer support, but keeping an eye on when peer support becomes non-peer exclusion. eg: Women in tech deal with a lot from a lot of dimensions, so having ally/peer groups help a lot. However, if they are labelled derisively, then it goes more to perpetuate. As an example, "Girl Boss Collective" vs "Women Entrepreneurs Group" create two very different group personas. Using my approach above, GBC is an ally group for girls who are bosses", vs "women who are entrepreneurs". You can see there being groups for men implicitly (Founders Club), (Businessmen's Group), but I don't think I'd ever see a "boy boss collective").
It's hard, it's a slow generational shift. But there is a huge difference in the last 20 years already. Much work to do too.