If those traits are supposed to make me more confident in her as a “strong” female character, you aren’t succeeding. Maybe try a woman who isn’t defined in relation to the men in her life, and you’ll be a bit closer. I don’t think you quite understand the criteria that flowchart lays out, so let me elaborate.
Can she carry her own story? She pretty much fails this one, given the fact that she is defined by her relationship to the men in her family. She can’t carry her own story, because the thing driving her isn’t anything internal to her–it’s reactionary towards men. It implies that the only sort of thing that can drive a woman forward are things that men do. Alternatively, if she were driven, say, by her own goals, by her own desires, capable of being defined outside of her relation to men, then she would pass this criteria.
Is she three-dimensional? This is hardest to pin down, but personally, I always think of three dimensionality as a character’s capacity for change and depth. The only sort of change she goes through is her humiliation, which comes about as a punishment for her reckless sexuality (because certainly a woman can’t be punished for anything else). This isn’t change, this is degradation.
Does she represent an idea? She is, in essence, hysteria, and represents a repressed female violence and resentment towards patriarchy. Just because that’s a feminist-ish sounding idea doesn’t make her any less empty as an actual person. It also makes her eventual humiliation far more harsh, as it rebukes that idea, rendering her meek.
Does she have any flaws? She sure does. She got one!
Does that make sense? I hope I’ve made myself clearer.
Bracken's Corner 