random item

Troperville

Tools

Find recent edits by troper:

back to: Main / TheWomenAreSafeWithUs

edit article | go to discussion page

10th Apr '13 12:35:47 PM Luigifan

Send Luigifan a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 6,15 (click to see context) from:

It would preclude all audience sympathy to portray a heroic character as having a tolerance (or even worse a taste) for forcing himself on captive women. A protagonist may have other character flaws that reveal him to be a {{Badass}}, or a hard-bitten hero. He may plunder the enemy's gold, burn the enemy's crops, torch the enemy's buildings and may visit bordellos, but in most stories there will be no rape or tolerance of it in his outfit. [[RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil Rape will be forbidden]], and malefactors will be dealt with.

Movies that involve historical generals, chiefs or warlords will generally [[HistoricalHeroUpgrade treat it as a given]] that they didn't tolerate such things, unless such leaders are the villains of the work. Sometimes the all-too-common occurrence of officers who ''did'' disapprove being limited in their ability to control their men [[ObligatoryWarCrimeScene will be shown]], since it still leaves the hero sympathetic.

Although we'd never tolerate it from a hero, rape remains one of the many depraved behaviors we may expect from a villain. Villains being villains, [[RapePillageAndBurn rape while pillaging]] will still be the order of the day when the evil enemy soldiers attack a village full of protagonists, and will be used to underline exactly how ruthless and vile The Enemy is. Individual mooks [[EvenEvilHasStandards might be above this]], but an army full of them ... not so much.

Often a case of ValuesDissonance. Behavior that was [[PoliticallyCorrectHistory often tolerated or even approved]] strikes us as [[{{Squick}} horrifying and disgusting]] and [[IHaveYouNowMyPretty reserved only for the villains.]]

Also possibly symptomatic of ThePiratesWhoDontDoAnything. Whichever side we the audience are supposed to identify with is simply going to be assumed not to do that sort of thing, whatever their attitude to other atrocities.

to:

It would preclude all audience sympathy to portray a heroic character as having a tolerance (or even worse, a ''taste'') for forcing himself on captive women. A protagonist may have other character flaws that reveal him to be a {{Badass}}, or a hard-bitten hero. He may plunder the enemy's gold, burn the enemy's crops, torch the enemy's buildings, and may visit bordellos, but in most stories, there will be no rape or tolerance of it in his outfit. [[RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil Rape will be forbidden]], and malefactors will be dealt with.

Movies that involve historical generals, chiefs, or warlords will generally [[HistoricalHeroUpgrade treat it as a given]] that they didn't tolerate such things, unless such leaders are the villains of the work. Sometimes the all-too-common occurrence of officers who ''did'' disapprove being limited in their ability to control their men [[ObligatoryWarCrimeScene will be shown]], since it still leaves the hero sympathetic.

Often a case of ValuesDissonance. Behavior that was [[PoliticallyCorrectHistory often tolerated or even approved]] strikes us as [[{{Squick}} horrifying and disgusting]] and gets [[IHaveYouNowMyPretty reserved only for the villains.]]

Also possibly symptomatic of ThePiratesWhoDontDoAnything. Whichever side we, the audience, are supposed to identify with is simply going to be assumed not to do that sort of thing, whatever their attitude to other atrocities.

5th Apr '13 1:41:46 PM Peteman

Send Peteman a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

That's the big reason why it's stupid.

Changed line(s) 86 (click to see context) from:

to:

28th Mar '13 7:27:55 PM Morgenthaler

Send Morgenthaler a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:

to:

15th Mar '13 9:00:10 AM Koveras

Send Koveras a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 123 (click to see context) from:

to:

* Almost averted in ''VideoGame/DragonAgeOrigins''. This being ''Franchise/DragonAge'', the number of [[FaceHeelTurn true allies]] with whom your women are safe is quite small, to say the least. In the City Elf origin, all the women in your family, and you (if female), are dragged off by human nobles to be raped. A few [=NPCs=] allude to this fate when talking about war and banditry in Thedas. There are quite a few female [=NPCs=] with RapeAsBackstory. And, just in case you thought you were safe fighting inhuman, nonsentient beasts who don't seem to reproduce normally, the women who are taken away by the Darkspawn are [[spoiler: mutated into [[BodyHorror Broodmothers]] and forced to give birth to new Darkspawn]]. Yes, women are safe with the few actual heroes in this world (even DepravedBisexual Zevran will be very, very sure you're into him before he'll make a move), but this seems to be a fact about these particular characters as people, and does not automatically apply to anyone on their sides, ever.

14th Mar '13 2:50:43 PM Fett

Send Fett a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 78 (click to see context) from:

to:

Added line(s) 80 (click to see context) :

12th Mar '13 4:32:42 PM Xtifr

Send Xtifr a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 96 (click to see context) from:

to:

28th Feb '13 3:26:41 AM Joyce13

Send Joyce13 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 109 (click to see context) :

4th Feb '13 5:51:01 PM LentilSandEater

Send LentilSandEater a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Right but is that in the book?

Changed line(s) 83 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 92 (click to see context) :

4th Feb '13 5:47:15 PM LentilSandEater

Send LentilSandEater a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

That's great and all, but it's got to do with dragon age?

Deleted line(s) 123,124 (click to see context) :

** In real medieval society, doing this to the main minority that people had non-military contact with (Jews) could get a person into trouble with the person who was usually their personal protector: the King. Kings weren't acting out of altruism, though; they protected Jews because safe, secure Jews had more time to make money, and Jews having money meant Kings had money. All of a Jew's property was passed to the King at the Jew's death (that's also why medieval society encouraged[[note]]or sometimes simply ''forced''[[/note]] Jews to take up money-lending rather than other jobs you didn't have to own land to do -- it was more lucrative, therefore the King and the public coffers inherited more cash).
** Jews were sometimes subject to this kind of abuse in countries that didn't have the above arrangement, as were Jews and Christians in some Muslim countries. More typically, though, Muslims charged ''dhimmi'' Jews and Christians a tax in exchange for "protection," in a similar arrangement to the one European kings had with Jews. Followers of any ''other'' religion, however, were fair game if they weren't simply enslaved or exterminated.

31st Jan '13 12:24:50 PM MRAustin

Send MRAustin a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:

to:

This list shows the last 10 events of 101. Show all.

new edits

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy