Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
The Chick is now a disambig, dewicking
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
In many series, men will have various different personalities, but women will always be TheChick. Thus, by TheLawOfConservationOfDetail, you only need one.
to:
In many series, men will have various different personalities, but women will always be TheChick."The Girl". Thus, by TheLawOfConservationOfDetail, you only need one.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 13,14 (click to see context) from:
In classic comedy animation or shows, especially slapstick, women are often absent because [[WouldntHitAGirl hitting a girl]] just isn't [[DoubleStandard considered]] [[DudeNotFunny funny]]. (In the case of harmless AmusingInjuries, this [[SlapstickKnowsNoGender isn't always the case]].)
to:
In classic comedy animation or shows, especially slapstick, women are often absent because [[WouldntHitAGirl hitting a girl]] just isn't [[DoubleStandard considered]] [[DudeNotFunny funny]]. (In the case of harmless AmusingInjuries, this [[SlapstickKnowsNoGender [[{{Slapstick}} isn't always the case]].)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Trope rename
Changed line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) from:
As noted in the examples below, this trope is nearly universal in all forms of media. Most writers try to balance this out with PositiveDiscrimination, making the girl more intelligent and [[WomenAreWiser level-headed than everyone else]], but it still doesn't change the simple fact that there's only one of her. Usually, all it does is turn her into a MarySue for [[TheScrappy everyone to loathe]].
to:
As noted in the examples below, this trope is nearly universal in all forms of media. Most writers try to balance this out with PositiveDiscrimination, {{Flawless Token}}ization, making the girl more intelligent and [[WomenAreWiser level-headed than everyone else]], but it still doesn't change the simple fact that there's only one of her. Usually, all it does is turn her into a MarySue for [[TheScrappy everyone to loathe]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) from:
As noted in the examples below, this trope is nearly universal in all forms of media. Most writers try to balance this out with PositiveDiscrimination, [[GirlsNeedRoleModels making the girl]] more intelligent and [[WomenAreWiser level-headed than everyone else]], but it still doesn't change the simple fact that there's only one of her. Usually, all it does is turn her into a MarySue for [[TheScrappy everyone to loathe]].
to:
As noted in the examples below, this trope is nearly universal in all forms of media. Most writers try to balance this out with PositiveDiscrimination, [[GirlsNeedRoleModels making the girl]] girl more intelligent and [[WomenAreWiser level-headed than everyone else]], but it still doesn't change the simple fact that there's only one of her. Usually, all it does is turn her into a MarySue for [[TheScrappy everyone to loathe]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
!!Sandboxing for an analysis move
In many series, men will have various different personalities, but women will always be TheChick. Thus, by TheLawOfConservationOfDetail, you only need one.
In other cases, the women are [[DistaffCounterpart feminized versions]] of existing male characters.
This trope has lessened over time, but even now it often applies to animated fare aimed at boys or a general audience. This is especially serious when the regular cast is full of synthetic entities or other species which have a voice or are sufficiently humanoid; these will always be more masculine than feminine, with any feminine examples receiving special attention, [[MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial suggesting that women are merely an unusual subtype of men]].
Why does this trope happen? Often, the problem lies with the source material -- the work's an adaptation of something [[ValuesDissonance written or created decades before]] equal recognition for women started to gain momentum. Sometimes, however, writers will try to correct this problem by inserting a few more female characters or at least an AffirmativeActionGirl.
When the time for merchandising comes, unless the cast is all female, manufacturers won't create as many (or sometimes not at all) figures of the female members as they would males of the franchise even if the series is MerchandiseDriven (or at least, until the mid-90s). This creates a vicious cycle in which The Smurfette Principle is upheld by both toy manufacturers and TV writers, each reasoning that the other will enforce it anyway. This may be because, statistically, companies believe that action figures of female characters don't sell as well as the male ones, all evidence to the contrary. Of course, the shortage of female action figures to base those figures on can lead to another vicious cycle.
In classic comedy animation or shows, especially slapstick, women are often absent because [[WouldntHitAGirl hitting a girl]] just isn't [[DoubleStandard considered]] [[DudeNotFunny funny]]. (In the case of harmless AmusingInjuries, this [[SlapstickKnowsNoGender isn't always the case]].)
This trope can also be {{justified|Trope}} by its [[TruthInTelevision accuracy]] in certain contexts. It is fairly realistic for [[MenAreTheExpendableGender armies]], police forces, adventuring parties, and similar groups to be predominantly male, especially if set in a non-PoliticallyCorrectHistory.
As noted in the examples below, this trope is nearly universal in all forms of media. Most writers try to balance this out with PositiveDiscrimination, [[GirlsNeedRoleModels making the girl]] more intelligent and [[WomenAreWiser level-headed than everyone else]], but it still doesn't change the simple fact that there's only one of her. Usually, all it does is turn her into a MarySue for [[TheScrappy everyone to loathe]].
Writers who recognize the problem after a season or two may expand the cast with {{Affirmative Action Girl}}s. This is usually more effective.
Interestingly, this can extend to {{Mooks}} and the MonsterOfTheWeek with MonogenderMonsters, to avoid the UnfortunateImplications of violence against women.
ActionGirl[=s=] and other strong, usually supporting female characters who are the only girl or are only one of a few girls in the group are sometimes called "minority feisty" or "token feisty." They may even have some commentary about sexism or male domination, but the majority of the characters are male.
The name of this trope was first coined by [[http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/07/magazine/hers-the-smurfette-principle.html an article in the New York Times printed April 7, 1991, called "The Smurfette Principle"]].
In many series, men will have various different personalities, but women will always be TheChick. Thus, by TheLawOfConservationOfDetail, you only need one.
In other cases, the women are [[DistaffCounterpart feminized versions]] of existing male characters.
This trope has lessened over time, but even now it often applies to animated fare aimed at boys or a general audience. This is especially serious when the regular cast is full of synthetic entities or other species which have a voice or are sufficiently humanoid; these will always be more masculine than feminine, with any feminine examples receiving special attention, [[MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial suggesting that women are merely an unusual subtype of men]].
Why does this trope happen? Often, the problem lies with the source material -- the work's an adaptation of something [[ValuesDissonance written or created decades before]] equal recognition for women started to gain momentum. Sometimes, however, writers will try to correct this problem by inserting a few more female characters or at least an AffirmativeActionGirl.
When the time for merchandising comes, unless the cast is all female, manufacturers won't create as many (or sometimes not at all) figures of the female members as they would males of the franchise even if the series is MerchandiseDriven (or at least, until the mid-90s). This creates a vicious cycle in which The Smurfette Principle is upheld by both toy manufacturers and TV writers, each reasoning that the other will enforce it anyway. This may be because, statistically, companies believe that action figures of female characters don't sell as well as the male ones, all evidence to the contrary. Of course, the shortage of female action figures to base those figures on can lead to another vicious cycle.
In classic comedy animation or shows, especially slapstick, women are often absent because [[WouldntHitAGirl hitting a girl]] just isn't [[DoubleStandard considered]] [[DudeNotFunny funny]]. (In the case of harmless AmusingInjuries, this [[SlapstickKnowsNoGender isn't always the case]].)
This trope can also be {{justified|Trope}} by its [[TruthInTelevision accuracy]] in certain contexts. It is fairly realistic for [[MenAreTheExpendableGender armies]], police forces, adventuring parties, and similar groups to be predominantly male, especially if set in a non-PoliticallyCorrectHistory.
As noted in the examples below, this trope is nearly universal in all forms of media. Most writers try to balance this out with PositiveDiscrimination, [[GirlsNeedRoleModels making the girl]] more intelligent and [[WomenAreWiser level-headed than everyone else]], but it still doesn't change the simple fact that there's only one of her. Usually, all it does is turn her into a MarySue for [[TheScrappy everyone to loathe]].
Writers who recognize the problem after a season or two may expand the cast with {{Affirmative Action Girl}}s. This is usually more effective.
Interestingly, this can extend to {{Mooks}} and the MonsterOfTheWeek with MonogenderMonsters, to avoid the UnfortunateImplications of violence against women.
ActionGirl[=s=] and other strong, usually supporting female characters who are the only girl or are only one of a few girls in the group are sometimes called "minority feisty" or "token feisty." They may even have some commentary about sexism or male domination, but the majority of the characters are male.
The name of this trope was first coined by [[http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/07/magazine/hers-the-smurfette-principle.html an article in the New York Times printed April 7, 1991, called "The Smurfette Principle"]].
