The sarcasm! It burns! : Beast And Beauty

Someone brought it up over in Yack Fest, the description of this trope sounds a bit too sarcastic and bitter. Like so:

Is all that really necessary?

edited 29th Jun '11 4:11:30 PM by joeyjojojuniorshabadoo

The first quote there is sort of valid, if a bit snarky, but the second quote is just not needed and probably should be removed. The first one could also do with some rewording to make it less harsh.

edited 29th Jun '11 4:23:40 PM by MangaManiac

To be honest, my reaction to those sentences is analogous to Kick The Son Of A Bitch - it's not good wiki policy, but that's one Double Standard I'm always happy to see torn into. Nevertheless, it's still not good wiki policy. I think the second one can be cut completely and the first one, while it should stay, can be cleaned up some.

edited 29th Jun '11 4:53:21 PM by DonZabu

I can certainly see the first quote as correct if untactful. But yes, the second quote is going too far and most of the inferences are YMMV.

Rewrite the second and keep the first.

edited 29th Jun '11 7:13:32 PM by revolution11

The first quote is not correct. Show me one Work that states (or even implies) that a woman is irredeemable solely because she isn't attractive?

edited 29th Jun '11 7:30:59 PM by Vox

My mistake. Should have read better. Ok, rewrite both. You could delete them but then the description looks sparse.

I don't mind either quote (sarcasm doesn't bother me much). But I can see why many would find them caustic.

edited 29th Jun '11 7:54:40 PM by revolution11

The thing is that those implications are present in many (although not all) works that use Beast and Beauty and that should be alluded to. But the snarkiness probably does need to be toned down.

But the woman is always attractive. That's where the Double Standard comes from.

Probably needs it's own trope "Women Are Always More Beautiful" or something.

edited 30th Jun '11 2:16:59 AM by EternalSeptember

The double standard referred to in the first quote is too deep-set to actually be spelled out in media. Media simply doesn't have unattractive women in other than a set of limited roles such as Librarian Crone or Abhorrent Admirer. If they do, they were Beautiful All Along, Cleans Up Nicely, or Hollywood Homely to begin with.

To those of you assuming it's "true" that the message of these works is that ugly women "aren't worthy of any form of kindness," did it ever occur to you that this is simply a matter of making the show more pleasant for male viewers to look at, simply because they make up the bulk of paying customers and would rather see pretty girls on the screen than ugly ones?

So yeah, enough of this presumptuous crap. The Amazing Atheist is male, yet he gets ridiculed for being ugly all the time; just look how many of his arguments are refuted with "oh yeah, well why should I listen to a neckbeard fatass like you?"

Are you really so sure of yourselves about this kind of thing that you think a trope article ought to back it up?

edited 30th Jun '11 4:38:16 AM by neoYTPism

That is a really stupid argument. If it's just assumed that women don't watch anything and so we don't need fanservice or female characters that aren't there to be hot, then we'll never get anywhere.

"That is a really stupid argument. If it's just assumed that women don't watch anything and so we don't need fanservice or female characters that aren't there to be hot, then we'll never get anywhere." - emeriin

What do you mean, "get anywhere?" Companies care about profit, not about making a difference in society. When profit and making a difference conflict, the companies that choose the former get a competitive edge over companies choosing the latter.

Besides, there are several layers of ambiguity to your point:

• Assuming female viewers are as numerous as male viewers.
• Expecting female viewers to be just as into their entertainment (on average) as male viewers.
• Expecting female viewers to be just as lured in by female-oriented fanservice as guys are by male-oriented fanservice.

And last but not least, you seem to suggest that women want unattractive female characters in their entertainment. What do you base this on? As a guy, I don't care very much one way or another what the guys in it look like... well, if I had to guess, I'd say I slightly prefer having male characters, if they're the good guys, be portrayed as "cute" but not hot, as that happens to be a bit like my own appearance. Then again, what I prefer may very well depend on what mood I'm in. I identify more with Quasimodo than with most "cute" male characters I can think of. At the end of the day it doesn't make much difference to me.

EDIT: One more thing. Even if you assume that argument I mentioned is illegitimate, that is STILL no excuse to strawman this double standard. That is the most important point of all, by far. You may not agree with it, but what's most important is that you avoid being presumptuous, or dishonest, or whatever it is that leads you to frame such double standards that way...

edited 30th Jun '11 5:11:10 AM by neoYTPism

I mean if the only females are there to be Ms. Fanservice then that alienates people who actually want decent women characters. Why do you think the new My Little Pony is so popular?

But this is getting off-topic.

At the very least it's a strong case of Unfortunate Implications. Moving on please?

"I mean if the only females are there to be Ms. Fanservice then that alienates people who actually want decent women characters." - emeriin

You say this as if a Ms. Fanservice couldn't be a decent character, or as if being there for fanservice means one couldn't serve any other functions.

As for MLP, most of the female characters are Moe, which is pretty much the more innocent counterpart to fanservice, and then there's how Spike, probably the most significant male character, gets a lot of attention from the girls, which again, to male viewers, can feel like a more innocent equivalent of fanservice.

Its writing doesn't REVOLVE around male viewers, sure, but there's evidently stuff in there that IS designed to appeal to them, and that didn't alienate female viewers; so, your mention of that show seems to counteract what you're implying.

"But this is getting off-topic." - emeriin

Not necessarily. I don't completely rule out opinionated-seeming trope descriptions, but I think if we are going to use how sure we are of something being "true" to justify it being in the trope description, then this assumption needs to be discussed. Right now it simply strikes me as being the product of presumptuousness.

<Mod Hat ON>

A trope page isn't the place for socio-political opinion pieces. If you feel that you simply must explain what all the ramifications of the trope in society are, or what the psychological implications, or what-the hell-ever, write an piece on the Analysis page. or make a thread about it in Trope Talk or Yack Fest or OTC.

The trope page should be about the trope itself: what it looks like and when it's used.

So yes, this is off-topic

<Mod Hat OFF>

edited 30th Jun '11 6:50:48 AM by Madrugada

Personally, I'd say the whole description should be purged and rewritten.

If it does get rewritten, I'd suggest changing it to something a bit less presumptuous. Use the "perhaps X, perhaps Y, perhaps something else" formula used by Badass Adorable's approach to character motives.

I do think it's certainly true that if there's a pair of characters and one is ugly and the other is attractive, 90% of the time it will be an ugly guy and an attractive woman.

Those two lines are pretty over-the-top though. RE the idea of an "abusive boyfriends are ok" subtext mentioned, I don't know. It's true of some Beast and Beauty couples but not others.

edited 30th Jun '11 9:48:15 AM by Jordan

Even if it's that percentage, that doesn't mean the reasons the article claims are correct.

For the first quote, how about changing it to:

"Oddly enough, the male is most often the beast and the women the beauty."

Simple, direct, and to the point.

Why is that odd? "The man is usually the Beast; the woman the Beauty."

"With the occasional exception".

I think Traditionally is the word we're looking for here. I don't like Rare Female Example as a link though because gender flipping isn't the only possibility.

Traditionally, the man is the beast, and the woman is the beauty. Though exceptions have been known to happen.

edited 30th Jun '11 2:55:20 PM by shimaspawn