Just take a look at this mess. : Real Women Never Wear Dresses get usage counts

Total posts: [79]
1
2 3 4
First off, the description is a wall of text, and a wall of fext that has clearly been written by different people. We have the snarky comments about double standards, the presentation of feminist conflicts and a comment about Straw Feminists, a presentation of ancient gender views, an short summary halfway up the article and no less than two pleas for caution with adding examples.

Yes, the examples. There's a lot of them, in fact there are so many that sub pages are created. And I could safely say that more then 90% of them are Complaining about People Not Liking the Show. You'll have to look very hard for anyt examples that isn't about the audience. Needless to say, most of them violates the words of caution given in the description.

What to do? I'd suggest cutting the examples, or even cutting the trope entirely, but maybe there's another option.

Welcome, traveller, welcome to Omsk
Much as this trope presses my Berserk Button, I think it probably reflects an existing trend and should stay. But it needs a severe clean-up. For example, the entire paragraph about how ancient Greeks wore tunics and not trousers needs to go.

Also, using Straw Feminist to refer to real people. Not cool.

I'd suggest: cut all the Word Cruft and at least attempt some neutrality. (On the other hand, if we decide to cut the whole thing, I won't be shedding any tears.)
It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird
3 nrjxll4th Nov 2011 02:42:07 AM , Relationship Status: Not war
[up]Just for the record, it's been repeatedly noted that Straw Feminist is about a character type, not necessarily a "strawman" (strawwoman?) as such, and people fitting that character type can exist in real life.

Unless it was finally repaired, but somehow I don't see that as having happened.
Actually, it was. Real life and troper tales is gone, and the description is strictly about strawmen.

In any case if we keep this I suggest getting rid of all the examples. As for the description, I'm a bit stumped. There are already some attempts at getting neutral, but how do you make a trope that's mostly complaining about audience reactions neutral?

edit: for my horrible spelling.

edited 4th Nov '11 9:35:35 AM by Mimimurlough

5 Michael4th Nov 2011 07:04:14 AM , Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
So that's what this does
Quite a few entries seem to relate to one single blogger who complains about this stuff. Also, the Honor Harrington entry is about fashion.
Balance - the original sixth sense.
6 Rebochan4th Nov 2011 08:20:56 AM from Soaking up Rays
I've got Sunshine!
The examples need to go.

I say that knowing full well the trope is real, that I've contributed a lot to the page in the past, but also knowing that it's a giant pulsating cancer that has been very much abused.
http://www.f-d-r.com/blog/ - Filthy Digital Ramblings, musings on media.
Welcome, traveller, welcome to Omsk
Supporting an example sectionectomy.
It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird
Great. So how do we remove whole sub pages?
In universe examples could be kept, maybe?
No entirely convinced on that one. Even the in universe examples seem to have a vindictive ring to them, like the one for Family Guy. But maybe
I think this can do with examples, just not the current ones. They're all very negative, as has been noted. Once we rewrite the description, maybe we should cut all the examples, but let people add back more neutral ones. I know I've seen neutral wicks strewn around, though the only one I can think of right now is Brandon Sanderson 's, and that's an aversion so it might not be what we're looking for.
I mentioned this in another thread where it came up, but here's what I suggest:

1. Wipe all current examples.

2. Rewrite page to emphasize that it is not an audience response trope. Trope should be reserved for cases where a character is derided by another character in-universe for having traditionally feminine traits, or where the work itself clearly portrays femininity as a sign of weakness or inferiority.

3. Make a sister trope called Real Women Always Wear Dresses for the opposite case, where female characters who aren't feminine enough are derided by other characters or portrayed as bitchy, repulsive or psychologically unhealthy.

edited 4th Nov '11 1:06:10 PM by dangerwaffle

13 Rebochan4th Nov 2011 02:41:23 PM from Soaking up Rays
I've got Sunshine!
In-universe would be fine. A long long time ago, there WERE in-universe examples that got crowded off for fandom wars. But draw a hard line for ONLY examples where the work itself invokes the trope.

The intro could mention the fandom side of things since that has been this trope in the past. But honestly, TV Tropes isn't a place for complaints about the fandom and I've been increasingly won over to the side that suggests fandom tropes don't deserve examples at all due to the excessive drama they bring.
http://www.f-d-r.com/blog/ - Filthy Digital Ramblings, musings on media.
Wait, why will the examples be cut, again? sad
Alt account of Angeldog 2437.
15 nrjxll4th Nov 2011 02:48:39 PM , Relationship Status: Not war
[up]
due to the excessive drama they bring.
[up]Really? surprised I never noticed.
Alt account of Angeldog 2437.
17 Deboss4th Nov 2011 02:54:09 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
Fandom rage taking over. If you're willing to wade through the fan hate to find good objective and in work examples and make sure they're not disguised hatred or ranting, you can. We can even build a basic list. I recommend doing so on Real Women Never Wear Dresses In Work Examples. Fandom examples should be cut though.
Definitely
Avatar may be subject to change without notice.
What about crosswicked examples?
"I even like the idea of a nice man who sees me when I'm sleeping and knows when I'm awake. And that man is Barack Obama." - Bill Maher
What does crosswicked mean?
Anyway, starting the example cleanup
22 Serocco6th Nov 2011 05:46:06 PM from Miami, Florida , Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
Actually, Retsu Unohana from Bleach works as a great aversion; she's liked because of her feminine traits.
Net Neutrality is love, Net Neutrality is life.
23 Deboss6th Nov 2011 07:01:27 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
Crosswiked means that the wiks are present on both the trope page and the work pages. You'll need to check all the examples on the related page for Real Women Never Wear Dresses to see if they're junk as well.
Avatar may be subject to change without notice.
[up][up][up][up] Crosswicked, as far as I know, refers to wherever a particular example was put other than a trope's page, usually to make the connection * two-way rather than one-way.

For example, if someone adds a Mulan entry to the RWNWD page, either that same user or someone else might also add that same entry to the Mulan page; if someone adds a comparison to trope X to the RWNWD page, either that same user or someone else might also add a corresponding comparison to RWNWD on the page for trope X.

edited 6th Nov '11 10:43:22 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"I even like the idea of a nice man who sees me when I'm sleeping and knows when I'm awake. And that man is Barack Obama." - Bill Maher
25 Deboss6th Nov 2011 09:26:17 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
It's essential to build a network between tropes, related tropes, and works that use them so people can navigate the pages on a Wiki Walk. If a page only has wiks going one way, it's not likely to get noticed (or have works that use it noticed).

You'll also see some people use wik or wick, they mean the same thing, I just prefer the first spelling since you'll find wiks in a wiki and wicks in a candle.

Page Action: Real Women Never Wear Dresses
28th Nov '11 1:06:22 PM
What would be the best way to fix the page?

Total posts: 79
1
2 3 4