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

But even the stuff that doesn't include natter is bad. What we're overlooking here is a serious case of individual vs. structure, and for that matter character vs. creator, and just about every Audience Reaction example is more a less a misunderstanding of this. The typical example is "character X is an Action Girl who kicks ass, but because she does [X traditionally feminine thing] the fangirls/angry feminists think she's a faliure". Now, I've actually seen some of these criticisms and in 90% of the cases it's "Just once I would like to see a woman who doesn't do [X traditionally feminine thing]- I had hopes for it in this work but was disappointed". Bit of a difference, eh? You may think whatever you want about molding art to one's agenda or whatever, but it seems cruel to have multiple subpages bashing people for having that wish. If you don't believe me, look at the examples and see how many of them could refer to tropes like Feminine Women Can Cook, Man Versus Career, Career Versus Family (or if it's the other way around), Good Girls Avoid Abortion, Cookie Cutter Cuties, etc. You'll notice that these are the tropes that tend to be critcised with the line of "For once I'd like to see..."

edited 24th Nov '11 5:27:09 PM by Mimimurlough

There's a difference between wanting to see more of [x] and filling discussions of a work lacking [x] with complaints about there not being enough of [x] in it. Even if one wants to voice such wishes, I'm not sure if discussions of said works are the right place for that.

More importantly, there's a difference between either of those and the kind of knee-jerk bashing of anything that happens not to have enough of [x] for one's liking, as is also common in these contexts. This article comes to mind; Catwoman is arguably one of the toughest characters in the Batman series, yet that's still not good enough for the author, who seems to see Catwoman's portrayed sexual behaviour as not in line with mainstream feminist thought.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Let me be very clear. Nothing is exepmt from feminist critique, just as nothing is exempt from critique when it comes to racism or homophobia. You could dig up critique of everything, no matter how awesome you think it is. But that critiqe has a very clear purpose of stopping complacency, keep pushing the envelope and challenging both feminists and the general public.

This page? Straight up complaining, and I'm not saying it because of ideology either. Whatever you think of the purpose, most of the fan examples are taking points out of context and twisting words. Even your own post isn't actually arguing how it fits in other than stating that it's cat woman and that she's objectively badass, I guess? The writer in this case takes up an article arguing the case, and if I'm not mistaken there is the section of praise before the criticism. That mens that you can't pretend it's a crazy feminist ranting about superficial stuff, because that is straight up misrepresentation! One of many, in fact.

But I'm not here to argue about feminism or individual examples. This trope is a big pile of fanwarring and we can't just ignore that

Again, that still leaves the question as to where it belongs. Racism and homophobia that was as ambiguous as what the author insisted was objectively there would also need a note acknowledging said ambiguity as far as I'm concerned.

You say this as if it were deliberate on the part of many interpreting it, when what I find is often times it is simply that the points in such cases were communicated poorly to begin with.

She was only granting the toughness part to set her up as an example of an attempt at feminism; even though we are not really sure what the intentions were or to what extent; only to go on to make her out to be completely at odds with feminism on the sole basis of how her sexual behaviour is portrayed. (Not to mention tying her to the concept of the femme fatale while making no argument against the femme fatale concept itself.)

I wasn't suggesting keeping it in its current form, just criticizing your reasoning in particular.

edited 26th Nov '11 2:04:30 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

So basicelly you disagree and are unhappy about putting the character into a trope. See, this is what I mean - this supposed trope in its own right isn't just an audience reaction, it's the audience reacting to an audience reaction and any opinion vioced is eligible for the chopping block no matter how it's argued. BUT, I'm getting sidetracked. What do you want to do?

I want to keep in-universe examples only because I feel what the author thinks about their work is far more important for this wiki than what the audience thinks even if the latter can be interesting.

As much I want to keep the trope as its current form, I want an Example Sectionectomy to the article because it got real messy as of late.

A bit of a divergence I see. Does anyone know how to make a crowner?

Go to tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/CrownerType/PageName and click 'yes'(make sure CrownerType is one of SingleAction, PageAction or AlternateTitles). Make a post with a link to the crowner and then just holler at a mod to hook it.

I've gone ahead and created a page action crowner here.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

Thanks, great job

edit: oh, and no matter what we do, we shoud definitely rewrite the description. It's contradictory, it's confusing and it's far too long

edited 28th Nov '11 1:49:17 PM by Mimimurlough

A little off-topic, but how can make a sandbox for the reworked article?

Thanks.

edited 1st Dec '11 4:43:19 PM by StarAngel125

Just start a page in the Sandbox/ namespace. Here's a free wick.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

The current form of the article just turns it into an audience reaction article. It could be a real trope with a few changes. I've put up a Sandbox.Real Women Never Wear Dresses that scrapes all that stuff off of it.

edited 1st Dec '11 9:40:46 PM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

What's the difference here? It looks exactly like the first article, albeit a bit shorter

played a bit in the sandbox. For future reference, I propose that we ban references to feminism as an ideology as well as fandoms. Looking at examples in the old page, these are definitely the most common "causes" for complaint, and undervaluing feminine traits isn't dependent on ideology anyway.

eta: wait wasn't this supposed to be in universe?

edited 2nd Dec '11 6:16:12 AM by Mimimurlough

Well yes, it does.

As soon as it unlocks, I'll take out the added material about what causes the trope. Theories about causes are good for the Analysis page. All we want to do in the Main page is state the trope clearly. Hopefully with some humor.

I'm having a little trouble finding the funny for this one without going caustic and shrill. It must be in there, though. The funny is always in there somewhere.

edited 2nd Dec '11 6:49:51 AM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

Maybe something about "so on one side we have the female character tropes that lands the characters in sterotypes, on the other we have the writers who end up punishing femine traits. What a double bind, ha ha"

... it's a hard one, especially since it's so much contestation. Something about frying pans?

bump

I'll swap in the un-audience-reaction text. A review of the examples should button this up.

edited 4th Dec '11 9:46:11 AM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

How come you changed the name to Real Women Don't Wear Dresses?

in the history section of the sandbox you will find the examples salvaged from the original page. I'll go over them and see if there are any that aren't in- universe

^^Sounds less like a complaint.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

examples section done. Should i replace it with the old one?

The examples are in a namespace. The folders serve no purpose.

edited 4th Dec '11 11:15:32 AM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty