Offensive trope title: Where Da White Women At

Trope title is in offensively stereotyped language. Also, it's sexist to put the emphasis on the man's desire for the woman.

"I think it's offensive" isn't a legitimate reason to rename. Is it unclear, unused, or misused? Then it might be worth renaming.

[EDIT] Wait, what?

edited 20th Jan '12 8:43:24 PM by Stratadrake

It's pretty specific: genders, ethnicities, and how it's played?

edited 20th Jan '12 8:02:42 PM by rodneyAnonymous

^^ Where did you find that?

What's with this title, anyway? I assume it's mocking AAVE?

Edit: ninja'd.

edited 20th Jan '12 8:01:54 PM by unhappyyak

If nothing else, it should be renamed because the title in no way suggests this is what the trope is about.

I sort of thought the "offensive" trope name was the point. The trope name perfectly sums up what feeling the trope is trying to convey.

I fixed the above link it was not suppose to have the question mark there (hence the whole 0,0 wicks thing.)

I am kinda iffy about the name.

I think it may be supposed to be a commentary on a racist Double Standard, but if so it's written in such a tentative, ambivalent manner that the result is itself racist, or at least problematic.

Example?

@Bobby: Apparently, here. Part typo, part glitch.

edited 20th Jan '12 8:44:51 PM by Stratadrake

^^ The oversimplification of the issues surrounding slavery and master/slave sexual relationships, or to explain their relevance (and they are relevant), failure to properly condemn racism.

Hm... but it's an offensive trope, and there's all these layers about race, beauty standards, etc.. But on the other hand, it's a comedy trope.

What oversimplification? It's pretty accurate.

And why should the trope need to "properly condemn racism"? It's not a soapbox.

Using a trope definition to condemn something (even racism) is basically how examples start devolving into Natter and excessive negativity.

edited 20th Jan '12 9:53:03 PM by KingZeal

I think for some tropes like this, we stick a paragraph in the description basically going "Yes, we know this is a serious issue, but this trope is still to note examples, not get on soapboxes".

We renamed Me Love You Long Time to Asian Gal with White Guy because of this reason.

I'm usually the first one to go Unfortunate Implications, but while I always disliked this title, it has a clear Trope Namer...as did Me Love You Long Time. In fact, not too long ago, I made the redirect White Gal With Black Guy. So I guess if a consensus is made to change, we could just switch it out.

edited 20th Jan '12 10:15:00 PM by MegaJ

It completely glosses over the fundamentally unequal nature of the relationships between slaves and slaveowners, and the related issues (rape, abuse, coercion), making them sound almost innocuous. It's also wrong, since the exact nature of society's attitudes towards relationships between slaves and slaveowners changed over time (can't remember exactly how since I don't have the book in front of me, but it's explored in bell hooks' Ain't I A Woman?).

And I'm not saying that the article should hit you over the head with "RACISM IS BAD", but it ought to at least reference the harm these stereotypes can perpetuate. The problem with them is not that they are merely "a bit controversial"; that's downplaying racism.

I would like the title White Gal With Black Guy if not for the fact that I think that title implies any relationships between those colour-gender combinations. The current title conveys that there's something offensive about it.

I agree with this. The title is offensive, because the subject matter is. (No, not any old relationship between a black guy and a white girl, but ones that tap into master/slave and "animalistic" stereotypes.)

And I've always thought the description does an OK job of pointing out the Unfortunate Implications. Just my opinion, though.

The name sounds too much like dialogue. It also suffers from Fan Myopia.

My reaction was bit stronger than it might have been because I had just removed it from an article where it was (mis)cited for a relationship that happened to be between a white woman and a black man, and to find such wording used there was incredibly offensive. A more careful reading of the description shows the trope's supposed to only be cited for cases of the relationship being controversial or the skin tone of the participants being stated as an attractant.

However, it does imply that the black man in the scenario is actually using this phrase, which is not the case in virtually all of them. And it does suffer from Fan Myopia, as Catbert said, because it's referencing "Blazing Saddles" (whatever that is).

Contrary to what Animeg3282 said, it is not a comedy trope (at least, there is no indication in the description or the index that it is). It's also not about a Double Standard judging by the description.

And, as I said, it emphasizes the man's attraction to the woman. When the description itself says it's supposed to be about either/both.

What? What do you mean, "whatever Blazing Saddles is"? What? It's a Mel Brooks movie.

In any case, no, quoting a movie, provided the meaning is clear without context, is not Fan Myopia. Luke, I Am Your Father is a different example. As far as being central to black men dating white women—this is probably because it's more often found that way. We have tropes like that—Barrier Maiden, for instance, is usually female, but there are definitely male examples.

That said, I'm not terribly fond of the trope title. This seems like it would be the name for a trope where black men are lusting after innocent and angelic white women, as might have been used in the past.

"Glosses over"? Don't the words "slaves and slaveowners" pretty much demonstrate how unequal it was by default? It's not like we're talking about BDSM or Property of Love here. We're talking about an actual period of time in which people were property. How much more do we need to preach about it?

The stereotypes are also used as Fetish Fuel by very healthy and innocuous people in Real Life, though. The stereotypes cause harm, yes, but so does ANY gender trope, class trope or race trope. I just don't think it's our job to tell tropers how they're supposed to feel about a trope.

But otherwise, it seems I'm in the minority (pun NOT intended) about the name. Which is a shame, because I really did think it was self-indicative.

Asian Gal with White Guy has generally experienced trope decay since that move and I'm still convinced it was the wrong one. Some tropes are inherently offensive. Trying to make their names sound more PC ends up with people just shoehorning in examples that don't have the subtext we're troping.