Needs Help: Never A Self Made Woman

Inspired by a discussion on the Female Fighter, Male Handler YKTTW.

Initially there was an opinion that the trope's name is too broad (the trope is about family or relationship connections, the name is about any type of non-self-made women). But after checking the wicks, it's surprisingly rarely misused in this aspect.

However, I believe there are other problems with this trope. First of all, I think there should be a clear limit on where this trope applies to. As of now, it's often used to indicate any female character who happens to have a family or relationship connection in her field. But note that this trope is supposed to be a Double Standard trope. If most women in a work ^note (even if "most women" are a single The Chick) have these connections while men don't, it's Double Standard. If some women in the work have connections, some don't, and some men have such connections, is that really Double Standard?

Then we have roughly a third of the examples that are listed as "aversions" and "inversions". Which are just examples of writers, you know, not indulging in Double Standard. I'd argue that this trope's example list should be for straight uses and subversions only.

There's also some misuse in the wicks, where tropers seem to use it to point out any real or perceived Double Standard related to a female character, but unrelated to this trope.

And finally, there's the part that confuses me the most. Reading the description, it seems this trope is actually two completely different tropes under one name. Maybe I'm wrong, but here's what I see:

• Alice, Bob, Claire and Dick appear in a work. Bob and Dick are self-made men, while Alice and Claire have family or relationship connections in the field.
• Alice appears in a work. She is a self-made woman. But after she falls in love with Bob, she gets Demoted to Extra and isn't as prominent, mostly playing the role of "Bob's gf/wife".

Suggestion: Split the two tropes, clean up the misuse.

I think Demoted To Love Interest would probably be the best name for the second trope. You're right that it's distinct from this.

Just noting, the current name was changed from Female Success is Family due to massive misuse of the trope as "success for women is defined by them having a family."

Great! I like that name suggestion.

I see. That's quite a different trope as well. Do we have it, btw?

It's nowhere near common enough to merit "aversions"; that means that the trope is noticeable in its absence, because it does usually appear in that type or genre of work. So those can be cleaned out without discussion (just leave an edit reason linking to the Aversion page and stating that it's not so universal-used as to merit "aversions" in the examples.)

Similarly, an inversion pretty much requires a setting where female characters are expected to be self-made and male characters aren't, not just a guy who isn't.

And this: "a woman can only be prominent if a related man paved a way for her. " is one of the best, clearest statements of the definition I've ever encountered.

edited 24th Apr '15 2:09:04 PM by Madrugada

Thaks for the advice! So... is everyone okay with me cleaning up aversions and inversions?

Likewise, is everyone okay with me starting a YKTTW for Demoted To Love Interest?

As for the last paragraph, aw shucks :) Thanks! Btw, the trope's current Laconic is very flawed:

• Alice appears in a work. She is a self-made woman. But after she falls in love with Bob, she gets Demoted to Extra and isn't as prominent, mostly playing the role of "Bob's gf/wife".

• Alice, Bob, Claire and Dick appear in a work. Bob and Dick are self-made men, while Alice and Claire have family or relationship connections in the field.

• Alice, Bob, Claire and Dick appear in a work. Bob and Dick are self-made men, and Alice is a self-made woman, but Claire has male family or relationship connections in the field.

When it comes to imitating a parent, that's overlap with some inheritance trope that I'm not familiar with.

Please, go ahead and start the YKTTW. Demoted To Love Interest I think is 95% female, but can happen to men on female centred works so write it in such a way that doesn't exclude men.

I still think it's a setting trope. In the example you provided, the Double Standard stems from the fact that all men are self-made, while not all women are self-made. It's still about the imbalance.

I think we need to discuss whether situations like you described apply (now I'm starting to think that maybe they do). But in any case, there needs to be a noticeable imbalance, or there'd be no Double Standard. Without the Double Standard, it just turns into a list of all female characters who ever happened to have a male relative or love interest in their field (while for some reason not having similar lists for the many examples of female characters having female relatives in the field, or male characters having male or female relatives in the field).

All right! I created the YKTTW: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=yisjo1klro168utoli0ngh04

Also, found a related trope which may not actually be a trope: Dungeonmaster's Girlfriend.

edited 26th Apr '15 11:30:54 AM by Rjinswand

To me, the difference between the two (setting and character) is when the reader doesn't notice the trend, is it saying something about the culture or the individual people?

It seems to be a characterization trope; Alice is only in this business because [related male]. It says, on the face of characterization, that if [related male] wasn't in that field, then neither would Alice.

The only inversion of any note would be a scene like the end of Big Hero 6: superhero discovers their father was already a superhero, and they are proud of their child for following in the family business.

On an individual basis, it's not a trope. It's just a woman getting help from a man. That's not in any way different from a woman getting help from another woman, or a man getting help from anyone. It sort of feels like combing through a work with dozens of women, and pointing out that this woman is in the kitchen, and therefore it's sexist, despite the rest of the kitchen dwellers being either male or not part of the story.

There is no tendency if it only applies to a single character. There can't be a Double Standard with only a single character. It's only a trope if it's a pattern.

I also claimed Tropes in Aggregate. It isn't notable in a single work, but the persistence is notable.

edited 27th Apr '15 5:21:23 AM by crazysamaritan

My point is that if there are cases of non-conforming examples within the same work, it speaks against it being an example, even in aggregate. All of those non-conforming examples would detract from the pattern, and it doesn't take long until someone has to fall into the trope if you write unique characters, which makes it a coincidence rather than a pattern.

Reading the examples on the page, this page is an absolute mess. So many of the examples are 'oh my *Insert relative here* got me this spot* or girl inherited the job. None of them are gender exclusive.

Edit: Then there are

• the 'Banged My Way To The Top' types which should be another trope.
• 'My daddy is famous' and that is all there is to it.
• 'Family shame' because of something a parent did.
• girls who push themselves to prove something to their father.

What the heck is this trope? I see a billion specific tropes in the examples but nothing overall trope worthy and nothing really gender specific.

edited 27th Apr '15 6:09:08 AM by Memers

If it's a characterization trope, how is Alice's character different from all female characters with [related females], or male characters with [related males], or male characters with [related females]? I assure you, there are lots of those, too, I've personally cleaned up a lot of those from this page. Why do we focus on f[m] combinations while ignoring the f[f], m[m] and m[f]? It's like we see a female character with [related male] in the field, and automatically assume there's Double Standard — while the work in question could also provide examples of f[f], m[m] and m[f] combinations, and lots of self-made women.

This is a Double Standard trope. And Double Standard works if there's a context of gender imbalance: when we see that women are less likely to be self-made than men in the work's setting. Or if there's only one woman among men, The Chick, and she's non-self-made, while the men are mostly self-made.

I think there's one more situation when this trope's in action: when a female character is initially created as self-made, but then is retconned to be non-self-made.

I agree with this.

As for combing through works, yeah, this trope's example list provides lots of examples like the following:

It's (supposed to be) an Aggregate Trope about works where most notable men are self-made, but most notable women are introduced as wives/girlfriends/daughters/sisters of notable men. However, yes, the example list is a bit of a mess (and the description, too).

Banging My Way To The Top is a different trope, that's a good suggestion. Do we have that one?

edited 27th Apr '15 6:52:07 AM by Rjinswand

here is the thing though, 99% of the examples are not that at all.

Really I don't see a trope in that at all at least with the familial relationships especially parental to kid relations, that is in no way gender exclusive or even aggregate as sons have that just as bad as daughters. IR 'Meet my son X', Worf son of Mogh etc. kids always live in the shadow of their parents

The legit examples of that would pretty much fall under Trophy Wife or possibly Yamato Nadeshiko.

edited 27th Apr '15 6:36:43 AM by Memers

The examples, as I said, are a huge mess.

But I feel this is a thing, especially in older works. Mostly works where there are several men and 1-2 women. These 1-2 women are often someone's sister or daughter or wife.

E.g. How To Steal A Million. 3 main male characters, 1 main female character. The 1 female main character is the daughter of one of the male leads. Or The Incredible Hulk: Bruce Banner, Thunderbolt Ross and Rick Jones aren't introduced in relation to anyone, while Betsy Ross is Thunderbolt's daughter.

edited 27th Apr '15 6:40:48 AM by Rjinswand

Another thing that bugs me is that the trope seems to write a message that women can't make something out of themselves without the aid of men. However, within the umbrella the trope defines itself under, a woman breaking out from a traditional passive role into an active one would still count, because it would be impossible to break out from that role if her parental figure would be female. Then it would just be passing the crown. And suddenly you have two very different portrayals of what on the surface can be described as the same thing.

Didn't notice a couple comments, sorry.

If everyone in a work (women and men) is self-made, but one woman has a male connection, it's not Double Standard. Because since it's an aggregate trope, we need to look at the whole pattern. If most prominent women are introduced through their relation to men, the pattern is there. If it's just one specific woman who happens to have a male connection, there's no pattern.

I feel it's erroneous to automatically treat every instance of a woman having a male connection as an instance of Double Standard. It would be Double Standard if there'd be no (or very very few) instances of f[f], m[m] and m[f] in media. But there are many of those.

That's because it's not a characterization trope, it's an aggregate trope.

edited 27th Apr '15 7:02:00 AM by Rjinswand

But it means there are different things lumped into the same collection. Which also adds up with what Memers said about there being a lot of different things that overall creates more confusion over what it's supposed to be than anything else.

I still don't quite see that as trope really and even if your definition is worthy the title ruins that completely and the amount of misuse on the page is close to 100% if we use that definition. Chopping this and YKTTW that properly with a name that wouldn't invite misuse would be best.

I could see a YKTTW of a trope where that is all she is and never moves away from that role or grows into a character herself she is just the wife or the daughter and probably not even named. Sure that is kinda a thing in old works, I can think of plenty of examples of that IE Romance Of The Three Kingdoms.

edited 27th Apr '15 7:31:39 AM by Memers

Then let's discuss what meanings can be split off of this trope. We've already YKTTW'd Demoted To Love Interest, which was initially inexplicably lumped into it. We can YKTTW more splits if needed.

I kind of agree with you on the title. One major thing: the title doesn't mention that the relative/lover is male at all. One can be "not a self-made woman" and owe everything to one's mother, for example.

As for the percentage of misuse, I guess I need to browse through the page examples and the wicks to see how widespread the misuse is.

You keep saying it is an aggregate trope but the examples you listed in 17 have just 1 character.

That's how an Aggregate Trope works. It compares several works with a similar dynamic. E.g. Black Guy Dies First.

In works I mentioned, all notable men aren't introduced via their connections to other characters, they're "self-made" — while the woman is introduced as another character's daughter. That's where the Double Standard is.

I kinda disagree in this case. It would truly only be that is if all the girls (plural) in the work were that, one character in a work is just not enough IMO. Edit: Also you constantly speak that it's a bad thing but having a relation could easily be a good thing.

Also that is not what 'self made' means, 'self made' means they rose to power under their own volition vs a 'not self made' person who leeched off the success of someone else.

Dr Ross in The Incredible Hulk is just that a full on Doctor and one of the lead scientists who created the Hulk, just cause she has a relation in the plot, who is a lesser character than she is, does not make her 'not self made' using either description.

edited 27th Apr '15 8:56:07 AM by Memers