What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/AllAbusersAreMale

 

AnoSa
topic
10:52:19 PM Jan 1st 2014
edited by 71.76.139.66
We might want to try to get more aversions on here—for example, is there only one PSA that averts this trope?
phasmid
topic
11:55:24 AM Apr 16th 2012
edited by phasmid
I understand removing Real Life examples from sex and rape tropes, but it seems to me the recent cuts here were indiscriminate. For example with the nature of this trope I think it's important to point out if it's actually defined in a broad sense as Truth in Television, and that's more reference media than it is Real Life.

  • In the New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition, "rape" is still defined as "the crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them".
    • Incidentally, the legal definition of rape in many jurisdictions is still "unlawful carnal knowledge of a female without her consent" Needless to say, this male troper, who was raped and is now a criminal justice major has to force himself to unclench his jaw every time he encounters a chapter on "Sexual Assault" in class. Apparently, it wasn't rape after all...
  • Recently the United States Justice Department has broadened the definition of rape to include a variety of forms of nonconsensual penetration of the anus, vagina or mouth against either sex.

(last example changed slightly to be more factual)

Secondly, we have these examples which were cut but have nothing to do with either sex or rape:

  • Held as true in the Middle Ages, at least legally. Whilst husbands were permitted to apply 'reasonable corrective force' to their wives (and children, and servants, and domestic animals), they could still be punished for domestic violence. However, any man who was so "weak" as to "allow" himself to be beaten by his wife was seen as deserving anything he got, and provided she didn't actually kill him she could expect no punishment.
    • It could be argued that there exists a greater degree of under-reporting of female-on-male DV than male-on-female in the modern day for more or less the same reasons: as strength and dominance are much more prized in men than in women and women are expected to be more vulnerable, it's less shameful for women to admit to being beaten. The very fact that a serious depiction of female-on-male DV in media is rare may also lead male DV victims to believe that there is something "wrong" with them, and thus not report it.
MercuryInRetrograde
topic
11:25:51 AM Nov 2nd 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
Fairlyvexed. Truth is, we don't know how much female-on-male rape there actually is. Men are even far more reluctant to report it then women.

Some studies suggest it is significantly higher then 'common sense' would suggest.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf

Victims of forced vaginal sex in a romantic relationship in the last year:

female: 2.3% male: 3.0%

I think the ratio is something like 1 in 200 victimized men report sexual violence. The latest figures I've heard about women is 1 in 6 female victims report sexual violence. Letsay 95% of reported rapes have a female victim. 95* 6 = 570 female victims. 5 * 200 = 1,000 male victims. The numbers get crazy when you think about how little men actually report.
Jomlos
10:24:13 AM Feb 17th 2011
edited by Jomlos
@Miss Mercury

HOLY HELL! WHAT LARGE NUMBER THAT IS! And I think subversion examples is insane enough...

Now I'm free to say that Gender Inequalities will lead to Crapsack World and threre's nothing we can do with that...

By the way, +respect for being polite and objective
MercuryInRetrograde
topic
07:42:45 PM Jul 2nd 2010
At the risk of starting yet another edit war, it's not true that the statistics show that men are more abusive then women. It depends on what statistics you look at. Police reports or crime surveys find more male-on-female abuse but that can be explained by the fact that 1. men rarely report criminal abuse to the police and 2. men don't view the abuse done against them as criminal in the first place. Studies that look at abusive behaviors without asking the participants to quantify the behaviors as abusive or criminal in nature find parity. They even find parity with sexual abuse in relationships.
awriterscorned
09:48:23 PM Jul 2nd 2010
I actually agree with that. It is debatable who does what more. Perhaps we should change this.
MercuryInRetrograde
10:16:56 AM Jul 3rd 2010
I would ask if 'who does what more' is even relevant. IMHO, what's relevant is helping people who need help, not pointing fingers at either gender.
SomeGuy
12:28:34 PM Jul 3rd 2010
Ach, I'm familiar with the statistics you mention Mercury- and they don't mean what you think they do. You find "parity" only if you use an All Crimes Are Equal approach, and I've yet to see a study that claimed the existence of parity that didn't involve equalizing horrifically unequal situations.

By way of example, let's say a husband abuses his wife over the course of several months, but one day, she throw a pot at him in self-defense. Using the "right" methodology, both people in this case are viewed "equally" as being abusers, even though anyone who's not a computer realizes this is completely moronic.

That being written yes, women can be abusers, and the tacit cultural assumption that they can't is both stupid and tropable. The write-up could probably stand some clarifications in this regard- most especially in how this trope is different the three pot holed in the first paragraph.
MercuryInRetrograde
01:02:55 PM Jul 3rd 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
  • You find "parity" only if you use an All Crimes Are Equal approach, and I've yet to see a study that claimed the existence of parity that didn't involve equalizing horrifically unequal situations.

The studies I've looked at have categorized levels of violence and severity as well as resultant injury. (CTS and CTS 2 studies include levels of violence; the CDC study I mention below includes injury.) I think I know the studies you are referring to and they draw their sample from battered women's shelters exclusively which means they are not representative of the population at large.

  • By way of example, let's say a husband abuses his wife over the course of several months, but one day, she throw a pot at him in self-defense. Using the "right" methodology, both people in this case are viewed "equally" as being abusers, even though anyone who's not a computer realizes this is completely moronic.

The studies I've seen, for example the center of disease control study, found that women engaged in 70% of the non-reciprocal partner violence. In other words in all cases of domestic violence where only one partner is violent, 70% of the time that partner is the woman. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/97/5/941

Also interesting is that women in relationships characterized by non-reciprocal violence perpetrated by men were less likely to be injured then those in reciprocally violent relationships.

Reciprocally violent relationships also resulted in more frequent violence by women only, suggesting the researchers were tracking not just if violence happened but how often it happened by each partner(negating your criticism above.) Reciprocally violent relationships resulted in injury more often to both partners, but women were more often injured then men.

The study also mentions your critique that it's not capturing DV in a clinical setting, rather then just 'common couple violence'.

If we had battered men's shelters—thus a population of extremely victimized men to draw from—we might have a picture of the extreme end of female perpetuated domestic violence to compare to the extreme end of male perpetuated violence. Both of which are likely not captured by 'common couple violence'. As it is, we don't so you simply can't assume one way or another. (Except I've heard, anecdotally, about appalling levels of violence perpetrated against men; from beatings to stabbings to being shot at.)

  • That being written yes, women can be abusers, and the tacit cultural assumption that they can't is both stupid and tropable. The write-up could probably stand some clarifications in this regard- most especially in how this trope is different the three pot holed in the first paragraph.

You're still supporting it, though, by deciding women can't be as severely abusive as men. Same difference really; when a woman does it, it's in defense or it just isn't the same.

For myself, I remain unconvinced of the traditionalist gender conception that women are—what a surprise—the only real victims.

We see what we want to see. Some people want to see their innate gender stereotypes confirmed.
SomeGuy
02:04:21 PM Jul 3rd 2010
First, please avoid strawmanning. No one here has said that women are "the only real victims". I've already admitted that this is a stupid cultural stereotype and that the article should elaborate better on the nuances.

The article you link confirms my broader point, which I don't think I noted clearly enough- that women appear to be the victim largely because they're more likely to suffer serious injuries (this info is mentioned in the abstract, but I couldn't find it itemized in the tables). It's not a Straw Feminist conspiracy- it's just some people have more obvious bruises than others here.

Now, I really don't want to get into an extended Internet argument about this (that kind of off-topic crap is why I left the forums). I'm much more interested in writing up this page so that we get a better, more nuanced view. So Let's Make a Deal. You rewrite the description in a way you feel represents the issues here fairly, and I'll come by later to moderate it in such a manner that I feel is fair. Provided we don't simply delete each others' changes wholesale I'm willing to bet we'll get a much better article that will satisfy both of us. How about it?
MercuryInRetrograde
02:16:26 PM Jul 3rd 2010
To be honest, I think including anything on what exact percentage of abusers are male vs. female, or if female-on-male abuse is more important then male-on-female or vice versa would be pointless.

1. It will blow up into an editing war. 2. There is no definitive answer, which ties back into one. 3. It's beyond the scope of tv tropes.

SomeGuy
02:24:06 PM Jul 3rd 2010
We don't have to go that route. People don't like reading numbers in a description because Everybody Hates Mathematics anyway. "Nuanced view" here basically means mentioning the fact that women can be abusers in the first place, and positing a few reasons why this is so common as to be a recurring trope.

Don't worry overmuch about accidentally ruining the page- I've serviced hundreds of articles like this and I can solve any mistakes you make. If this is your first time trying to modify main descriptions like this I can assure you I'll make it quite the pleasant experience.
MercuryInRetrograde
02:57:38 PM Jul 3rd 2010
  • If this is your first time trying to modify main descriptions like this I can assure you I'll make it quite the pleasant experience.

Um... wow. That could be taken multiple ways. Like, at least three.
Jordan
03:09:05 PM Jul 3rd 2010
Why does this page even exist? Pretty much every example is an example of a series/work where there was a male abuser. Very few of them (Lifetime movies are probably an exception) are saying that only men are abusers.

And there's already a Domestic Abuse and Domestic Abuser pages.
SomeGuy
03:44:16 PM Jul 3rd 2010
What I think is being gone for here is something like The Unfair Sex as regards Domestic Abuse. The description doesn't do a very good job of making this clear, though, which is why I think we should work on it.
Jordan
03:47:17 PM Jul 3rd 2010
edited by Jordan
But wait a sec, there's also already Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female on Male.

So, I guess this page is criticizing any series that even shows a male abuser. Because it's not like there aren't any male abusers. Showing one doesn't automatically mean that you're denying there are female abusers.
MercuryInRetrograde
03:56:23 PM Jul 3rd 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
I think it's more the prevalence of this over all media that's the problem. If a character is portrayed as abusive, almost inevitably it will be a male character. Just like if a relationship breaks up it's usually portrayed as the man's fault. Just one example doesn't matter; taken as a whole it starts to matter.

It's a meta-trope.

BTW, seriously... Some Guy, were you hitting on me using allusions to trope editing? Because the combination of tropegeeking and innuendo was kinda hot. XD
Jordan
04:00:26 PM Jul 3rd 2010
Then maybe there shouldn't be examples. I had the same problem when someone was suggesting All Holocaust Victims Are Jews. It seems to imply a polemical intent when there likely isn't one.
SomeGuy
04:21:58 PM Jul 3rd 2010
Honestly, the whole series of rape and abuse tropes should probably be streamlined better. The "OK when female on male" series just encourages people to dish on feminists. I can't really think of a good reason why we can't just have a single unifying trope for Unfortunate Implications regarding those acts in media portrayal. It'd make us a lot less schizophrenic.

Yes Mercury, the innuendo was deliberate. Mostly For the Funnyz, since until just this moment it hadn't occurred to me to wonder what sex you are.
MercuryInRetrograde
04:47:00 PM Jul 3rd 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
  • The "OK when female on male" series just encourages people to dish on feminists.

Why do you think that? Personally, I'd leave them as they are because, to be honest, they _are_ tropes.

I'm female. Most people think I'm not for whatever reason.
awriterscorned
04:49:27 PM Jul 3rd 2010
1. If this should be a cross between The Unfair Sex and Domestic Abuse maybe an edit should be done to make that clear.

2. I agree with Mercury In Retrograde about a lot of this. "If a character is portrayed as abusive, almost inevitably it will be a male character. Just like if a relationship breaks up it's usually portrayed as the man's fault." Also, in many stories there becomes this "I wish I was a lesbian so I wouldn't have to worry about abuse or violence" idea.

3. This trope IS different from Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female On Male because this trope refers to the unfortunate implication that women cannot do it at all, whereas the "Abuse Is Okay If..." tropes imply that women can...but who cares, it's not that bad.

4. I think some people might use "Okay when female on male" to dish on feminists but I don't think it has to be that. That trope is very common and is an unfortunate implication of many plot lines (think The Wedding Crashers).
SomeGuy
05:02:56 PM Jul 3rd 2010
edited by 75.170.214.11
Ah. Well, as much as I'd enjoy flirting with someone intelligent enough to have a ready, credible citation to dispute a claim I make, you'll have to hit me up in P Ms since this really isn't the place for that.

It's a matter of overlap. Like in this case, while Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female on Male is technically distinct from All Abusers Are Male in that the former is explicitly about both while the latter is only explicitly about the one, there's still lots of overlap. In my estimation the former has much worse Natter potential (I thought we got rid of that page picture) because of the inflammatory title, whereas this one could encompass that angle by implication since the opposite of All Abusers Are Male is No Abusers Are Female.

...Or we could just rename it to the latter. Aside from the Natter angle I really hate the "female on male is OK" tropes because they're a pain-in-the-neck to type.
MercuryInRetrograde
05:03:29 PM Jul 3rd 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
  • Also, in many stories there becomes this "I wish I was a lesbian so I wouldn't have to worry about abuse or violence" idea.

And I would be a living example why this is bullshit reasoning. On Fan Disservice someone argued that female-on-female rape was hot. I had some serious trouble with that one.

  • Ah. Well, as much as I'd enjoy flirting with someone intelligent enough to have a ready, credible citation to dispute a claim I make, you'll have to hit me up in P Ms since this really isn't the place for that.

It's okay. Just thought it was cute. I have citations for everything I believe, it's part of what I consider to be due diligence as a human.

  • edit*

Just had a trope related thought. Would it be useful to catalog the character tropes that are Always Female simply because when they're male they're considered abusive and not quirky? Clingy Jealous Girl, Abbhorent Admirer, Yandere come to mind.

I think the trope should emphasize the meta-ness.
back to Main/AllAbusersAreMale

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy