What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/DoubleStandard

girlyboy
topic
05:09:23 PM Mar 12th 2010
edited by girlyboy
There seems to be a lot of support for putting all the subjects on this page in alphabetical order! Accordingly, I suggest the folders be sorted this way:
  • Frequently sexist in execution or delivery, but not sexist in nature
  • Non-Gender related
  • Sexist against either
  • Sexist against men
  • Sexist against women

What do y'all say?
gfrequency
06:56:24 AM Mar 17th 2010
It makes sense as far as I'm concerned, but it'll inevitably be a Sisyphean task to maintain. Someone will inevitably put "Sexist Against Men" or "Sexist Against Women" at the top again, then someone else will put the other ahead of that. I'd like to think the majority of the tropers here don't view the page as a reverse one-upmanship contest ("No, my gender is more oppressed!" "No, mine!"), but it only takes a few.
MercuryInRetrograde
10:05:59 AM Mar 17th 2010
To be fair, I think the people who are moving 'sexist against men' aren't moving it to make a point about who's more oppressed but because not having it listed alphabetically is making a point about who's more oppressed. I would suggest that the proposed organization is confusing. Something more like this might work better:

  • Gender-based Double Standards
    • Frequently sexist in execution or delivery, but not sexist in nature
    • Sexist against either
    • Sexist against Men
    • Sexist against Women
  • Non-Gender based Double Standards
girlyboy
01:19:57 PM Mar 17th 2010
That seems like a fine way to organize it then.
159.53.78.143
06:38:02 AM Oct 29th 2010
What about the double standard that it's okay to portray Jesus or other gods in any manner, but not Mohammad at ALL?
MasterHand
11:30:46 AM Oct 30th 2010
That's not a double standard. Muslims actually consider portraying Mohammad to be offensive - I believe the reason is that traditionally Muslims believe that only Allah may create life and thus avoid depicting people or animals in art, and Mohammad is important enough to cause an outcry if depicted at all.
Lizzi
topic
03:26:14 PM Mar 19th 2010
edited by Lizzi
''Only white heterosexual males can ever be evil. Pick anything else and expect heavy outcry and criticism. In the rare cases where someone else is the villain, they either find redemption, or an evil white heterosexual male manipulated them to become evil.''

Deleted these lines, as they are pretty blatantly wrong and I have no idea where they come from.

There are more white straight male villains overall than other villains, but there are also way more white straight male heroes, white straight male sidekicks and basically everyone else, since white straight males are assumed to be more interesting and relateable and "All American" or whatever. The extremely limited roles/depth for the majority of the world population might be a Double Standard all its own, but you're really stretching it if you think, say, female villains are somehow extremely rare or controversial.
MercuryInRetrograde
05:47:07 PM Mar 20th 2010
The original post was overblown. But there is generally more scrutiny if a minority is depicted as 'evil' then if a straight white male is depicted as evil.
Lizzi
07:41:14 PM Mar 20th 2010
Any evidence of this? At all?
Lizzi
10:03:53 AM Mar 21st 2010
edited by Lizzi
"Only white heterosexual males can ever be evil. Pick anything else as the main villain and expect heavy outcry and criticism. In the rare cases where someone else is the villain, they either find redemption, or an evil white heterosexual male manipulated them to become evil."

^^

Took it out -again-, because "as the main villain" doesn't make it true either. It's not just "sort of true but overblown", it's just wrong. It's made up nonsense.

I'm going to open up a wikipedia tab and go through the Disney animated movies, just for an example:

  • Movies with female ~main villains~ include: Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians and sequels, Cinderella and sequels, Rescuers, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Lion King II, Little Mermaid and sequel/prequel, James and the Giant Peach, Sword in the Stone, Tarzan's prequel IIRC, Pete's Dragon, Enchanted, Tinker Bell, Many of the Recess movies
  • Movies with POC male main villains: Aladdin, Mulan, Princess and the Frog, Brother Bear and its sequel,
  • Movies with POC female main villains: Emperor's New Groove and sequel

Not -one- of them were redeemed, aside from possibly Miss Finster in Recess and the mean girl from Tinker Bell—they don't turn good so much as they have their moments of humanity, and it would be wrong to call them "evil" so much as "unpleasant". Similarly the main villain in Brother Bear isn't evil.

Not one of them were manipulated by a male/white/heterosexual, save possibly Zira in Lion King II (even then I think there's a difference between being influenced and being manipulated).

There was some academic criticism about the stereotypically homosexual nature of Jafar or Scar (limited to gay interest groups), and some discussion about the way the villains of Mulan were drawn when compared to the protagonists (and how Aladdin/Jasmine's accents are absent yet Jafar keeps his), but just about zero actual "outcry" that the villains were POC.

I'd say the only place in which you'd have a point are homosexual villains, which tend to bring up some criticism when their sexuality is used as a scare tactic and are therefore pretty damn rare (as are homosexual main protagonists). Throwing in the "white male" just makes you totally wrong though. Some of the most iconic villains of all time are female. Hope this helps.
MercuryInRetrograde
10:09:20 AM Mar 21st 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
The reaction at a feminist site over Saffron from Firefly. Apparently Joss Whedon was a misogynist for having an evil female character. There was also some suggestion that 'women don't do that.' The below article likely has a link to the site in question.

http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/06/blogger-calls-joss-whedons-firefly.html

Also the movie caught some criticism for making the main bad guy black.

On this very site, God Save Us From The Queen is criticism for female villains because, apparently, 'our society has a problem with women with power.' Never mind that if a woman is to be an effective villain she has to have some power or be able to manipulate someone with power. Considering the historic paucity of female corrupt CE Os or Dictators, powerful evil female characters are going to be disproportionately Queens.

"I'd say the only place in which you'd have a point are homosexual villains, which tend to bring up some criticism when their sexuality is used as a scare tactic and are therefore pretty damn rare."

Evil gender non-normative men are not rare at all. I pretty much expect most villains to have a lisp or an affected way of walking or some other 'non-masculine' behavior. What media have you been watching?
Lizzi
10:17:13 AM Mar 21st 2010
edited by Lizzi
No, a single feminists' livejournal. And look at all the comments of people angry at her criticism. I've never seen this article pointed out as a legitimate critique, only by people upset at what "allecto" had to say. I can't even tell which female character she's criticizing is the villain—it appears she is criticizing the portrayal of gender in general, not the fact that the villain happens to be a female.

Pointing at a single, highly controversial article that appears to critique all the females in a given work as evidence that "evil females are subject to more criticism" would be incorrect. On a cultural level and even within feminist circles, nobody cared that the main villain of Firefly was a female. Female villains are nothing new.

Edit: And God Save Us From The Queen is just a comment about the levels of Good Queen/Evil Queen (vs. say, Evil Princesses, Evil Kings, or Evil Princes). The fact that so many beloved movies and books are on that list is just an example of how very -little- "outcry" can be expected, and the phenomena only becomes noteworthy when looking at cultural depictions of Queens as a whole.

Edit 2: Talking with a lisp or acting effeminate does not make you a homosexual. These behaviors are also the ones which provoke the most criticism (even then, mostly only in gay-interest circles, not any sort of true "outcry"). This is why I said he has a slight point if he stuck with gay main villains.
MercuryInRetrograde
10:30:55 AM Mar 21st 2010
But you believe there should be outcry against the whole God Save Us From The Queen, correct?
Lizzi
01:11:08 PM Mar 21st 2010
edited by Lizzi
Uh, no, not at all (wtf?). You don't even know me, so that "correct?" at the end is sort of annoying. God Save Us From The Queen is a mildly interesting double standard. It might be worth a minor discussion (as are all double standard tropes, really), definitely not worth any sort of "outcry". lol.

Even if I did though, even if I thought God Save Us From The Queen was the most sexist shit on TV and I thought the FCC should probably be involved in shutting that particular trope down, this would not be evidence that "only white heterosexual males can ever be evil or else there is an outcry". I am one person. There are individuals out there who are genuinely offended at Bumbling Dad and will call for Bumbling Dad commercials to apologize or be taken off the air. But they are individuals, and all individuals have their Pet Peeve Tropes, but the culture at large continues to not give a fuck about female villains or fatherly comic relief.
MercuryInRetrograde
01:29:49 PM Mar 21st 2010
I was curious.

I didn't say that 'only white heterosexual males can ever be evil or else there is an outcry' I said that when non white heterosexual males are evil there is more scrutiny. This is because I have heard scrutiny of individual characters who are not white, heterosexual and male being cast as evil. I haven't heard scrutiny of individual white, heterosexual male characters being cast as evil.

Like I said, the OP posted something overblown. You'll notice I'm not rushing to put it back up.
Lizzi
01:53:35 PM Mar 21st 2010
edited by Lizzi
You haven't given examples of this scrutiny except by pointing out that firefly essay, and even then, it was scrutiny of gender in general. I couldn't even tell which one of the female portrayals she mentioned was supposed to be the villain.

And its true that gender, race, and sexuality in general do get a lot of scrutiny—people examine the way we portray women, race, and homosexuality/transsexuality, and I'll throw in disability, age, ethnicity and religion too in the all-too-uncommon case any unprivileged group is given -any- sort of noteworthy role: villain, hero, sidekick, love interest, whatever. This is mostly in academic and special interest circles, and doesn't really classify on its own as a double standard, more as a reaction to a larger double standard. You could just as easily say "characters who are not white, heterosexual and male being cast as good are subject to more scrutiny".

If you aren't really intending on defending the orignial comment, then there is no reason to take up space or time. It was just unambiguously, unarguably wrong, so I edited it out.
86.125.160.29
02:39:28 PM Mar 21st 2010
Lizzi might be right that it does not fit well into the "Double Standard" category. It's a better example for "political correctness gone mad".
Lizzi
02:51:49 PM Mar 21st 2010
Except it's an imaginary phenomenon. There is no "outcry" over female, POC or homosexual villains.
MercuryInRetrograde
04:52:09 PM Mar 21st 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
The issue with Saffron was brought up in the comments. To be honest, this kind of observation is the hardest thing to find evidence for because it's not like you can point to research on the phenomenon of 'people are more sensitive about depicting minority villains.'
Lizzi
08:38:55 PM Mar 21st 2010
So not just a writeup on someones livejournal page—but a buried comment thread :X.

When something is a sensitive issue, like, say, abortion, it tends to get a lot of coverage. Most publications will avoid it altogether, because its hard to go one way or the other without unintentionally giving some sort of "message" to the work. If female villains were a sensitive issue, then we'd see discussions about it in the mainstream press, and polls about how people feel or think about female villains.

The reason why it's hard to find evidence for your assertion is because your assertion is incorrect. I'd be willing to concede that special interest groups are sensitive when it comes to depictions of individuals within their interest (so mens groups are more sensitive to depictions of men, black groups more sensitive to depictions of blacks, etc—this goes for villains and protagonists mind). Saying non-white male heterosexual villains, as a whole, are something that people, as a whole, are "sensitive to" is just incorrect.
MercuryInRetrograde
09:08:42 PM Mar 21st 2010
"I'd be willing to concede that special interest groups are sensitive when it comes to depictions of individuals within their interest."

Yep. And on MSM special interests groups with minority status tend to get their complaints listened to more often then 'men's groups.' That was decidedly so years ago, but it seems to be changing a bit recently.
Lizzi
09:48:20 PM Mar 21st 2010
edited by Lizzi
Any evidence of this at all? (Also men are a minority, though you probably couldn't tell from watching the MSM, which itself is sort of a "men's group" if we allow ourselves to be honest....portrayals of white heterosexual men are far more numerous and fleshed-out than portrayals of anyone else which, btw, is -the- main "complaint" that "minority" groups make—and the root of all complaints—yet as far as I can tell it isn't "listened" to in any truly meaningful sense)

Also considering you already said you aren't defending the original comment, are you just talking for the sake of talking here? Making up complaints and seeing which ones stick?
MercuryInRetrograde
10:18:56 PM Mar 21st 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
"Also men are a minority, though you probably couldn't tell from watching the MSM, which itself is sort of a "men's group" if we allow ourselves to be honest."

Men's groups consider themselves quite distinct from the men who make a living appealing to the majority of consumers, women(see the archive for girlyboy's and my recent discussion on this). They also find it nearly impossible to get their issues covered by MSM. The MSN is not a 'men's group' so much as it's a gender-normative group that depicts men and women adhering to certain notions of manhood and womanhood. Men preform; women emote.

They call it the 'Lace Curtain' and it's the bias towards seeing women as vulnerable and men as invulnerable and not needing any concern or protection.

Here's some more reading on it:

http://www.menweb.org/lacecur1.htm

"How can it be true that men make the front pages more often, but men’s underlying issues and internal stories do not? The process of raising money and climbing leadership’s ladders that gets a man on the front pages requires a man to repress his fears, not express his fears. So a man’s external story is visible; his internal story invisible. Whether on the front page or the business pages, we rarely read of a man’s sorrow about coming home too late to read his child a bedtime story, or the emotional distance he may be feeling from his wife, or what’s worrying him when he can’t fall asleep. This is the paradox of the visible invisible man."

Lizzi
10:50:22 PM Mar 21st 2010
edited by Lizzi
Just because two men's groups disagree on something does not make one of them any less of a men's group primarily concerned with and sensitive to portrayals of men (and much less so towards everyone else). You are confusing the extremely minor, mostly reactionary masculinist movement with men's groups as a whole, which is quite a big mistake. That's like me saying women's issues are ignored in favor of men's in the world of fashion magazines due to the severe lack of marxist feminist discourse.

You also quoted a really bad example, as men's "underlying issues" or his "internal story" are quite solidly covered in the MSM, when compared to the internal story of women or genderqueer. This is nothing new either, some of the most iconic works of literature as well as the biggest hits of the modern day are all about the internal story and the underlying issues within white straight men.

We are getting way way off the path now. I think you are only trying to plug your own ideology, even as it does not seem to relate to the article or the changes which I made.
MercuryInRetrograde
11:10:37 PM Mar 21st 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
"You are confusing the extremely minor, mostly reactionary masculinist movement with men's groups as a whole, which is quite a big mistake."

So 'reactionary masculinist movements' are distinct from the 'men's group' Mainstream Media(MSM), which doesn't share their views and is 'minor'. But the MSM is, presumably, part of the male power structure that advocates for men, correct? A vastly more powerful structure then 'reactionary masculinist movements' could ever hope to be.

It seems like you're implying the MSM advocates for the benefit of men but does not advocate the same types of things as the reactionary masculinist movement. What does the MSM advocate for the benefit of men?

"This is nothing new either, some of the most iconic works of literature as well as the biggest hits of the modern day are all about the internal story and the underlying issues within white straight men."

Again I'm curious. I think you must have more experience with these stories then myself.

What would you say were the men's issues that these stories explored?
Lizzi
11:17:49 PM Mar 21st 2010
I will happily answer your questions if you tell me how this relates to the double standard article. Otherwise, take it to P Ms.
MercuryInRetrograde
12:01:52 AM Mar 22nd 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
"That's like me saying women's issues are ignored in favor of men's in the world of fashion magazines due to the severe lack of marxist feminist discourse."

The 'masculinist' site I linked to was calling for stories that reflect the emotional reality of men. Not just a catalog of their doings, but how they are hurt, how they suffer and how they feel disempowered.

I, personally, don't see that much in MSM. I know you've asserted that you do and I am definitely curious about what you have seen although if you don't want to disclose, I'm also happy to leave it at that. I'm afraid I haven't seen many stories about how men deal with things like being victims of rape and domestic violence, the social pressures that lead them to suicide in greater numbers then women, and how living in a society that depicts them in certain unfavorable ways (Bumbling Dad, Men Are The Expendable Gender, Men Are Perverts) affects them.

A really strong example of the 'invisible visible' is that we never see sympathetic stories about how men really feel about their traditional gender role and how it's affected them in ways they don't like.

Even though the fashion industry may be dominated by women, that doesn't mean it's necessarily sympathetic or offers up much space for how women have been hurt by it peddling a distorted view of women. I think the MSM is likewise peddling a distorted view of men that doesn't at all relate to men's realities and doesn't have much space for those that think different.

"Also men are a minority, though you probably couldn't tell from watching the MSM, which itself is sort of a "men's group" if we allow ourselves to be honest....portrayals of white heterosexual men are far more numerous and fleshed-out than portrayals of anyone else which, btw, is -the- main "complaint" that "minority" groups make—and the root of all complaints—yet as far as I can tell it isn't "listened" to in any truly meaningful sense"

Didn't notice your edit earlier. I disagree that it hasn't been 'listened to in any truly meaningful sense.' The change in how women have been portrayed in MSM is absolutely stark. From complaints about Number One in the ST:OS pilot 'ordering men around' to what I think is nearing parity in the number of depictions of powerful, competent women as presidents, military leaders, soldiers, scientists, lawyers, etc.

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that it 'isn't "listened" to in any truly meaningful sense.' Albeit for _one_ minority.

As for "fleshed-out", again the people I linked to rather think that men are stereotyped into certain rigid roles and their vulnerabilities ignored in MSM, and because of that male characters are hardly "fleshed-out." More common, yes. More complex? No.

To quote the Double Standard Page itself: 'because men don't have feelings beside lust and urges to kill.'

"I think you are only trying to plug your own ideology."

I don't really have one. Maybe an anti-ideology.

"I will happily answer your questions if you tell me how this relates to the double standard article."

Here goes nothing. We agree that special interest groups sometimes complain about their depiction in MSM. I say minority groups are listened to more then men's groups. My evidence? Most people don't even know there are men's groups complaining about the way men are depicted in media, whereas most people do know that there are minority interest groups complaining about the way minorities are depicted in media. Most know, for example, that feminists complain about how women are depicted in media.

"Otherwise, take it to PMS."

Sure. When you stop editing your comments after I've replied to them.
79.116.68.73
03:14:21 AM Mar 22nd 2010
Lizzi: Actually it's very easy to prove. Do a search on Wikipedia or even on tvtropes or just Google for sentences containing "racist" with weasel words similar to "it has been criticized by many".

This misunderstanding might be because you watched entirely different movies than the other commenters on this page, and you have seen hundreds of movies where the whites are the good guys and non-whites are evil without anyone complaining, and the very few movies where the whites were evil were heavily criticized by the media as being racist?

By the way, most of the examples you have shown are not appropriate: movies with animals don't count, and those where everyone is part of a certain ethnic group don't count as well. Besides, the statement was not "no such thing exists" but that is is very rare and when it happens it receives a LOT of criticism. You can do a Google search for any of your examples and find plenty of pages full with "stereotype" and "racist".
Lizzi
08:06:28 AM Mar 22nd 2010
edited by 141.210.118.229
Mercury,

The reason I edit my posts after you've replied to them is because you tend to immediately reply—I was done editing that post before I saw your new one. You have not stated how any of your ramblings -relate to the double standard article=, (hell you never even mentioned the article in your 'explanation'). This is a discussion page for the double standard article, not masculinism. Either take it to P Ms or stop writing me, because you defeat the entire purpose of a discussion page if you go on and on about irrelevant shit. Hope this helps.

Anon,

Did a search as you requested (both with and without quotes on wikipedia and google and TV tropes), got nothing which relates to media or villainous depictions of POC.

So no, I don't think that's very good evidence, at all. Plus I think the definite weakest part of your argument is the "male" part, since some of the most iconic and beloved stories of all time have female villains.

I tend not to watch any shows where "the whites" and one way and "non-whites" go another way. Such a movie would be criticized as racist, and, indeed, it probably would be pretty racist. (hope this helps). I do watch plenty of films, TV shows, and books with POC and female villains, which I listed earlier.

I'll agree its rare to have a non=white male heterosexual in the role of main antagonist. But it is equally rare to find one in the role of main protagonist, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say it's rare to see non-white male heterosexuals in media in the main roles, and if you had put that I would not have edited out at all, because it would be correct. What I highly doubt is the accusation that there is an "outcry". There isn't.

  • Movies with female ~main villains~ include: Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians and sequels, Cinderella and sequels, Rescuers, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Little Mermaid and sequel/prequel, James and the Giant Peach, Sword in the Stone, Pete's Dragon, Enchanted, Tinker Bell, Many of the Recess movies
  • Movies with POC male main villains: Mulan, Princess and the Frog

And let me add more movies with POC main villains, going with non-Disney kids movies now:

  • POC main villains: Prince of Egypt, Road to El Dorado, The King and I
  • Female main villains: Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas, Over the Hedge, Titan AE, A Troll in Central Park, Swan Princess III, Cats Don't Dance, Finding Nemo (debatable)

I took out the single ethnicity movies (for the POC) and movies in which the villain in question was played by an animal. Not because I think you have a legitimate point in excluding these movies, but because I'm willing to humor you and I'm genuinely interested in seeing where this "outcry" is, even for a single movie. A third hand weasel word insinuation of racism on a wikipedia page is not an outcry. Weasel words are weasel words for a reason—they are unproven mush. I want to see real debate and controversy in the mainstream press over these villains. I want to see calls for these movies to be banned, or insinuations that they are relics of our embarrassing past, like "Birth of a Nation".
86.125.163.170
04:19:06 PM Mar 22nd 2010
Lizzi, I agree that the "male" part has the weakest effect. It was written in, because as of the 21st century, the "White heterosexual male" became strong example of acceptable target (make fun of anyone else and you are racist/intolerant/sexist). If we were still in the 1930s I would agree that the discussed sentence is "nonsense". Actually most of the "Political correctness gone mad" happens because many people fight against discrimination in a way as we were still living in the 1930s. By the way, just because you say something, it does not immediately make it true. I don't know what kind of search engine you use, but googleing for your recent examples gives "racist-sexist poison", "blatantly racist", "has promoted racism" in the first few results for the Road to El Dorado. (as for saying animals and single ethnicities don't count, it was because the question itself arises only in a mixed-ethnicity movie: why is that one the villain and not someone else of different ethnicity?)

I'm sorry if I might be proven wrong, but it seems like you try to defend an ideology very hard by purging anything which does not agree with that ideology. Take it cool, as the worst possible cases of violating neutrality are if you try very hard to do editing only based on your personal political ideas.

Anon out
Lizzi
05:51:55 PM Mar 22nd 2010
Don't whine that I only deleted it because it "disagrees with an ideology". This is the very first thing I have ever purged from this page—nay, the first thing that isn't vandalism I ever purged from any wiki page, ever. There are some double standards on this page I think are a stretch, but I would never go through the effort of deleting them, because whatever, it's nice to hear what bothers other people in the media, even though I think they are cherry picking or oversimplifying. I purged -your- addition because it was blatantly incorrect. Not just partially incorrect. Just wrong through and through, and if you took the time to think about it before you added it to the page, you would have realized how wrong it was.

Road to El Dorado gets some minor criticism from American Indian interest groups, not because the villain was a POC but due to the depiction of Aztec society and arguable whitewashing of history. You'll see similar results if you type in Pocahontas+racist, and that movie had a white villain. Far from an "outcry", absolutely none of the El Dorado criticism made it into the mainstream press, and the movie was nominated for annie awards and was #2 at the box office. In the 21st century no less. (Who knew white (...heterosexual?) men could triumph over such adversity?)

I think you started off with the idea that "white straight men are acceptable targets for being made fun of! if you make fun of anyone else you are racist!" (itself a pretty debatable assertion), then noticed that most of the major villains are white straight males (neglecting to notice that white straight males are overrepresented in nearly all roles), and decided "white straight males are the only acceptable villains! if you pick anyone else then there will be an outcry!" (this itself is a pretty big jump, because being made fun of and being a good villain are not related). Perhaps it would be a bit better if you were to take it cool, and try to think a bit before you jump to such a conclusion. Personally, I didn't even have to think to come up with any counterexamples. As soon as I read it, I was just like "welp thats horseshit—what about Aliens? Or Mean Girls? Or Wizard of Oz? Or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Or Basic Instinct? Or the first Friday the 13th? Or Kill Bill Vol 1? Or Coraline? etc" When you made your new addition that "we have yet to see a counterexample in any Hollywood movie or any other movie ever!" I had to do a double take.
Mrsagyig
03:35:05 PM Dec 14th 2011
...What? What the fuck are you saying?
gfrequency
topic
08:01:17 AM Mar 26th 2010
It occurs to me that we might benefit from another folder - one for tropes that are not in themselves double standards but which are perceived differently dependent upon gender. I've noticed two of these recently.

One would be Cowboy Cop. If male (say, Dirty Harry), the character in question will invariably be seen by the male fanbase as a badass who takes no crap from criminals. If female (Ana Lucia of Lost and Deb Morgan of Dexter, for example), she'll be loathed and pointed out as an example of why women, being hysterical and unable to control their emotions, shouldn't be on the force in the first place.

The other example is Draco In Leather Pants, which someone tried to add on the page before. I deleted it, because it really can't be sexist in execution or by nature. It's a matter of perception. I can think of two anime series off the top of my head which I've watched recently in which a villainous (and, of course, pretty) male character is absolutely drooled over by the female fanbase. Later, it's revealed that this character is actually a woman, and in both cases is simultaneously given a sympathetic backstory. The same fans who previously fawned over "him" immediately declare the character to be a Complete Monster and declare nothing but hatred for her.

Does anyone else think there are enough examples such as this to merit a separate folder?
Lizzi
03:00:24 PM Mar 26th 2010
I think that there are enough examples, but at a certain point it becomes highly subjective. It's a known fact that people interpret characters differently based upon the gender, though to what degree and in what way is a pretty difficult thing to test.

On the other hand, a lot of the examples on the page right now are already pretty subjective so perhaps it doesn't really matter.
FastEddie
moderator
03:46:27 PM Mar 26th 2010
Clearly a separate trope, I'd say. Say the title of it might be Gender Viewpoint. You see the difference. Double Standard is applied to an action or character, based on the action's or character's attributes.

Standard applied to object.

The proposed trope is applied to an attribute of the observer of the object.

Making a case for uniformity of view based on gender is a bit of minefield, but that would be the problem for the proposed trope, not Double Standard.

gfrequency
07:58:23 AM Mar 28th 2010
I'd say the above is the very essence of a double standard, if we're to define the term literally. Two groups of people act in the exact same manner, but are perceived differently based upon nothing more than their gender. It's just that there's really no easy way to classify it based on the current folder structure. At the very least, if it's made a separate trope - and I'm not sure there are enough examples to warrant an entirely new page for it - it should be included here under "Sexist Against Either" or something similar.
Mimimurlough
09:00:38 AM Mar 30th 2010
We could have a folder called "Audience- created double standard" or something similar. I really don't think that we should have a separate trope, since the usual defintion of Double Standard is reacting to tha same action differently depending on the actor, regarding who is actually judging the action. We'd end up with two versions of the same thing, with one falsely claiming to encompass all of the phenomenon, unless we change the title.
Lizzi
topic
08:15:58 PM Mar 26th 2010
OK I'm thinking about moving: Crossdresser, Domestic Abuse, Gendercide, House Husband, Victoria's Secret Compartment

None of these things, as far as I can tell, are inherently sexist, only -frequently sexist in execution-, and should go in that folder. Does anyone disagree?
MercuryInRetrograde
05:51:50 PM Mar 27th 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
I consolidated Domestic Abuse with Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female On Male. As for the other ones... House Husband and Crossdresser explicitly reference men(when was the last time you heard a woman called a Crossdresser for wearing men's clothing?). Victoria's Secret Compartment and Gendercide both could be rephrased to emphasize the misandry as they probably would have been in the first place if they were misogynist.

Now that we've gone over the Sexist Against Men category... Here are my thoughts on the Sexist Against Women one.

The following tropes are basically duplicates or very closely related:

Career Versus Man; Family Versus Career; My Biological Clock Is Ticking

My Girl Is Not A Slut; Really Gets Around

Cookie Cutter Cuties; Hollywood Homely; Hollywood Pudgy; Hollywood Thin; White Dwarf Starlet

The Red Sonja; All Amazons Want Hercules; No Guy Wants An Amazon

Ms Fanservice; Stripperiffic; Most Common Superpower

These ones are really sexist against either;

Girls Need Role Models - Also implies that boys don't need role models. Right Through His Pants - Also implies that male nudity is less desirable.

This one is sexist in execution but not necessarily in nature:

Give Geeks A Chance

Finally, these two seem to be contradictory:

Real Women Never Wear Dresses and Vasquez Always Dies

Are female characters being punished for being feminine or not being feminine?

Lizzi
07:40:25 PM Mar 27th 2010
edited by Lizzi
I wasn't "going over the sexist against men" category, just picking out things which were obviously not sexist by their very nature. I did not expect to start a rehaul or anything, though while we are here:

In response to your concerns:

Yes, a House Husband is Always Male, but Always Male does not make something sexist against men—it can only be sexist in execution, for example, if the male is portrayed in a negative light for making the decision to take care of his children, where the housewives are not. Many of the examples listed in House Husband are not sexist against men and their decision is treated respectfully.

Similarly, crossdresser lists plenty of female examples. Women can be crossdressers, though women have to go much further in order to earn the "crossdresser" label that's not really what the trope is about. In any case, the trope of crossdresser isn't inherently sexist, though it CAN be depending on the work and if a male character is treated like a freak for wanting to dress in a feminine manner.

I don't think a woman hiding anything down her shirt is inherently sexist against men. Gendercide I'm a bit torn about—is it possible to do tastefully (so long as it doesn't glorify said mono-gendered society), or is it always inherently sexist to play off the destruction of a entire gender for dramatic effect? I think I'll leave it for now.

My thoughts to your own suggestions:

I agree with a lot of your combination, maybe add a "/" between them all since they are all related to the same sexist idea—I disagree with White Dwarf Starlet though, I think that's related more to age than to beauty (?), and its a character type..hm. Torn about Give Geeks A Chance—never seen a non-sexist example and not sure how one would work. Actually maybe it would be "Sexist against either", the same way Beast And Beauty and Ugly Guy Hot Wife already are.

Girls Need Role Models doesn't' say anything about what boys need. And saying boys don't need role models isn't even "sexist against boys" really, because people, and children in particular, should not feel the need to fill any particular "role" (gender based roles or otherwise).

Agree with Right Through His Pants moving to "sexist against either", and I'd add He Had It Coming and Prison Rape, which flat out also apply to women. (and are no less sexist for it).

"Are female characters being punished for being feminine or not being feminine? "

That would depend on the work, wouldn't it? It's perfectly possible for two tropes to contradict each other. I think Real Women Never Wear Dresses is a way of equating femininity with weakness, but Vasquez Always Dies is just killing off the masculine woman, because even if a masculine woman is supposedly "strong", who wants a "strong" love interest.

Some of my own suggestions (while we are doing rehaul here), in addition to Prison Rape and He Had It Coming listed earlier:

On the guy side in terms of combinations (like I said I never really "went over the man's side", and I like the idea of combining the tropes which center around a particular idea, since it shows how sexism works in a system really appeals to me):

I'd move All Women Are Lustful to the "sexist against woman" category—not sure how it's implying anything about men? Any explanation? And also Licensed Sexist there as well. Its currently under "Sexist Against Men", under the claim that "men need excuses, womens excuse is the men themselves"—but most of the Does Not Like Men characters -do- have excuses (of the Freudian variety), and most of the Licensed Sexist characters don't have excuses, their misogyny is played as comedy. I think they are both equally "sexist against" their respective genders, because having a character whose sexism is not called out and treated iike what it is—is sexist.

Also if I may suggest something ~radical~ here, maybe I missed the justification in the other discussion—do we need to have "Sexist against men" and "Sexist against women" and "Sexist against either"? If something is sexist it is sexist and it inherently enforces a certain gender norm. For example, it would certainly be beneficial I think, to also group together "All Women Are Prudes" and "All Men Are Perverts" to discuss the overall difference in how the media treats the sexuality of men and women. Or Wouldn'tHitAGirl and Girls Hit Harder Than The Villains. Just my opinion though, and I know this Double Standard page has had that "Sexist against...." bullshit going on for a while so maybe it honestly has a good reason behind it. Any thoughts? I'll seriously start a crowner/thread on this one if it hasn't been done before. The subheadings instead could be "Differences How the Sexes are treated when it comes to Looks" "When it comes to Sex", "When it comes to violence", "When it comes to representation" "When it comes to skills/interests" and maybe a "Miscellaneous" folder if we need one...
MercuryInRetrograde
08:25:54 PM Mar 27th 2010
I think I proposed something like that a while back. For the most part every 'sexist against...' is the flipside of another 'sexist against...'

However that would take a really, really big overhaul.
Lizzi
08:41:06 PM Mar 27th 2010
Yeah I'm sort of working on a rough draft right now of how it might work and I'll post about it here and on the forums to see what other people might say. I'm certainly willing to work on it, the problem is getting the new categories right.

I think it would be well worth it, since the current layout is an almost painfully bullshit false dichotomy and seems to encourage bizarre ~oppression olympics~ crap (judging from some of the older discussions). I think the page has potential to be pretty interesting though.
Lizzi
04:08:19 PM Mar 29th 2010
edited by Lizzi
Made the changes relating to resorting (aside from Gendercide and Give Geeks A Chance, which I'm a bit torn about), also took out the line about Prison Rape "almost always being played for drama", as none of the female examples of Prison Rape on the Prison Rape page were, in fact, played for drama...they were all done as jokes.

Holding off on combining entries since I think it will be easier to do that if/when we actually have a Double Standard page arranged around themes.
GearBoxClock
topic
07:49:23 PM Apr 2nd 2010
I've always wondered why there's so many Stop Violence Against Women campaigns, and no Stop Violence or Stop Violence Against Men campaigns.

Oh well
Lizzi
10:25:12 AM Apr 4th 2010
There are tons of stop violence campaigns, actually. Wtf?
Erda
10:14:52 AM Aug 30th 2010
Exactly. There are tons of general "stop violence" campaigns. The reason gender-specific ones tend to focus more on women is because women are disproportionately the victims of domestic violence.
Severen
10:06:11 AM Oct 13th 2010
"Women are disproportionately the victims of domestic violence."

In reported cases, maybe.
Stoogebie
11:19:32 AM Apr 25th 2011
edited by ghfgh
Well, about the 'Stop Violence Against Women' campaigns, I think it's a lot of things that just add up to this. First of all, women tend to be victims (at least in the reported cases), and secondly, I think most people who saw a campaign that specified 'Violence Against Men' would roll their eyes. Also, there's the fact that men who are victims of abuse are much more reluctant to admit it. On top of that, female victims just look prettier for marketing, I guess.

Oh, and to the commenter who said "Feminism must be destroyed, because they are no diffrent to the Klan, who only have love for their own collective," first of all, I must applaud you on the extensive research you did on this subject. Also, I happen to be a feminist, but hey, guess what? I have no problem with a guy who holds the door open for me, I don't want to destroy the genitals of every man on the planet, and quite frankly, I do care about guys too! But hey, you're right! We should go back to the days when men were misogynistic assholes and women "knew their place," because how dare we ask for equal pay and the right to vote! Want to start it with me, I'm game!
Mrsagyig
03:39:02 PM Dec 14th 2011
Hell yeah.
ghfgh
06:10:59 PM Jan 16th 2012
Umm hello Stoogbie I edited your comment because it contained a mean sounding word
Jordan
topic
04:14:29 PM Apr 9th 2010
You know, I was thinking about the picture. I remember reading several sites where male writers/posters were celebrating Emma Watson (Hermione in the Harry Potter movies) turning 18, which strikes me as pretty much the same thing as women drooling over Edward Cullen's actor. Kind of squicks me in both cases, but it makes me skeptical that there actually is a double standard for this kind of thing.
gfrequency
04:25:39 PM Apr 9th 2010
If, on the other hand, they were to assemble in public with a sign proudly disclaiming their lust for Emma Watson....
girlyboy
04:43:43 PM Apr 9th 2010
I don't see any women in that picture with signs proclaiming lust for anyone... So the Spear Counterpart would be 40 year old dudes assembling in public with a sign proudly proclaiming that they like the Harry Potter movies/books, and are fathers of kids who also do.
gfrequency
05:28:55 PM Apr 9th 2010
Fair point if we're looking at the image and not the implications thereof, but Harry Potter isn't merely a framing device for fan service, while Twilight is notorious for it. My initial point was simply that a bunch of men carrying signs around in public would be perceived very differently than a bunch of anonymous users posting on an internet forum.
girlyboy
05:31:16 PM Apr 9th 2010
Fair points, all.
SomeGuy
09:42:04 PM Apr 9th 2010
Writing as the troper who posted that picture, I agree that this isn't exactly the best possible picture we could have for this trope, particularly since we're supposed to be trying to turn down the Twilight bashing. I put it up mainly because it was being used on The Unfair Sex incorrectly, and here it at least makes sense. This one's bad enough that we can improve on it but not so bad we need remove it outright. Something like the image on Hot For Student would still be preferable for this trope, though.
Jordan
09:49:43 PM Apr 9th 2010
It's not the worst picture/caption. I have a bit of a pet peeve with some of these Double Standard arguments that say "here's behavior x- imagine how what would happen (i.e. it would be condemned) if a guy did it" and I see that a lot of times it's equally wrong/ok for both sexes.
MercuryInRetrograde
03:41:30 PM Apr 10th 2010
er... like what?
gfrequency
topic
05:27:36 AM Jun 3rd 2010
Okay, before I go removing the dripping snark that's been shoehorned into the entry, I realize I shouldn't be opening up this can of worms, but answer me this. Where is violence "okay", let alone less offensive than sex, and how does this constitute Opinion Myopia rather than stating the obvious? (Mind you, I do live in America, and a great many people here consider higher ratings for sex than violence completely backwards.)
Gundamforce
11:06:34 PM Sep 1st 2010
Well the whole "Violence is preferred over sex" thing looks meant more for Values Dissonance rather than a Double Standard, so go ahead.
Alrune
topic
03:45:56 PM Jun 7th 2010
I was wondering, how about we sum up all the entries into sub-categories with a general explanation for all related tropes? I mean something like this:

  • Sexist Against Men
    • Sexuality
    • Social Behaviour
    • Characterisation
    • Other

  • Sexist Against Women
    • Sexuality
    • Physique
    • Social Behaviour
    • Characterisation
    • Other

Of course these sub-categories are anything but definitive. What do you think?
gfrequency
04:26:27 PM Jun 7th 2010
I can understand where you're coming from, but it just seems to me that further distinctions would over-complicate an already shaky index - if only because most double standards regarding gender encompass several or all of the above sub-categories at once.
Erda
topic
07:58:13 PM Jun 12th 2010
edited by Erda
I think the language in this list is confusing. Things aren't either sexist against just men or just women, they're just sexist. Even if, say, men appear to benefit from a certain type of sexism, that doesn't mean it's just "sexist against women." It's still sexist against men to give them a privilege women don't have (and vice versa). All the examples here are technically sexist toward both men and women, regardless of which sex they appear to favor.

Plus, there's an implied false equivalency that somehow society is equally bad toward men and women, when women generally get the worse deal in modern Western society and therefore in its media. Most things which appear to be worse toward men in practice are based on anti-woman attitudes (like, the reason women are more likely to get custody of kids in divorce is because it's seen as the woman's responsibility to raise children. Men tend to have more "work" to do in relationships because of the idea that men are stronger than women and therefore should make the decisions in a relationship/family). There's very little awareness of this in the way things are listed here, though.

So I think it would be better if we just got rid of the problematic categorization and listed all the different tropes alphabetically, without regard for how they apply toward men or women or whatever. (As for the other categories, a lot of the stuff in the "sexist in execution but not in nature" category is very Your Mileage May Vary. Like, I have trouble seeing how the notion that all good men are gay isn't completely sexist in nature.)
MercuryInRetrograde
08:22:37 PM Jun 12th 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
"Plus, there's an implied false equivalency that somehow society is equally bad toward men and women, when women generally get the worse deal in modern Western society and therefore in its media."

Do explain why you think there is an 'implied equivalency?' I think the tropes speak for themselves. Or would you prefer each one to be reworded to emphasize how it's only sexist towards women.

"like, the reason women are more likely to get custody of kids in divorce is because it's seen as the woman's responsibility to raise children."

And the reason why there's a wage gap is really anti-male sexism because it's seen as men's responsibility to provide for families.
Erda
10:54:19 AM Jul 8th 2010
edited by Erda
What I'm saying is that I think it's incorrect to characterize something as just "sexist towards men" or "sexist towards women." Sexism is a double-edged sword for both genders, and nearly everything categorized under "against men" and "against women" also hurts the gender it appears to benefit to some degree. All stereotypes, even "positive" ones, are limiting to those who don't fit them.

For example, it may seem like a "positive" stereotype that Asians are good at math, but what if you're Asian and you're not so good at math? Same idea here with the idea that men are breadwinners (even if it means they generally get paid more, it's also the reason why people tend to look down on stay-at-home dads, or generally see men who are eager to take over childcare/house-cleaning duties as "pussy-whipped") and, likewise, with the fact that women are child-rearers (yeah, women might do better in divorce cases because of this, but I think a lot of women would be willing to trade that bias for not being treated as pariahs if they should put their career over having children).
Erda
07:58:43 PM Aug 24th 2010
I guess my point is that there will always be edit wars for some of these where they're perceived as only hurting one sex, when nearly every case hurts both to some degree. As I said above, even supposedly "positive" stereotypes hurt if you're the one who doesn't fit them. It seems like it would be MUCH easier to just list them alphabetically rather than categorize them. Does anyone object to this other than Mercury?
Erda
08:02:16 PM Aug 24th 2010
MercuryInRetrograde
09:08:22 PM Aug 24th 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
Why?

I've already read plenty of feminist arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term 'argument' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence. On second thought, not going to address it. What I will ask is this.

Why do you believe it? Is it because you've actually looked at both sides, at the negatives of the male role and the positives of the female role rationally and logically and come to the conclusion that women really are the bigger victim(wow! so unexpected)?

Or is it because feminism is so comfortable to most people who want something 'edgy' but not really challenging to their traditional gender conservative notions of 'woman = vulnerable(victim)/man = invulnerable(aggressor)?' You can be hip and cool but not really challenge yourself all that much.

Have you ever questioned your programming to see women as weak and men as strong?

Anyway, don't fret. You'll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.
MercuryInRetrograde
09:49:07 AM Aug 25th 2010
Okay this... "yeah, women might do better in divorce cases because of this, but I think a lot of women would be willing to trade that bias for not being treated as pariahs if they should put their career over having children"

I will comment on. So you think some women would rather women do as bad as men in divorce cases in terms of child custody so they wouldn't get treated like pariahs for not having children? Okay, wonderful, I'm sort of the same page as you(except I think shared custody would probably be more appropriate). So what have you done lately to support a presumption of paternal custody in family court?

After all if presumption of paternal custody would benefit women so much more then presumption of maternal custody, this is an issue that should seriously be promoted by feminists and feminist groups. I don't see them advocating for it much though.
Erda
11:44:56 AM Aug 25th 2010
edited by Erda
I would get into a debate over feminism with you (and it's probably worth noting you're not telling me anything I haven't heard before), but this is a discussion about improving this article, not about our personal views on feminism, and I would prefer to stay on topic.

Why do you think we need to continue to categorize these as "against men" or "against women" or "against both"? Putting my own views about sexism being a double-edged sword aside, I think it would be avoiding further edit wars if we just listed them alphabetically, because people will continue to find ones they think affect both sexes which are listed under just one or the other.
MercuryInRetrograde
01:27:48 PM Aug 25th 2010
"I would prefer to stay on topic"

Then why post that link?

Anyway.

Why do I think we need to continue to categorize these? Because I think doing otherwise would turn the page into an incoherent mess. To me it's a benefit to be able to look up double standards particular to men or women because, as a writer myself, I can then say, 'hmm... making a female character, let's see what I should think twice about doing.'

Plus the non-gender examples would get completely lost.
Erda
10:18:31 AM Aug 30th 2010
edited by Erda
I see your point, and personally I do think the "sexist sometimes in execution" list should stay separated. I just think a lot of the ones which specifically affect each sex are subjective, and maybe it would be better to list those alphabetically and then include which one they fall under in the description to avoid further edit wars here. It just seems silly that a new discussion should have to start here every time one wants to move things from section to section (this page is already huge), so maybe if we just listed them alphabetically they could just add something to the description - something which usually doesn't warrant a separate discussion.
MercuryInRetrograde
01:12:10 PM Aug 30th 2010
I personally think 'sexist towards both' and 'sexist sometimes in execution' should be folded into the 'sexist against men' or 'sexist against women' categories. In the main entry we could note that these tropes end up in either category either due to sexism that relates to one work(overt sexism) or is only visible looking at media in aggregate(indirect sexism).

I'd solve the double-edged sword nature of sexism by allowing tropes to be listed in both categories with an explanation on how the trope negatively affects men or women. And then add a note in the main description about the double-edged nature of sexism thus one trope can show up in both lists.

Again keeping the gender dichotomy enables a quick litmus test for potential female or male characters. It also differentiates this page from the 'Unfortunate Implications' page which is what this page would become if everything was lumped together.
Frdprfct
topic
11:56:28 PM Jun 26th 2010
There are a few entries under "Sexist against X" that have retorts pointing out something along the lines of them also being "Sexist against Y"

Should we move those to "Sexist against both", or do we just keep the notes?
MercuryInRetrograde
08:49:27 AM Jun 27th 2010
We had this discussion before. Although some entries have notes, it was decided that they were more sexist against one gender vs. another.
MercuryInRetrograde
topic
05:05:59 PM Jun 30th 2010
Skaven asks about All Amazons Want Hercules:

"** How is this sexist against women, if it implies that men must reach unattainable goals of manliness to prove themselves good enough for these women?"
Brutal
07:47:02 PM Jun 30th 2010
The implication seems to be that no matter how strong the women are, they must have a stronger man to dominate them. Possibly to make them look feminine in comparison.
MercuryInRetrograde
10:24:10 AM Jul 3rd 2010
But it also holds men to an impossible standard too and feeds into the idea that a man must be more powerful then a woman to be a man. In other words, manhood is predicated on womanhood.
Darkmane
11:03:30 AM Jul 4th 2010
edited by Darkmane
Another problem is that most of the time the woman is shown to be attracted to the man because he is stronger than her; implying that a woman can only have a happy relationship with a man who is stronger than she is.

Should be moved to the Sexist against both section, I think.
MercuryInRetrograde
10:08:02 AM Jul 10th 2010
To use an analogy... Ugly Guy Hot Wife is a similar dynamic. One gender must possess more of some positive attribute X to be worthy of the other gender's attention. In one case it's strength, in the other it's beauty. In both cases huge amounts of social pressure are placed on a gender to achieve the X positive attribute associated with that gender.

Hollywood Homely and all the various beauty-related double standards all play into that dynamic. Abhorrent Admirerer is the flipside of Ugly Guy Hotwife; the woman isn't beautiful enough. The unattractiveness of Non Action Guy and Men Are The Expendable Gender(to the extent that a weak man looses sympathy) are the flipside of All Amazons Want Hercules.

The entire dynamic of expecting a gender to have more of X positive attribute relative to the other gender is sexist against both. It puts excessive expectations on one gender and also implies that if the other gender has that attribute in any great measure, it makes them less feminine/masculine.

A strong woman is less of a woman. A beautiful man is suspect as being less masculine(or gay).
Stoogebie
11:26:07 AM Apr 25th 2011
To add to that: If Weakness Turns Her On, it must be because she enjoys being the dominant one in a relationship and having control over her male partner, most likely because she's got issues with her, uh, "role" as a "woman". On the other hand, a man who loves a meek, tender and softspoken woman is perfectly fine, in fact, he has good taste! But God forbid should it happen the other way around! Double Standard, thy name is sexist!
Erda
topic
10:26:23 AM Aug 30th 2010
edited by Erda
I think the "Babies Make Everything Better" / "Good Girls Avoid Abortion" should be moved to the "Frequently sexist in execution, but not in nature" category. Even though it could theoretically apply to people of both genders, the trope is disproportionately used with female characters (with the exception of GGAA which is ALWAYS used with female characters, obviously).

I also don't really understand why it's considered "non-gender-related." Could someone explain that to me?
MercuryInRetrograde
01:15:22 PM Aug 30th 2010
Because both men and women get slapped with the 'if you don't want babies there's something wrong with you'. There are quite a few stories in which a man who doesn't want kids has to learn to want them as the moral lesson of the story.
SomeGuy
02:33:34 PM Aug 30th 2010
If it applies to everyone equally, then how can it be a Double Standard?
MercuryInRetrograde
02:58:35 PM Aug 30th 2010
It doesn't necessarily apply to everyone equally.

Women are expected to love babies as a matter of course.

When women don't love babies it's seen as crossing the Moral Event Horizon because they should know better. When men don't like babies it's seen as par for the course because they aren't expected to like anything that involves responsibility due to being stupid, innately evil and undeveloped.

A woman will, of course, eventually show him the error of his selfish infantile ways.

The dynamic is sexist to both but in different ways. It forces women to conform to a certain standard of behavior because they're 'better' then men. And it also hits men, once again, with the stupid-childish-selfish triumvirate of personality traits.

All for a choice that should be perfectly acceptable and reasonable to people who have half a brain. No one should be forced to be parents.
SomeGuy
03:21:25 PM Aug 30th 2010
That sounds like an example of something but I don't think it's Double Standard.
Alrune
03:29:29 PM Aug 30th 2010
If I may, it's actually a Double Standard but, as explained, not based on gender, or at least not entirely.

You will rarely see anyone acknowledging that that don't want babies in their lives being portrayed sympathetically or neutrally for that matter. Such a person, be they male or female, is evil because they don't like children or don't want them and anything positive they may have in them doesn't count because of that fact.

On the other hand, an outright Villain who shows that they Wouldn't Hurt A Child is immediately seen as redeemable.

Depending on how you relate to children, you're good or evil. That's the Double Standard. Being a parent is commanded in society and those who aren't don't belong in this society.
SomeGuy
03:42:05 PM Aug 30th 2010
What you're describing is a single consistent standard. A Double Standard in this case would be a certain sub-class existing who's allowed to hate babies and no one treats them any worse for it.
MercuryInRetrograde
04:09:42 PM Aug 30th 2010
The double standard is that people who want kids are treated as better people then people who don't want kids.

Wanting kids does not make you a good person. As child abuse attests. Not wanting kids does not make you a bad person.
Ju
02:03:02 PM Mar 2nd 2011
edited by FreeRadical
I agree; your opinion of children shouldn't dictate your moral standpoint. I have a theory of where this 'child lover=goodness' thing came from. Children Are Innocent, right? So if you love kids, it's like you love innocence. If you don't love kids, then there's something wrong with you. However, my views on abortion aside, I think it's safe to say that "Babies Make Everything Better" should be either "Sexist Against Both" or "Frequently sexist in execution, but not in nature" category. The GGAA applies to women, since apparently you can only raise the baby yourself or get rid of it, but you can't put the child up for adoption.
Erda
10:59:15 PM May 28th 2011
The fact that men sometimes get slapped with Babies Make Everything Better doesn't change the fact that it disproportionately affects women. Men usually don't get it as harsh as women do, and it's usually not as gendered (in that, their masculinity is not the thing that is called into question, the way a woman's femininity often is if she doesn't want children).

I won't deny that the childless in general are stigmatized, but in looking at friends' experiences, there is this idea that all women have a "natural, "ingrained" desire to have children and a woman who doesn't is a freak of nature. This isn't as extreme with men.
MercuryInRetrograde
topic
12:22:01 PM Sep 12th 2010
edited by 124.169.211.154
Gfrequency,

Straw Feminism does indeed mean all Feminist, all the time.
gfrequency
06:22:15 AM Sep 13th 2010
edited by 124.169.63.211
Wait, where did the misunderstanding happen here? I agree with you. That was the entire point of the edit. I've gone into this in greater detail, to no avail, on the Straw Misogynist discussion page, but here's the short version. Feminism and misogyny are not comparable terms, but they are being used as such. Straw Misogynist was created as a Spear Counterpart to Straw Feminist, and the page descriptions of both were essentially homogenized to make it seem as though misogyny and feminism are equal and opposing philosophies that should be given equal credence.

Feminism, by definition, constitutes "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men."

Misogyny, by definition, is "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women."

Straw Feminist is called such because it distorts feminism, an egalitarian philosophy, into outright misandry (something feminism is), while Straw Misogynist seems a bit of an odd term because you can't misrepresent hating half the human race on principle as something bad, as the page suggests; it already is.
MercuryInRetrograde
08:56:47 AM Sep 13th 2010
There is a connection.

Any criticism of feminism gets one labeled a Straw Misogynist.
Somfin
07:34:41 AM May 13th 2011
edited by Somfin
The difference is that a normal, fictional misogynist might be the sort of guy who uses the term 'dame' unironically, expects his female companion to accept him going in alone, and might crack a 'women, eh?' joke at some point in the narrative- and that might even be treated as acceptable behaviour (Values Dissonance may abound, but the narrative doesn't treat him badly).

A Straw Misogynist will do the above and most likely worse, but the important part is that the narrative will present him as WRONG and he NEEDS to have his views be PROVEN WRONG by a STRONG WOMAN who DOES NOT CONFORM TO GENDER ROLES. Either the Straw Misogynist will acquire a COMEUPPANCE or he will have an EPIPHANY, but in either case, his misogyny exists purely so that it can be cured or punished, and thus the author can prove that they are SENSITIVE MEN who UNDERSTAND WOMEN. In this case, ALL CAPS represents IMPORTANT POINTS that the writer NEEDS TO DRIVE HOME. Usually repeatedly and directly, occasionally via a soapbox.
OldNameless
08:03:27 PM Dec 22nd 2011
I'm sorry, "Femininsm = misandry"? Who called Sebastián Piñera?
Gundamforce
topic
03:02:18 PM Sep 22nd 2010
Some of the examples in "Sexist against Either" look more meant for "Sexist against Men". I moved some of the appropriate ones there, but some of them need better reasons why it is taboo for either sex instead of one sided.
johnnye
topic
09:16:07 PM Oct 6th 2010
edited by johnnye
  • Fag Hag: Women who associate closely with Gay men often suffer the same bias as Yaoi Fangirls and, as the title suggests, are more often than not portrayed as unattractive, overweight spinsters that are just desperate for male company but too ugly to get laid. Attractive portrayals DO exist but are less common. However, Heaven forbids they actually enjoy watching Gay men getting it on!

And... where's the double standard? Men who hang around with groups of lesbians are routinely depicted as entirely chaste and decent individuals? I don't even see how this is sexist, it's just "fag hags as Acceptable Targets". Just because a trope which happens to be Always Female is denigrated, doesn't mean it's a sexist trope.
gfrequency
11:44:33 PM Oct 6th 2010
The vast majority of tropes on this page don't constitute a Double Standard in the technical sense of the term. As the laconic page says, these are just "sexist tropes," not actual double standards. Someone could clean up the page, but we'd end up cutting the thing in half with a moronic edit war to add everything back in, most likely with a "No, WE'RE more oppressed!" vibe to it.
Alrune
03:10:20 AM Oct 8th 2010
I proposed to do it back in the days but got the same response. Don't you think it's time I give it a try now?
MercuryInRetrograde
10:09:22 AM Oct 8th 2010
edited by MercuryInRetrograde
Just scanned through the 'Sexist against men' category and, as far as I can tell, aside from two or three, they are double standards. As in, male characters who do/say/are X are treated differently then female characters who do/say/are X. Or when female characters do/say X to male characters they're treated differently then when male characters do/say X to female characters.
gfrequency
09:17:02 AM Oct 9th 2010
It would be an exercise in futility to get rid of all the examples which don't constitute double standards or which aren't sexist in the first place but have been added because this or that troper just doesn't like them. Most examples would be added back as soon as someone noticed they'd been taken away. Double standards have become synonymous with sexism, rather than resultant from it, and I doubt that's going to change anytime soon. Better descriptions of why a trope is sexist when applied to characters of either gender might help, but it might also make every description a paragraph long. The page would need a massive overhaul to make it accurate insofar as the term "double standard" is concerned, but I wouldn't even know where to begin, and it would be back where it was in two months anyway.
Alrune
02:36:22 PM Oct 9th 2010
Then how about a name change?
MercuryInRetrograde
02:41:38 PM Oct 10th 2010
How about we just have two sub-sections in each 'sexist against X' section. One for sexism and the other for double standards.
Alrune
03:07:55 PM Oct 10th 2010
I think that would do just fine indeed. Actually I was thinking putting all tropes that fit the same idea under one sub-section. If you look closely, and this has been said by Mercury In Retrograde before by the way, most blatantly sexist tropes function on the premise that men must be strong and sexually hyperactive else they're not men, women must be beautiful, weak and sexually passive else they're not women.
gfrequency
08:57:57 PM Oct 10th 2010
I'm not even sure how this would work without a gigantic overhaul. First, we have the tropes that aren't double standards but are listed because someone doesn't like them; "I don't like characters with big boobs, so I'll list Most Common Superpower' under 'sexist against women.'" And so on. Most double standards are the result of certain character types as they're perceived as "acceptable" and "unacceptable" dependent upon gender and nothing else, making it a bit of a narrow index if we're to rely on "double standard" as a technical term. Shrinking Violet, for example. Female version = good, male version = bad. No differentiation, otherwise. Male cowboy cop = badass. Female cowboy cop = hysterical weak-willed woman who should never have been allowed on the force in the first place. Et cetera. It's a nerve-wracking set of tropes to even define, let alone index. Maybe we'll sort this out in time, but I doubt there's an obvious solution in the immediate sense.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
09:09:20 PM Oct 10th 2010
I recommend the narrow indexing, at least to start with, when the page is revamped. The stricter the list is to start with, the less likely things like Most Common Superpower will be considered a Double Standard...

Then again, we really don't want men to have the Most Common Superpower, since it's more like kryptonite to them. You can film them with it without getting an R rating, but most audiences aren't gonna appreciate it.
Gundamforce
04:19:46 AM Oct 11th 2010
Speaking of an overhaul, the mods are doing one themselves right now. Looking at the previous article, can't say I'm really surprised.
Digitalpotato
09:00:35 PM Oct 19th 2010
@Anonymous Mc Cartney Fan: Well of course the audiences won't appreciate it - because it'd be considered Fanservice for females. Sounds like a Double Standard to me.
AckSed
topic
06:55:37 AM Oct 21st 2010
edited by AckSed
Grammar/spelling:

Under All Men Are Perverts:
"Men are also portrayed as more shallow then women" should be "...than women".
SoWeAteThem
11:13:05 PM May 5th 2011
It's not locked, you know.
Digitalpotato
topic
11:01:23 AM Oct 28th 2010
Possible Double Standard, although I don't think there's a trope for Vegetarianism:

Not sexist in nature, but often sexist in execution is the fact that vegetarianism is portrayed differently. Females always seem more herbivorous, whereas males are portrayed more as carnivores. As a result, a female vegetarians aren't joked about as much, or are shown as more healthy, whereas male vegetarians are often thin or unhealthy. Values Dissonance aside. (Male vegetarian in India, for example, is nothing people look oddly at.)
DesertDragon
topic
11:21:26 AM Oct 31st 2010
Under "Frequently Sexist in Delivery but Not by Intent" or however that's worded, I wanted to add Queer As Tropes, because unless lesbians or bisexual women are explicitly mentioned in the title, most gay-themed tropes are almost always assumed to be about men.
TorchicBlaziken
01:41:47 PM Nov 4th 2010
edited by TorchicBlaziken
Oops sorry for replying
BlueChameleon
topic
05:52:08 AM Dec 3rd 2010
Shouldn't there be more of the "What Measure Is ..." tropes under this category? Examples like What Measure Is A Mook, What Measure Is A Non Badass and What Measure Is A Non Cute would fit in comfortably here. Also other tropes where something gets Flanderisation, such as Reptiles Are Abhorrent, might be added.
StudiodeKadent
topic
10:23:17 PM Dec 9th 2010
Under "Non-Gender Related/Other" there is the following under "Mega Corp"...

"On a different note; but still related to Mega Corp, political views of Mega Corporations. Since a lot of people (Primarily right-winged libertarians) seem to think that only governments can screw you over; ignoring of course that Mega Corps can screw you over just as much for yours and other peoples' money if given the shot."

First, whether or not it is fair to consider libertarians "right-winged" is debatable considering that a common description of libertarianism is "socially left, economically right." The terms "right wing" and "left wing" have a very wide array of definitions, all of them are contestable and it is even arguable "right wing" and "left wing" are invalid concepts.

Second, the characterization that libertarians think "only governments can screw you over" is a laughable strawman argument which greatly misrepresents libertarian arguments. It also conveniently ignores the many libertarians that are skeptical of corporations; for instance economists such as Joseph Schumpeter. Yes, libertarians in general believe that corporate entities (as long as they are prohibited from starting the use of force or fraud or threats thereof) are lesser evils than the State but that is not the same as denying the ability of corporations to screw one over (or indeed, engage in force or fraud or threats thereof). Plenty of libertarian theory has analyzed how large corporate entities have been consistent enemies of free market economics, and plenty of libertarians (especially the free market anarchist libertarians) have argued that free markets undermine economic centralization.

Third, is it really a 'double standard' to subject corporations and States to different levels of scrutiny? They are different kinds of institution, and only States have (by definition) enforcible monopolies on the ability to legitimately initiate violence, fraud or threats thereof. Whilst some corporations do indeed have friends in high places that allow them to access the Power Of The State, this is not the essential feature of a corporation. The outrage over double standards about gender is that there is no legitimate basis that underlies a trope's differential treatment towards men and women. However, a completely reasonable (whether or not it is correct is irrelevant) case does exist that there is a legitimate basis to have differing levels of suspicion of States versus corporations.

Finally, this is a locked page on the wiki. It should be politically neutral. The TV Tropes Wiki does not have opinions, and as stated on the Double Standard main page, the page deals with double standards in storytelling rather than in the real world. Maybe there is a libertarian novelist who always writes corporations as "good"... but that certainly wouldn't fit Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged has plenty of evil corporations).

TBeholder
06:05:35 AM Dec 13th 2010
"locked" here means "the moderator is tired of cleaning this specific dungpile for now" =)
PowerOfRock
topic
07:09:19 PM Dec 20th 2010
For the "sexist against either" category, Action Girl and Non Action Guy should be deleted. Yes, having specific tropes for a fighter girl or a male non-fighter may seem like a Double Standard, but then we have The Chick, Distressed Damsel, Bad Ass, etc, as the spear/distaff counterparts.
gfrequency
03:00:15 PM Jan 26th 2011
Doesn't explain why it should be deleted. It is a double standard, hence it belongs on this page.
Ju
02:13:30 PM Mar 2nd 2011
edited by FreeRadical
Not really: The reason the Action Girl and Non Action Guy are seen as subversions to what we'd expect comes from the historical view that men are the strong fearless badasses and women are the screaming helpless damsels. To have a woman do all the fighting and have the male sidekick be more of the background/non-fighter type is sort of progressive in a way. It shows that female characters don't have to just get kidnapped by the greasy bad guys and males don't have to be badasses all the time. It's supposed to be a good thing that the guy isn't always invincible (which, theoretically, might make him more relatable) and the chick gets to save the day. How is that a double standard?
gfrequency
10:23:39 PM Jun 1st 2011
It is progressive. The fact that it must be pointed out, however, constitutes a double standard. Action Girl, as a trope, is sort of like saying "Sure, girls can be cool action heroes too — look, they get their own little special corner over here away from all the real badasses." Or, in the case of Non Action Guy, "This guy doesn't kick ass like the rest of the guys, isn't that weird?"
Stoogebie
03:14:53 PM Jun 8th 2011
Actually, the whole Action Girl trope isn't meant to give women "their own special corner away from all the real badasses", but instead it's trying to allow girls to rank in the same league with the other badasses. This especially counts for girls who aren't just limited to the Designated Girl Fight or some dumb Cat Fight for the sake of fanservice, but actual meaningful ass-kicking. As for Non Action Guy, I agree that it's meant to be taken as "weird" (or at least funny, because we're supposed to expect him to be the one saving the day, not his girlfriend!), but again, it's kind of like how women doing things like, say, being interested in combat, science or mechanics was considered "weird" or "unexpected" because it was "subverting" the usual idea that they didn't like things like that back a few decades ago. Maybe if given enough time, these tropes won't even be given a second thought.
ThreeferFAQMinorityChick
01:51:02 PM Aug 27th 2011
edited by ThreeferFAQMinorityChick
I think Madonna Whore Complex should be added to the folder Sexist Against Women because it divides women up into two exclusive categories of Madonna and Whore while men don't suffer any such treatment. There are men who fit into the spear counterparts of Madonna (for example, Joe Young from Orgazmo) and Whore (for example, Barney from How I Met Your Mother), but there are plenty more male characters who are understood to fit into a gray area between these two.
Stoogebie
02:38:52 PM Oct 30th 2011
I agree. It always bugged me that male characters can be complex enough to be relatable (ie: He's a philandering twit, but still respects women in the long run); women on the other hand either go on a pedastal or in the gutter.
molotov
topic
12:49:24 PM Dec 28th 2010
edited by molotov
For the sexist against men:

Am I the only one who thought of height when reading this. For example, a tall man is seen as good and strong almost all the time. However, a short man is a joke and probably a bombastic dick. Why: Height is mostly controlled by genetics and has no bearing on moral character. __ For the sexism against women:

A tall woman gets the No Guy Wants an Amazon treatment while short women are desirable and adorable. Why: Because it falls into the Red Sonja as well as implications that a man must be superior to a woman. __ For the sexist in execution but not inherently sexist section:

It is extremely rare in any situation at all to see a woman taller than her man, especially if the relationship is a good, healthy one. Why: Because it perpetuates the two above stereotypes and issues indirectly.
MrDeath
01:01:30 PM Dec 28th 2010
No Guy Wants An Amazon isn't about height, it's about strength and fighting ability. From what I've seen, most guys like a tall girl, partly because it means she's got long legs.
Erda
11:01:43 PM May 28th 2011
There is definitely a stigma about height in men that women don't experience (I mean, there are some dudes who consider tall ladies "emasculating," but they are few and far between compared to the numerous women who won't date short men).

Is there a trope for this double standard yet? If not, you should add it to YKTTW.
deeman45
topic
01:03:13 PM Jan 2nd 2011
I'm sorry, how is Bishoujo a sexist trope? The listing says that Bishoujo characters are frequently Ms Fanservice, but lets be fair, that applies a lot to about half of all female character archetypes. A quick look at the trope page says Bishoujo series are frequently created to appeal to boys via fanservice, yet I don't see Boys Love on double standard either, a genre which is rather blatantly made to appeal to females in much the same way.
SomeGuy
08:42:46 PM Jan 2nd 2011
For this reason, among others, I've made a request for this page to be unlocked so we can address these issues in the actual text of the page.
FreeRadical
10:40:25 AM Mar 28th 2011
deeman45: I'm with you on this one. I don't see what's so wrong with Bishojo as a trope. And as for their frequent Ms Fanservice status, it's a bit of a consequence of being a very attractive female character on a given show (often drawn by males).

As for including Boys Love on the page, I say there should be one of two things done: either take down Bishojo from the page, or add Boys Love to the page along with Bishojo.
deeman45
02:59:46 PM Nov 23rd 2011
edited by deeman45
EDIT REQUEST

Again, looking at the page listing, the only real reason that Bishoujo is listed at all is because the characters are frequently Ms Fanservice. And yet the Ms Fanservice entry on Double Standard itself states that not all Ms Fanservice characters are examples of sexism! So essentially, Bishoujo Genre is mostly on the Double Standard page due to guilt by association—and the Ms Fanservice trope which it is associated with isn't even guilty 100% of the time! The only other justification is that Most Writers Are Male, and just look below to see how well that really flies as an example.

As for adding Boys Love as a counterbalance, I suppose that would be a little better, but I really don't think that either genre is sexist considering both of them, while pretty blatantly objectifying one sex for the benefit of the other, have a number of other factors to them and tell a variety of stories. I really don't think either of them belong on the page, I was mostly using Boys Love as a comparison to point out how unfair it was to shoehorn Bishoujo Genre into this.

So for these reasons I please ask that Bishoujo Genre be removed from the listing.
OldNameless
08:11:29 PM Dec 22nd 2011
Compare them to how often you get Bishounen fanservice, and, BADA-BING! That's why it's listed.
TorchicBlaziken
topic
01:09:40 PM Jan 22nd 2011
About the Pedo Hunt section:

All pedophiles =/= child molesters. In fact, a lot of them are scared into the closet and celibacy because either they're afraid of Pedo Hunt or they see it as wrong themselves.

So don't go calling merely having the paraphilia depravity; change the word "pedophile" in that section to "child molesters."

That's another Double Standard, but not one I recall to be touched on in media.
MindGamer
topic
10:01:06 PM Jan 28th 2011
edited by Ju
Something that I've noticed a lot... Most Writers Are Male being used as a catch-all reason on the site for writing females in a sexist way a lot of the time, particularly against women.

I understand this is more meta than others, but it comes off as extremly sexist to me, and as a double standard seeing as how writers who ARE female aren't called out on their own inevitably sexist writings. Rumiko Takahashi ringing any bells? How about Stephenie Meyer's work? So in short, can this please be added to Sexist against Men?
gfrequency
04:19:31 PM Feb 9th 2011
It also assumes that most, if not all, male writers will think in a certain way. Sort of a knowing roll of the eyes and "Boys will be boys," dressed up as Common Knowledge. Always had a problem with this "trope."
Ju
02:20:51 PM Mar 2nd 2011
edited by FreeRadical
Yeah, you have a point...but Most Fanfic Writers Are Girls is a bit offensive too, since it basically says that "girls only care about fluffy romance stuff" when that's not always the case. What about girls who don't write romance-centric fanfiction? Or boys who write romance fanfiction? Is that to say that the former is "weird" and the latter is "gay"? Just wondering...is that trope on the Double Standard page?
FreeRadical
10:52:14 AM Mar 28th 2011
edited by loracarol
No, sadly it's not. It should be though, seeing as the listing for Most Writers Are Male follows with the statement "The source of many double standards." And stereotyping girls as being romance-obsessed Sue-generators isn't a source of Double Standard?

On the flip side, it's assumed that if you write fanfiction, it will inevitably be in some way concerned with the relationships between characters. If it's not, then the story is treated like the second coming. If you write fanfiction and you're a boy, God help you if it's romantic!
Stoogebie
06:37:55 PM Nov 4th 2011
Could we please add Most Fanfic Writers Are Girls to the list, and edit the listing of Most Writers Are Male? I don't know, I just really think we need to fix something there.
Jokubas
topic
07:58:56 PM Feb 5th 2011
I was skimming through this page again, and there are a few descriptions that have some double standards themselves, but I wanted to point out the description for Clothing Damage. It says that "However, sometimes for men this is a drama or atmosphere thing, while for women it is nearly always a Fan Service thing."

I think this helps point out a double standard itself, that I believe the description could mention. Is it even possible to show female Clothing Damage without people assuming it's Fan Service? But if you didn't do it in a situation where it clearly should happen, people will complain that Beauty Is Never Tarnished. Or is the trope when it is for Fan Service, and not just for any literal Clothing Damage?
gfrequency
10:28:45 PM Jun 1st 2011
I think the trope is about fanservice. At least that's what the page says. Then again, the page also says that men who suffer from Clothing Damage will often just lose the whole top for the sake of a Shirtless Scene. Yes, it's a fanservice trope, no, men are not immune to it, hence I'd reconsider putting it on this page in the first place.
Torquey
topic
05:18:06 PM Feb 6th 2011
The image on the main page isn't linked to its source. Can anybody change it?
108.6.177.172
topic
10:05:46 AM Mar 12th 2011
You have to admit that in "Tootsie", the very same traits that made Michael Dorsey unemployable made Dorothy Michaels a feminist role model. Modern women have more permission to break the rules, for men, the conventions are a straight jacket.
58.7.149.216
topic
05:23:43 AM Mar 30th 2011
edited by 58.7.149.216
All forms of Feminism are an exact exact replica of the Saudi Arabian goverment in almost every aspect, so as long as we aloud sexism to continue, we will always have the Double Standard.
FreeRadical
09:53:28 AM Apr 7th 2011
I'm actually with you here. No matter what we do to balance the scales, there will always be one group of whiners people who will have a problem with something, and call it a Double Standard. Subverting a Double Standard apparently counts as a Double Standard (Action Girl and Non Action Guy are Double Standards because of the fact that they subvert the assumed roles of both sexes - Unpleasable Fanbase much, anyone?). Tropes that aren't even Double Standards end up on this page because they may lead to them; it's no use. No matter what we do, we will never rid ourselves of the Double Standard. Ever.
124.169.211.154
08:37:19 AM Apr 8th 2011
edited by 124.169.211.154
Unless if we resigen ourselves. Preferably if we euphonise the Earth with a Doom Sphere, then all our miseries will be put to rest, since we can’t sole them.
Stoogebie
11:33:59 AM Apr 25th 2011
203.206.22.221
12:36:41 AM Apr 27th 2011
edited by 203.206.22.221
We must be resigned, there is no other option.
SavageOrange
topic
08:47:29 PM Apr 6th 2011
Men Are Generic Women Are Special and Men Act Women Are qualify for this page but are not present. Could someone who has edit rights for this page add them, please?
LeighSabio
12:02:16 PM Apr 9th 2011
OldNameless
08:16:43 PM Dec 22nd 2011
How did they miss these ones? They seem to be some of the most obvious to list.
Erda
topic
10:55:07 PM May 28th 2011
How is All The Good Men Are Gay not inherently sexist? It's currently under "Frequently sexist in execution, not sexist in nature."
pottetete
topic
01:33:14 PM Jun 27th 2011
"Straw Feminist page compared with the Straw Misogynist page"

Okay, I'm sorry if I'm bringing back more Fan Wank, but I don't see why this needs to be included anymore. Those two pages seem pretty equal now to me.

Warron
12:24:24 PM Oct 10th 2011
I find this really confusing. There's no explanation whatsoever and I honestly haven't got a clue how the pages are or were seen as sexist against men.

More to the point, this is as the top of the page says, a page for pointing out double standards in fiction. A double standard on the wiki itself shouldn't be here.
Erda
topic
01:17:32 AM Jun 30th 2011
Are we only listing ones that appear as tropes, or do other double standards qualify?

I think one that should be listed under non-gender-related is the double standard that some countries have in terms of censorship of violence vs. sex in the media. In the U.S., for example, explicit sexual content tends to be taken more seriously be groups like the MPAA ratings board than explicit violent content. In other countries, such as many in Europe, it is the reverse. I don't know if this is a trope but it should be discussed (for example, it came up in the recent Supreme Court ruling about violent video games, in Breyer's dissenting opinion).
Severen
11:37:35 AM Jul 10th 2011
That is a trope. It's called Values Dissonance. To put that in the Double Standard page would open up a whole new can of worms.
PandoraTears
01:59:11 PM Feb 10th 2012
Sadly, it seems a lot of tropers are getting this wrong when its linked to this page. They seem to think Double Standard is more "Standard A for A and Standard B for B" rather than its gender-specific connotations.
TechiGuy
topic
09:46:07 AM Jul 29th 2011
edited by TechiGuy
In Non-Gender Related/Other, the section example of "Babies Make Everything Better / Good Girls Avoid Abortion and Childfree Is Not Allowed / Child Hater" is typed out as:

"You don't like babies and don't want to be a parent? HOW DARE YOU!! No matter the reasons, you are commanded to like children and babies, especially if you're a woman and you shall freak out once you approach menopause if you're still childless. Else, you're a bad person. Period."

First off, the trope "Good Girls Avoid Abortion" is not even relevant. All that relates to is the notion that people should care enough of the possibility that it might be a person, and that they should carry it to birth as a precaution. It has no relation to whether they want to care for the child afterward or not, or whether they love it as a child.

Two, the "HOW DARE YOU!!" part does not need to be capitalized. These are logical standpoints to consider as a double standard, not an emotional outlet to exemplify the tropes in a raging fashion.

Three, the same reason can be said of the last part of saying "Else, they're a bad person" and "Period". Both are unneeded. They themselves just stated the reason, they don't need to restate the thought of why they are perceived badly then add a word to state their ending of a sentence.

I propose to totally restructure the wording to lessen the emotion and simplify what they want to indicate to the audience. It should be a simple edit, but this is a locked page still.
Stoogebie
05:27:41 PM Dec 2nd 2011
My thanks go out to the first person who seemed to recognize the main point behind Good Girls Avoid Abortion. It's not about whether or not you like babies, but most pro-lifers come from a standpoint of What Measure Is A Non Human.

More on the subject, this index really should try to be a little less emotional/opinionated. We're supposed to be assessing this objectively, right? There just seems to be too much Fan Wank and complaining with a Take That thrown in.
MangaManiac
topic
11:56:14 AM Sep 24th 2011
EDIT REQUEST:

South Park appears to be accidentally indexing under this. This is less of a problem since I just moved South Park to the WesternAnimation namespace, but I'd still think it would be a good idea if it was reworded or some [[index]] tag wiggling was done.
DesertDragon
topic
05:06:17 AM Sep 27th 2011
EDIT REQUEST:

Several of the "Sexist Against Women" examples like Dumb Blond, Fag Hag, Ryona, and others are not double standards, but are simply tropes that cast women in an unflattering light. If there's no comparison to men, then it's not this trope.
PandoraTears
02:04:09 PM Feb 10th 2012
I'm not so sure about Fag Hag and Ryona, but I think Dumb Blond should be mentioned at least, because it is usually a female-only stereotype (which stem from the whole beauty issues that girls prefer looks over brains), and it is quite rare to see a dumb blond male. But I'm a bit stretching it there.
SuperDuper
topic
07:50:47 AM Oct 25th 2011
EDIT REQUEST: Men Cant Keep House should be a "Sexist Against Men" example.
Brainiac0982
topic
07:05:30 PM Nov 6th 2011
EDIT REQUEST: Could someone please make it so that the link for "Im A Man I Cant Help It" doesn't use a ptitle anymore?
Hilaria92
topic
02:51:43 PM Dec 21st 2011
edited by Hilaria92
EDIT REQUEST: The entry for Accentuatethe Negative under "Non-Gender Related/Other" should not list "gay" as a synonym for "stupid" or "immature."
back to Main/DoubleStandard

This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Privacy Policy