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.

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

That seems like a fine way to organize it then.

What about the double standard that it's okay to portray Jesus or other gods in any manner, but not Mohammad at ALL?

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.

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.

Any evidence of this? At all?

"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.

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?

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.

But you believe there should be outcry against the whole God Save Us From The Queen, correct?

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.

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.

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.

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".

Except it's an imaginary phenomenon. There is no "outcry" over female, POC or homosexual villains.

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.'

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.

"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.

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?

"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."

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.

"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?

I will happily answer your questions if you tell me how this relates to the double standard article. Otherwise, take it to P Ms.

"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.

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".

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".

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

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.

...What? What the fuck are you saying?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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):

• Abuse Is OK When Female On Male, Rape Is OK When Female On Male, Rape Is Funny When Male On Male, Men Are The Expendable Gender, Groin Attack, Beauty Is Never Tarnished (hm which also seems like it could be sexist against either), Girls Hit Harder Than The Villains, Why Do You Make Me Hit You—all variations on the idea that violence against women (including sexual violence) is usually viewed as a much more serious/more dramatic thing than violence against men, which can be used for comedy, to punish a guy for a bad move, to just show how strong the big bad is without necessarily crossing over the moral event horizon etc.
• All Gays Are Promiscuous, All Men Are Perverts, maybe A Man Is Not A Virgin—The idea that men are all very highly sexual
• Bumbling Dad, Closer To Earth
• Men Don'tCry, Water Works

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...

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.

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.

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.

There are tons of stop violence campaigns, actually. Wtf?

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.

"Women are disproportionately the victims of domestic violence."

In reported cases, maybe.

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!

Hell yeah.

Umm hello Stoogbie I edited your comment because it contained a mean sounding word

If, on the other hand, they were to assemble in public with a sign proudly disclaiming their lust for Emma Watson....

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.

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.

Fair points, all.

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.

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.

er... like what?

Well the whole "Violence is preferred over sex" thing looks meant more for Values Dissonance rather than a Double Standard, so go ahead.

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.

"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.

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).

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?

And Mercury, you should probably read this: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/#benevolent

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

We had this discussion before. Although some entries have notes, it was decided that they were more sexist against one gender vs. another.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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!

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.

If it applies to everyone equally, then how can it be a Double Standard?

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.

That sounds like an example of something but I don't think it's Double Standard.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is a connection.

Any criticism of feminism gets one labeled a Straw Misogynist.

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.

I'm sorry, "Femininsm = misandry"? Who called Sebastián Piñera?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Then how about a name change?

How about we just have two sub-sections in each 'sexist against X' section. One for sexism and the other for double standards.

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.

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.

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.

Speaking of an overhaul, the mods are doing one themselves right now. Looking at the previous article, can't say I'm really surprised.

@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.

It's not locked, you know.

Oops sorry for replying

"locked" here means "the moderator is tired of cleaning this specific dungpile for now" =)

Doesn't explain why it should be deleted. It is a double standard, hence it belongs on this page.

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?

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Compare them to how often you get Bishounen fanservice, and, BADA-BING! That's why it's listed.

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."

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Huh?

We must be resigned, there is no other option.

Can we also add Men Are Better Than Women under Sexist Against Women?

How did they miss these ones? They seem to be some of the most obvious to list.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.