Deleted this:
- The infamous internet blogger Alecto, most infamous for her review
of Firefly, pretty much defines this trope. To sum up without getting into too many details, one of the claims Alecto makes is that, according to her, rape is 'when a man instigates sex' IE, when he asks his partner for sex. Essentially put, the only cases of sex that aren't rape, according to her, are ones between lesbian couples and heterosexual couples where the woman instigates sex. All homosexual couples and 50% of heterosexual men are abusive rapists, apparently. The scary, scary part about all this is that Alecto is dead serious about it, and she actually has loyal readers who believe exactly what she says. Now, lets not get into her advocating mass-genocide towards all males...
This whole thing is false. That whole article is a twisted ball of nonsense, but the paragraph above is not true.
Hide / Show Replies
Elaborate. What parts are not true. If you say; "just read it yourself" I will restore the example.
Edited by MikeShogunLee
Nia
I think this applies to both men women, sometimes a man is considered right over a woman for doing the same thing. Generally its about sex lives.
Hide / Show Replies
In the text of Alls Well That Ends Well I haven't found any trace of Helena giving Bertram a choice, but even if there was, I still suspect it was nominal, from the gesture of buying him from the king in public and out of the blue. Try turning down a public surprise-proposal even in our century without being Made Out to Be a Jerkass. In the beginning of the play she was lamenting that she can't do more than admire him from afar, Bertram was striving to be let away to the war, and maybe his snobbish haughtiness was also mentioned. Since then, he didn't court her, he didn't say anyone he changed his mind about the war and he'd prefer staying at home and start a family, and she didn't gain any official rank or riches, not even the public opinion changed any bit about either of them. She had no reason to assume he would be suddenly willing. (Even then, I'd at least think: "wait, if I can't even talk to him honestly, how could we make a marriage work? Would repeatedly forcing a tricking him as long as we both shall live be worth the trouble?") Even if I believe that the professional player of Dirty Social Tricks, whose calculating and manipulating skills are applauded throughout the play, suddenly had no idea what she was doing by engineering a public husband-sale instead of simply confessing to him in private of writing a love letter, her attitude after the wedding was more entitled than apologetic. Not to mention that who regrets doing something, at least stops. She continued chasing him abroad. And I don't know how she was trying to get the proposal back. If she said she didn't want an unloving husband because she deserved better, that would be genuine good intention at heart. If she acted like allowing him to be the bad guy who says no while she is ostentatiously a martyr meanwhile, that reads more like a passive-agressive way of forcing to me. (Kind of like when Satine broke up with Christian: she didn't say "you may abandon me if you want" to make him feel guilty, but she wasn't afraid to look like a bitch and make him despise her because she wanted to protect him.) That's why her gesture to take him from the king didn't strike me as an honest mistake but deliberately going for Questionable Consent. At least I can't imagine any situation where it would be practical to waste a royal favor on a mere Grand Romantic Gesture toward someone already interested. Someone not interested would be even less worth it, even if I had the death wish to willingly live under the same roof with someone I have publicly humiliated and whose career I have ruined - with an informed domestic abuser who is also a professional warrior, unless I am Nigh-Invulnerable - just so I could have the most unwilling Meal Ticket I could find. (And I would be at least wary at his sudden change of heart in the end: What if it's just a change of tactic and he is now desperate enough to widow himself? Even if the whole country would be out for his blood for it, he is too short-tempered to take much humiliation without snapping...)
About Alternative Character Interpretation, I haven't found any about her which wasn't still idealizing her and vilifying him, like 'she is generous to a fault, wasting her attention on someone unworthy'. Even my Alternative Character Interpretation was deleted where I doubted it was love on her part since she doesn't do anything selfless for him, but concentrates all her determination to owning him. In general, she is rewarded for the same selfishness and dishonesty he is punished for, which reminds me either of this trope or Protagonist-Centered Morality. Only Theresa Basile thought of the stalkerish aspect of her actions. I also doubt he had ever bullied her. He just wasn't interested in her and told her so, not trying to pretend otherwise. That's why I am starting to see him not as a haughty Jerkass but The Unfavorite Only Sane Man, and her not as a poor Love Martyr but a Bitch in Sheep's Clothing Manipulative Bastard. (I know he wasn't a saint. What he tried to do to Diana was disgusting. For that, he should be vilified. But it feels ridiculous of the cast to throw a fit about his simple disinterest and rejection of Helena like it were Irrational Hatred and Domestic Abuse. Yes, it's not very nice to be haughty - though, would a medieval character deserve persecution for not being a democrat? Would even a modern millionaire be thrilled to marry down, especially without love? (Assuming it's not the insult of being sold and bought behind his back, wanting to Marry for Love and not being able to turn around and look at a quasi-sibling with a lover's eyes or having other plans for the near future than be held back with marriage and children, but the only possible objection is that her blood is not blue enough.) Would even an average modern soldier retire to be a House Husband? However, his foster sister using him as a ticket into nobility is a touching act of unconditional love and self-sacrifice? - but why on earth was he morally obliged to be interested in her? He wouldn't be even if she had ever tried to defend him from his mother's abuse instead of pitying herself to her; supported him in his dream instead of ruining it to force herself on him; earned her own nobility and money with those medicines not to drag him down instead of buying him like a slave; and felt guilty for making him run from his own home as a public enemy and not wronged for not getting the romance she has paid for.)
In general, I was wondering whether it's also a Double Standard that if the hot, powerful Jerkass is shallow for not being interested in a cute but unremarkable Dogged Nice Girl, why isn't the girl shallow for getting obsessed with said jerk's hotness? And I am thinking the same about the Love Martyr 's entitlement both here and in the Brian/Justin romance in Queer As Folk: your beloved may be a narcissistic spoiled jerk, but that doesn't give you the right to force yourself into his life, parasite on what he has and still play the victim because he doesn't give you the romance he has never promised (what he has explicitly told you should never expect from him, mind you), let alone sacrifice his ambitions for you (be it getting fired just to spend a romantic weekend with you, or give up the chance to prove himself just to be your Meal Ticket).
In Community Jeff didn't even answer, just walked out and kissed Annie. As I understood, if he'd have said something, a "sorry, but I don't feel the same way", or even "give me a few days to think", he wouldn't have been considered a Jerkass. But I also think walking away silently was a rude thing to do, even Troy remarked that everybody is waiting for him to react.
Edited by 89.135.8.77
It's super effective.
Deleted this for being a hell of a load of natter bait. Should this stay dead, or are there valid examples?
- Many American day-time talk shows, especially of the tabloid variety, really abuse this idea, with perhaps the most notable example being Maury Povich's program. Therein, men who fail lie-detector tests and turn out to have cheated on their wives with dozens of women are depicted as selfish, devious, ruthless, lying, controlling, deceptive bastards. However, women who bring several men to the show for paternity tests to determine their babydaddy are never criticized for their promiscuity, while the men are thoroughly vilified for their share in it.
- Maury is an even bigger abuser of this than you'd think. Women who were proven to have been cheating are all shown to do the "weeping run down the back stage area" acting as if they had been tricked into cheating. Men are treated as vile, horrible, nasty, bastards for even * thinking* the child is not theirs, even when the woman's been on the show with five other guys. Let's let that sink in a bit. They get booed for questioning whether-or-not they are the father, even when it's shown they have EVERY REASON to think they aren't.
- It may be more of a fact that the children are the ones who are suffering the most. Still, the idea that the woman in question is treated as blameless through the ordeal while the man faces backlash for even thinking that the baby couldn't be his while he has every reason to believe so is ridiculous.
- Let's also notice that the men on this show aren't doing themselves any favors. They never seem to make a logical point, saying "She's brought six guys on this show, there is a good chance it's not mine." They seem to look for the dumbest guys that can find who will say nothing except, "SHE'S JUST A SLUT. THAT KID AIN'T MINE!"
- It may be more of a fact that the children are the ones who are suffering the most. Still, the idea that the woman in question is treated as blameless through the ordeal while the man faces backlash for even thinking that the baby couldn't be his while he has every reason to believe so is ridiculous.
- It gets worse than that. One episode consisted of a woman who is suspected of cheating on her husband and the idea that the child might not be his. When she comes out she is surprisingly booed. Maury was flabbergasted by the lack of sympathy, asking why they were booing her (with loud declarations of her being a cheater from the audience). Could you imagine this reaction from Maury if the genders were reversed? Seriously, the borderline misandry on the show is infuriating.
Maury: "This is the seventh time you've been on our show."
Woman: "I know this one's the father, Maury! I'm a million percent sho'!"
Maury: "You are NOT the father!"
Man: * dance of joy*(the music was edited in afterwards)
- There was one show where a woman was convinced that her husband was cheating and got mad when the lie detector proved her wrong. Even Maury thought she was crazy.
- Well if they used a polygraph then she may not be, because those things aren't exactly accurate.
- It could also be that the woman was so dead set in thinking her husband was cheating that nothing in the world could convince her that she is wrong. Some women do still believe in the "once a cheater always a cheater" motto.
- Averted by the Steve Wilkos show, though he usually deals with more serious issues like abuse and rape accusations, but sometimes cheating comes up as a secondary issue. A woman who cheated on her girlfriend and falsely cried rape on the man who got her pregnant and a mother who, according to the Lie Detector tests, apparently cheated on her husband and abused and neglected their children were booed by the audience and told to get off Steve's chair just as vehemently as male cheaters/abusers, if not more so.
- Except the one episode where he vehemently refused to believe a man had been raped, to the point where said man looked like he was going to breakdown. Wall Banger? Yes, indeed. But given that it's Steve Wilkos, who switches between having Awesome Moments, Narm, and Wall Banger status...
- On one episode of Steve Wilkos starred a divorced couple in which the husband had cheated. He was maintianing that she was interfering with his visits to his daughter. She stated otherwise. either point was just "he said, she said". Steve brought them both on stage to "talk it out". It was his turn to talk. Not only did she talk over him, she invaded his personal space. (specifically, she made an intimidation stance less than a foot away from him.) This caused the situation to devolve into an argument. The husband was forced to leave the stage because he was a "jackass" even though much of what he said was just "get out of my face." To make it clear, he did not retaliate.
- Maury is an even bigger abuser of this than you'd think. Women who were proven to have been cheating are all shown to do the "weeping run down the back stage area" acting as if they had been tricked into cheating. Men are treated as vile, horrible, nasty, bastards for even * thinking* the child is not theirs, even when the woman's been on the show with five other guys. Let's let that sink in a bit. They get booed for questioning whether-or-not they are the father, even when it's shown they have EVERY REASON to think they aren't.
- Largely averted in the British equivalent, The Jeremy Kyle Show. All cheats are depicted as the bad guys of the show unless they're genuinely apologetic.
- The Reality Show Tool Acadamy. Men who are lacking in social/ relationship skills are tricked by their long suffering girlfriends into competing for the title of "Mr. Awesome". The Acadamy is actually a charm school where the women have placed the men to learn to be better boyfriends. True, some of these guys are indeed JerkAsses, but just try to imagine a Di Staff Counterpart to this. Just try.
- Well, they do have female "tools" on the show now.
- And in general, the Charm School shows that were spin-offs of Flavor of Love and Rock of Love did roughly the same thing, basically trying to improve their bad behaviour. The big difference is that while Charm School is trying to improve the girls to be better people in general, whereas Tool Academy is trying to turn the guys into better boyfriends. Rather than just make them better people, the premise is more "shape them to their girlfriend's will so their girlfriends aren't ashamed of them." On both shows, the women win.
- Well, they do have female "tools" on the show now.
- Several years back on Oprah Winfrey's talk show, a researcher was getting disbelieving catcalls from the (normally very well-behaved) audience when she pointed out that there had to be just about as many women as men cheating in relationships. She asked if they believed there was a pool of a few dozen women all the cheating men shared? She also explicitly described the "When he cheats it's his fault, when she cheats, it's his fault" Double Standard.
- Prince Charles and Lady Diana. Both were apparently unfaithful; Diana had multiple acknowledged lovers, most of whom were ignored after her divorce; Charles had one, Camilla Parker Bowles, to whom he is now married, and they were together even from long before Diana came into the picture. Of course, Charles is an evil insensitive scumbag who drove poor sad and saintly Diana to it. Camilla, meanwhile...
- Part of the reason Charles is labeled as the worse one is that Camilla Parker Bowles was in the picture long before he married Diana and many people feel that he should have never married Diana in the first place with those feelings. But, being the Prince, his family insisted he marry someone, and Camilla wasn't eligible.
- One of her biographers even said flat out that she slept with a reporter to get him to write a fluff piece about her.
- During an episode of Have I Got News For You following Diana's 1995 interview on Panorama, Ian Hislop criticised the selective blindness Diana (and the public) seemed to have regarding adultery in her marriage to Charles. "She said there were three of us in the marriage, which shows that her maths doesn't change much. (counting on fingers) Hewitt, Hoare, Gilbey, Charles, Camilla...."
- I actually heard some people saying that Charles was wrong because he loved the older and less attractive of the two women. No comment.
- This article claims that women watching male strippers are just having fun, while men watching female strippers have "darker reasons". The quality of the research is heavily debated in the 700+ comments; in particular, the fact that the journalist (a woman, for what's it's worth) doesn't appear to have actually asked any men — whether a male stripper or a man who watches female strippers — what they think about all of this, having focused entirely on interviewing the women, has not gone unnoticed.
- Not to mention the huge rift between her two sources of "fact-checking:" a Chippendale's tour for the male strippers and the dingiest, dirtiest rat hole imaginable for the female strippers.
- Christopher Titus's relationships, for the most part - he manages to find the humor in it, though. For a bigger bonus, watch from 4:00, where he establishes his side of the divorce from his wife.
- A weirdly handled subset of this is any case of teacher/student affairs (see Pædo Hunt). If it is a male teacher and female student, then obviously he used his power and authority to take advantage, and anyone who questions the female's innocence is misogynist. But if it is a case of female teacher/male student such as Mary Kay Letorneau and Debra La Fave, not only do some accept that the woman must have been lonely and/or desperate (the boy either stupid or lucky), but it automatically gets more media attention than the former due to the supposed rarity. La Fave's case was especially egregious.
- Plenty excuse it when it's male teacher/female student as well - read the comments on any such news story. However, the media themselves are pretty insistent on this trope. If they admitted that not all men were evil and not all women were innocent they'd have less sensationalistic nonsense to scream about?
- Of course not! They'd have twice as much!
- There was a female/female case of this in the UK recently, and the judge even said that no-one had any right to break them up.
- Nice.
- There is a joke that says that the real reason for this trope is that women are just better at hiding their affairs than men are. Of course, a number of men don't believe their wife or girlfriend could possible be capable of cheating...
- There is a theory that more men cheat for adventure than anything else, and have a compulsive need to be found out (although some don't), where as women like to keep there's on "The Down Low".
- This troper knows a marriage counselor who says that when men cheat it's usually just for sex or for thrills but when women cheat it's usually because they've fallen in love with another man. This, he argues, is why male adulterers are more reviled. Cheating for sex or thrills seems callous and heartless. Cheating for love seems like the act of a poor lonely victim of an uncaring spouse. Ironically, however, the former is easy for a counselor to fix while the latter is often the death-knell of a marriage.
- There is a theory that more men cheat for adventure than anything else, and have a compulsive need to be found out (although some don't), where as women like to keep there's on "The Down Low".
- Insults. It's ok for a girl to abuse a man so bad that Gunny Hartman would be proud. But if you're a guy, don't even think about letting slip the F word on a girl... or you'll get slapped. (And let's not even go into the whole hitting thing.)
- No, let's. It's got to come up sooner or later. This article, listing "25 Things a perfect guy should do" has been circulating around the internet in several different versions for a while now. The list includes some cliched romantic bullshit like "His hands always find yours" and that he should "Dance with you, even if he feels like a dork", etc. Guess what No. 15 is? That he should "React so cutely when you hit him and it actually hurts." I repeat: He should "React so cutely when you hit him and it actually hurts." What the fuck? It's unknown where exactly this originated from, although the whole thing seems to have started in "The Twilight Archives" fanfiction site with a post labelled 21 Things a sweet guy would do (scroll down a bit, it's actually a profile page) and seems to have been added to over time. By multiple women. All of whom retained No. 15. Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK? The article has not gone uncommented on by several pissed-off males and females, who have replied with many, many hilarous comments which can be read here, and here. This troper can't help wonder what any female tropers who are reading this have to say about it.
- That I'm very scared and glad I'm not dating those girls?
- "* 15. React so cutely when you hit him and it actually hurts." / "Also fuck that. You hit me and I hit you back. If you are able to hit me hard enough that you can actually hurt me, you can take a retaliatory beating just fine"
- This female troper would sooner date a pencil sharpener than any man that fit that description. She doesn't want to hurt people, doesn't like to be touched, or listen to anyone who can't sing. Also keep away from my hair. And if he wants to watch "the game", go ahead. I'm probably watching DVDs on my laptop anyway. I don't like drinking, smoking, or drugs, but that one seems out of place. And act cute if he wants something? That's the job of little kids and animals.
- This male troper would like to ask to above troper to marry him because she seems like the coolest woman he's ever met. :)
- This female troper find this stuff to be more misogynistic than romantic/attractive, and deconstructs every one of these that is sent to her over facebook.
- Be Careful What You Wish For, in case the injured party decides to go Grotesque Cute.
- Maddox deconstructed those back in 2003, quite thoroughly.
- Let's get back to the hitting thing. This trope in general is part of the reason that more than a few people are saying that teaching your sons to never hit a woman is a bad idea. There are multiple studies showing that women are just as likely (if not moreso) to be violent in a relationship. They also realize that female-on-male violence can actually be worse since 1) a man is less likely to fight back or report it, partially because of this trope, and 2) since women realize they're outmatched strength-wise, they're more likely to use weapons. They think that it should be changed to basically "don't be abusive, but don't be a punching bag either. if your girlfriend is drunk, angry and coming at you with a baseball bat, don't feel guilty if you give her a hearty shove to get to safety." This article (from a woman) sums up the argument pretty well.
- No, let's. It's got to come up sooner or later. This article
- The Oprah Show (as mentioned above) oozes this trope as well. Except Oprah herself is very subtle about it.
- A More dicey example would be the fact that black men aren't allowed to like fair-skinned black women, let alone white women; if you do, you're everything that's wrong with black men (even if you admit to liking dark-skinned black women as well). And that's not even bringing up the Double Standard of interracial dating. Black females who date or marry white guys are seen as women who have traded up for a better life and stability (the trade-up is never a non-white male though). While black males who show any interest in white women are seen as weak and sellouts.
- While the abovementioned double standard can happen, the opposite often applies as well. Black women who date and marry interracially are also often viewed negatively and as sellouts. . .by the same black men who see nothing wrong with dating or marrying interracially themselves (not that there's anything wrong with interracial relationships of any kind).
- And to come full circle, the aforementioned black men who date non-black women are seen as weak and sellouts. . . often by the same black women who have "traded up" for a better life and stability. Basically it's jealousy/sour grapes at work.
- There's definitely bitterness on both sides concerning interracial dating/marriages. But from an objective point of view it's waaay more negative for a black man, due to the reasons that was already mentioned. And there's alot more "bitterness" on the female side. Mostly because of the myth that there's not enough eligible black men to go around. But the fact of the matter is when it comes to marriage blackmen rich, or middle class still OVERWHELMINGLY marries other black women. So while IR relationships between BM/WW are slowly increasing, it's still rather rare to see IR couples in general together. Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is up for debate.
- You can't help but think the But Not Too Black trope caused a lot of this sometimes unfair resentment towards black men (and women whom have a lighter shade)though.
- On the subject of interracial dating, most people don't seem to have a problem with an Arab woman dating a Caucasian man. The opposite, however, seems to be warrant a lot of complaints.
- While the abovementioned double standard can happen, the opposite often applies as well. Black women who date and marry interracially are also often viewed negatively and as sellouts. . .by the same black men who see nothing wrong with dating or marrying interracially themselves (not that there's anything wrong with interracial relationships of any kind).
- And on that note - any laws decreeing that a drunken partner is unable to give consent, even if they're conscious. While an agreeable idea, the application of this type of law is very uneven, as most guys who make the "Drunken mistake" will be encouraged to just accept it, while women would be treated (relatively) compassionately.
- An episode of Jerry Springer's Springer Show-esque gameshow 'Baggage' has this. The woman whom is choosing from three guys finds out of the three men enjoys group sex, and gets rid of him... Only for us to find out at the end she's currently dating FIVE men at once, none of whom know about the others, claiming not wanting to be hurt. Everyone sympathizes with her, and the guy decides to try a relationship with her.
- One common sitcom trope involves a woman trying to be more powerful in her relationship with her man. The woman is usually presented as reasonable, while the man tends to instantly become a knuckle-dragging chauvinist. Very rarely is this shown with any sort of sympathy for the man's side at all. He will almost always be Exiled to the Couch until he learns to see how reasonable the woman is being.
- Another is where a woman being physically abusive and a straight up bitch to her husband others but no one dares hit her for the reason of being "more down to earth then her husband". See Carrie Heffernand of King Of Queens or Debra Ramone of Every Body Loves Raymond for examples of that bullshit.
- To be fair to King Of Queens Carrie is seen as something of a bitch by the other characters, and while Doug is considered slightly dim, he's also considered exceedingly patient for putting up with her.
- Until recently, there was a law in Alabama that allowed women specifically to get out of paying alimony in divorce cases. It's now been struck down by the Supreme Court.
- Singapore's "empowered" wives can still extract maintenance from their husbands, who have no right to do the same to them. And the husband can be JAILED for failing to pay.
- In the past few decades it was quite common for child custody cases to automatically assign custody to the mother regardless of which parent was actually more fit to raise the child. A couple hundred years ago it was the other way around - children were always the property of the father, no matter what.
- It's very rare for non-custodial mothers to be required to pay child support, but overwhelmingly common for non-custodial fathers, even if they never wanted the child in the first place. If a women deliberately deceives a man (by say, going off her birth control) and gets pregnant, that man is still legally required to support the child until his 18th birthday.
- Ironically, the media attention brought to custody cases by the "Father's Rights Movement" now means that if a mother in a divorce case cites abuse on the part of the father, the court is LESS likely to award full custody to her, and lawyers advise their clients to keep quiet about such things even if they're true.
- This sad state of affairs is largely due to the very sad and frightening inability of the justice system to be truly unbiased. In the past women could make false claims that their husbands were abusive, perhaps even child molesters, in order to gain custody and not face any retaliation. Now that they've been called out on it instead of trying to examine the issues more closely most judges have simply become suspicious of any claims of abuse in child custody cases. Of course there are still some judges that assume the opposite, that if a woman claims abuse it is automatically true, so what happens in such cases generally depends on what judge you get and their prejudices and double standards.
- Ironically, the media attention brought to custody cases by the "Father's Rights Movement" now means that if a mother in a divorce case cites abuse on the part of the father, the court is LESS likely to award full custody to her, and lawyers advise their clients to keep quiet about such things even if they're true.
- It's very rare for non-custodial mothers to be required to pay child support, but overwhelmingly common for non-custodial fathers, even if they never wanted the child in the first place. If a women deliberately deceives a man (by say, going off her birth control) and gets pregnant, that man is still legally required to support the child until his 18th birthday.
- "Why Shameless Objectification can be a good thing - Jezebel". Basically, it's an article explaining why it's okay for women to objectify male athletes, but it's not okay for men to do the same. The other comments are similarly full of fail, including this one, which implies women fundamentally don't "ogle" in the same manner men do.
- This is actually something that's been seen in several advertisements in the UK. Diet Coke? Women ogle hot guy in an elevator. Kinder Bueno? One where women stare at a waiter's posterior and another where they steal a man's clothing so he has to leave a sauna naked. Aero? Just a well-built man in nothing but a towel talking into camera in an alluring manner. Galaxy Minstrels? A whole audience full of women ogling male strippers on a stage, a la The Full Monty (which adds to what an above troper pointed out about "the reasons men and women enjoy watching strippers"). Reverse the genders in any of those adverts and there'd be a colossal number of complaints.
- And let's not forget the Eurpean ads for Ski yoghurt: Ogling attractive women is bad, but ogling attractive men is a-okay.
- This ad recieved some complains because of the Unfortunate Implications that Mike Rowe was saying "black women are icky". The fact that the woman in question just touched his jeans without his permission, which could be construed as sexual assault, went largely unnoticed.
- This ad. Lots of the comments make the very valid point that if this were a baby girl and adult men were looking at her like that, the Unfortunate Implications would be off the chart.
- It's closer to home, too. You know those Mc Donald's snack wrap ads? The girlfriend mentions how her friend's new boyfriend thinks "Sundays are just for football." The guy's gotta be on his toes and react in just the right way or he's out of the house. And the one from the woman's point of view... the guy just wants to nap on the couch instead of spending his weekend painting the garage, but she finds another job for him. Can you see either of those with the genders flipped?
- This is actually something that's been seen in several advertisements in the UK. Diet Coke? Women ogle hot guy in an elevator. Kinder Bueno? One where women stare at a waiter's posterior and another where they steal a man's clothing so he has to leave a sauna naked. Aero? Just a well-built man in nothing but a towel talking into camera in an alluring manner. Galaxy Minstrels? A whole audience full of women ogling male strippers on a stage, a la The Full Monty (which adds to what an above troper pointed out about "the reasons men and women enjoy watching strippers"). Reverse the genders in any of those adverts and there'd be a colossal number of complaints.
- A more sad and heartbreaking example of this is the fact that closeted gay females whom are already in a heterosexual relationships are seen waay more sympathetically than gay closeted males in hetero relationships. The former is seen as someone that was a victim of society's norms, while the latter are seen as a bunch of selfish men whom are spreading ST Ds within the female populace. In other words, it's society's fault when a closet Lesbian has same-sex affairs, but a gay man's fault if he does. Closeted women are never judged on how this effects their spouse or children if they have any, while the men are seen as horrible and irresponsible.
- YMMV. This one really depends on which crowds you hang out with and their opinions on homosexuality. And arguably it's just another example of the "cheating men are pigs, cheating women are just yearning for love" stereotype described throughout this page.
The Real Life section mostly contains examples that don't really relate to this trope at all and would be suited for the other one. That, and also to complain about other things not really related to this trope at all, apart from "women get the better end of the stick". Once, there was an example about how you can find plenty of women's magazines in the doctor's office but hardly any magazines for men.
Part of me REALLY wants to go through the Real Life section and axe anything that isn't this trope and is just complaining about men always getting the short end of the stick, but I also don't want to delete potentially valid examples.
Edited by WhiteBear
I'm going to do this without the additional points, and evaluate each one:
- Many American day-time talk shows, especially of the tabloid variety, really abuse this idea, with the most notable example being Maury Povich's program. Therein, men who fail lie-detector tests and turn out to have cheated on their wives are depicted as selfish, devious, ruthless, lying, controlling, deceptive bastards. Meanwhile, women who bring several children to the show for paternity tests to determine their babydaddy are never criticized for their promiscuity, while the men are thoroughly vilified for their share in it.
Sounds correct, with not much natter.
- Largely Averted by the British equivalent, The Jeremy Kyle Show. All cheats are depicted as the bad guys of the show unless they're genuinely apologetic.
Aversions should not be listed unless there are more works that play it straight than avert it.
- The Reality Show Tool Acadamy. Men who are lacking in social/relationship skills are tricked by their long-suffering girlfriends into competing for the title of "Mr. Awesome." The Acadamy is actually a charm school where the women have placed the men to learn to be better boyfriends. True, some of these guys are indeed Jerk Asses, but try to imagine a Distaff Counterpart to this. Just try.
This doesn't really seem related to the trope, there's nothing about a Double Standard. Incorrect.
I could go on, but That's all I have the energy for, and besides my mouse is running out of battery.
Edited by ading I'm a Troper!!!
- Several years back, a researcher was getting disbelieving catcalls from the (normally very well-behaved) audience when she pointed out that there had to be just as many women as men cheating in relationships. She asked if they believed there was a pool of a dozen women all the cheating men shared? She also explicitly pointed out the "When he cheats, it's his fault, when she cheats, it's his fault" Double Standard.
This is about not believing women cheat, not saying it's okay for women to cheat. Incorrect.
- Prince Charles and Lady Diana. Both were apparently unfaithful; Diana had multiple acknowledged lovers, most of whom were ignored after her divorce; Charles had one, Camilla Parker Bowles, to whom he is now married, and they were together from even long before Diana came into the picture. Of course, Charles is an evil insensitive scumbag who drove poor saintly Diana to it, while Camilla meanwhile...
Seems correct, but why does it say "while Camilla meanwhile"?
I'm a Troper!!!
Okay, I'm just going to leave links to other sites linkless, because I find this enough of a pain as it is.
- This article claims that women watching male strippers are just having fun, while men watching female strippers have "darker reasons". The quality of the research is heavily debated in the 700+ comments; in particular, the fact that the journalist (a woman, for what it's worth) doesn't appear to have asked a man-whether a male stripper or a man who watches female strippers-what they think about this, having focused entirely on interviewing the women, has not gone unnoticed.
I don't think this is relationship-related. Incorrect.
I'm a Troper!!!
As someone who spent most of my teens watching day time talk shows female cheaters - or even suspected cheaters are generally called out just as much as men. There are times the audience takes the womens side but there are just as many where the audience unfairly takes the mans side.
Should this trope exist at all? The trope of the man who is driven into the arms of another woman by his cold, nasty wife/girlfriend is just as common. Maybe consolidate into a trope about a person of either gender in a relationship who cheats, but whose cheating is excused by their partner being a terrible person?
Edited by ArsenalTengu Hide / Show Replies
That's simply not true. The framing story of the Princess Bride, all about the writer considering adultery because of his cold wife. Robert Heinlein's Job, the main character running across multiple universes with another woman is okay because his wife is a nasty bitch. Cryptonomicon, the present day character chases after another woman because his former girlfriend was terribly cold. It's very frequent. Really, this trope is so arguable and such a magnet for people's personal feelings to the point that I don't think much productive can come of it.
First off, I haven't even heard of those examples. And I doubt most others have as well.
Whether you like it or not, this trope exists. There are enough examples on the page alone that easily drown out anything in the reverse. For you to claim otherwise is to ignore the brunt of popular media.
Fair enough; it still exists, though. Have you got something more useful to contribute?
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Severin
I'm not saying this trope doesn't exist at all but a lot the examples on the page can just as easily be put down to Good Adultery, Bad Adultery, YMMV (the tropers personal opinion on who is wrong or who is depicted as wrong), Protagonist-Centered Morality or character being either Unintentionally Sympathetic/Unintentionally Unsympathetic or a Designated Hero/Designated Villain as they can to it being anything to do with gender.
CrypticMirror
For future reference. The Real Life section has been removed by Fast Eddie following an issued raised on Ask The Tropers.
Edited by CrypticMirror
Diversion
Removing this point I added because while it's an example of a double standard, it's not an example of this trope.
- There's a certain feminist blog that has an Orwellian Editor policy; it deletes any comments that do not agree with the editorial policy, no matter how politely that disagreement is expressed. On occasion, people who disagree are banned. On several occasions, the blog in question claims its own opinions are not being given the respect they clearly deserve from people who are not open to contrary opinions. They do not see the irony.
I removed it from the Sex Tropes index. Objections?
Confusion shall be my epitaph
For the 'playing with a trope' page; does anyone know what the 'conversed' and 'discussed' would be for this trope? Also, there's probably a better example for 'parodied' that a reference to the exaggeration and Poes Law.
Hide / Show Replies
Discussed could be "Don't think that just because you're a woman, it's suddenly okay for you to cheat.
I'm a Troper!!!
Fear me
"In French a victim is always la victim and never le victim. This is a language that has about 5 words that are absolutely always feminine regardless of the gender of the person your talking about. And victim is one of them."
How exactly does this relate to this trope?
Hide / Show Replies
Well, it basically says that a man who is the victim of something is less masculine.
"Aren't you cold, Finn?"
I saw that example- it probably does assume that women will always be in victim positions. There's definitely some sexism in the gender of some french words. Case in point, un honet homme means "an honest/honorable man", but the feminine version, une honete femme means a chaste woman".
Although there are plenty of words where gender doesn't seem to have any significance- case in point, une chemise is a (man's) shirt and un chemisier is a blouse.
Edited by Jordan Hodor
Is there a trope for the "gay men are evil and depraved; lesbians are awesome and fun to watch" double-standard, or is that lumped in with this trope?
Hide / Show Replies
Depraved Homosexual and Girl on Girl Is Hot fot the individual situations, but the combination might fall under Most Writers Are Male.
- all-male Oans made the Green Lantern rings...
Not a very pressing issue, and not 100% sure about this, but I thought the Guardians were sexless? Until Ganthet and Sayd hooked up, anyway... does anybody know this for sure?
Edited by Darkmane Tyler Durden is my bitch. Hide / Show Replies
The Guardians come from a race called The Malthusians, who had both genders. However after achieving immortality (and thus no longer needing to reproduce) -not to mention the males getting obsessed with guarding the universe- the females left and became the Zamarons. Also, the guardians killed by Jordan/Parallax (presumably all male) were revived by Kyle Rainer... as people of either gender (!) Technically this means there are more female than male Malthusians now.
Kaywinnet: Cutting Waitress:
- Waitress treats the man slightly more sympathetically, but has the woman end the affair due to an attack of conscience after she meets his really nice wife, and also after she leaves her abusive husband.
This trope description desperately needs a rewrite to get the redpill out of it.
Hide / Show Replies