TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Misused: Girls Need Role Models

Go To

HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
#1: Nov 1st 2016 at 12:26:18 PM

The trope description for Girls Need Role Models is about female characters who are created to be perfect role models for young female viewers, and how these characters tend to be flat and one-dimensional due to their lack of flaws.

The example list, however, is seemingly a list of every female character who anyone has ever seen as a role model, whether they were intended to be or not, whether they're good ones or not, and whether they have flaws or not. And a lot of them go off on long tangents about a work or character's general level of feminism-friendliness, whether that has anything to do with the ostensible trope definition or not.

Even when the examples more or less fit the ostensible definition, they tend to come across as thinly-veiled substitutes for the now-Flame-Baited Mary Sue trope.

Going down a representative sample of the example list:

  • Naruto: Misused. Entry doesn't even bring up female characters at all until the final, spoilerized sentence. Very unclear what it's even trying to say.
  • Wonder Woman: Zero Context Example.
  • Amy Rose: Misuse. While the entry talks about the character being awesome, doesn't establish that she lacks flaws compared to the rest of the cast.
  • Douglas Wolk: Zero Context Example. May count as a Discussed Trope, but doesn't give enough context to say for sure.
  • GI Joe: Misuse. Talks about its feminist credentials. Great. Doesn't say anything about role models or lack of flaws, or even name a single character that it's talking about.
  • Runaways: Misuse. Straight-up says that the female characters do have flaws.
  • Gold Digger: Misuse. Doesn't talk about flaws or lack thereof at all.
  • X-Men: First Class: Misuse. Talks about an in-universe character who acts as a role model for another in-universe character. Has nothing to do with the trope one way or the other.
  • The Avengers: Zero Context Example. Says that this is "the goal" of the writers but doesn't say how or whether they go about achieving it.
  • Sword of Sorrow: Misuse. Complains (via Weblinks Are Not Examples, mind) about a scantily-clad woman on the cover, says nothing about role models or flaws or characterization at all.

  • She-Hulk: Misuse. Talks about the title's general feminist credentials, but only obliquely talks about flaws or characterization, doesn't mention whether she's supposed to be a role model.
  • Harley Quinn: Misuse. Not A Subversion; as a villainess, she was never intended as a role model.
  • "The Mary Sue phenomenon": Misuse; Examples Are Not General.
  • The Barbie movies: Misuse. Talks about general feminist credentials, not flaws or whether the characters function as role models.
  • Cinderella: Misuse. Talks about general feminist credentials, not flaws or whether the characters function as role models.
  • Beauty and the Beast: Misuse. Talks about how awesome Belle is, but doesn't establish her lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast.
  • Pocahontas: Misuse. Talks about how awesome the character is, but doesn't establish her lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast.
  • Mulan: Misuse. Talks about how awesome the character is, but doesn't establish her lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast. Also gets into Examples Are Not Arguable territory when it suddenly pivots and starts claiming she's a subversion.
  • Princess and the Frog: Misuse. Talks about how awesome the character is, but doesn't establish a lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast.
  • Wreck-It Ralph: Misuse. Talks about how awesome the characters are, but doesn't establish a lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast.

  • Brave: Talks about a couple of feminist audience reactions to the main character that seem to be complaining because she has flaws, which is at least somewhat related to this trope, but the tone is very complain-y.
  • Home: Misuse. Talks about how awesome the character is and how she's intended to be a role model, but doesn't establish a lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast.
  • Team America: Misuse. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with this trope.
  • Alice in Wonderland: Misuse. Does not talk about flaws or lack thereof, and gets into a weird tangent about Real Women Don't Wear Dresses.
  • Down With Love: Misuse. Talks about how awesome the character is, but doesn't establish a lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast.
  • How To Lose a Guy In 10 Days: Zero Context Example.
  • Hitch: Zero Context Example.
  • The Hobbit: Misuse. Talks in very general terms (and in the future tense, never a good sign) about a character with no mention of flaws or role models.
  • Kill Bill: Zero Context Example. Someone who made a movie wants people to watch the movie he made? Great. What?
  • X-Files: Fight the Future: Misuse. Talks about how awesome the character is, but doesn't establish a lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast.

  • Captain Marvel: Zero Context Example. Talks about how Brie Larson wants to create a role model in an upcoming movie, but because it's nowhere close to release, there's no way to know whether it actually fits or not.
  • Tamora Pierce: Misuse. Talks about how awesome her characters are and general feminist credentials, but doesn't establish a lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast.
  • Nancy Drew: Misuse. Talks about general feminist credentials or lack thereof, has nothing to do with this trope.
  • Hunger Games: Misuse. Talks vaguely about different female characters but never really makes a point.
  • Masques: Misuse. Doesn't talk about flaws or lack thereof, just general yakking about the work's feminist credentials.
  • Our Miss Brooks: Misuse. Talks about how awesome the character is, but doesn't establish a lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast.
  • Joss Whedon: Misuse. Doesn't establish a lack of flaws compared to the rest of the cast, or even give a single named example of a female character in his work.
  • Star Trek: Misuse. Talks in very vague and general terms about role models and how well-realized (or not) the female characters are, but doesn't discuss flaws at all.
  • Thirty Rock: Misuse. Talks about the character's flaws; this is supposed to be about role models without them.
  • Stargate SG-1: Misuse. Talks (in very vague and general terms) about the character's flaws; this is supposed to be about role models without them.

  • Doctor Who / Leela: Misuse. Talks about her being a role model and then gets on a tangent about whether she showed too much skin instead of discussing flaws or lack thereof.
  • Arrow: Misuse. Says that the female characters do have flaws.
  • Tina Ferrari: Misuse. Talks about the character being a role model, doesn't talk about flaws or lack thereof.
  • Tomb Raider: Misuse. Talks about the character's general level of feminism-friendliness, but not whether she's a role model or whether she has flaws.
  • Bayonetta: Misuse. Talks about the character being a role model, doesn't discuss flaws or lack thereof at all.

  • South Park: Misuse. Talks about how and whether its characters are role models, doesn't discuss flaws or lack thereof.
  • Avatar / Korra: Misuse. Talks at length about the female characters but never gets around to talking about whether they have flaws or not.
  • Transformers: Misuse. Talks more about whether or not it's okay that she's pink and whether she's a Faux Action Girl than about whether she has character flaws.
  • Recess: Misuse. Talks about general feminist cred and not about whether its female characters have flaws.
  • Super Best Friends Forever: Misuse. Talks in oblique terms about role models, but not about whether the female characters have flaws.
  • Real Life: The entire folder is rife with Examples Are Not General and Weblinks Are Not Examples best left to an Analysis subpage or just left out in general.

Conclusion: The whole thing is a big damn mess. It's part Gushing About Characters You Like, part Complaining About Characters You Dont Like, part rambling mini-essays about pop feminism, and part thinly-veiled accusations of Mary Sue. I'm not sure there's anything here worth saving.

edited 1st Nov '16 12:27:55 PM by HighCrate

Berrenta Bejeweled (she/her) (Ten years in the joint) Relationship Status: I made a point to burn all of the photographs
Bejeweled (she/her)
#2: Nov 1st 2016 at 1:54:16 PM

Yikes, that's a ton of misuse. I'm fine with torching this if we can't save it.

Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#3: Nov 1st 2016 at 5:03:24 PM

Maybe relaunch it as a gender neutral "flat role model' but yeah this is bad.

Psychedelicate She/Her Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: That's rough, buddy
She/Her
#4: Nov 1st 2016 at 7:17:05 PM

Goodness me, this is a mess. I'm leaning towards cutting it, or at least relaunching it.

Willbyr Hi (Y2K) Relationship Status: With my statistically significant other
Hi
#5: Nov 1st 2016 at 7:43:18 PM

+1 to nuke it if nothing can be salvaged.

Josef5678 Psshhh... from Virginia Since: Jul, 2013 Relationship Status: Mu
Psshhh...
#6: Nov 1st 2016 at 9:56:38 PM

Maybe we could alter the description to be about creators adding characters with the reason being 'girls need role models'? If not, nuke into oblivion.

Xtifr World's Toughest Milkman Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
World's Toughest Milkman
#7: Nov 1st 2016 at 10:54:53 PM

We could—and I'm not necessarily advocating this, merely pointing out the option—we could consider splitting it. Maybe even making this into a supertrope. Might be worth it for the sake of all the examples. Might be more work than it's worth, too. Not really sure.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
#8: Nov 2nd 2016 at 12:11:47 AM

It also strikes me that the ostensible purpose of this trope— cataloging instances on which a character can't have flaws because she's female— is already pretty well covered by Positive Discrimination, making this redundant on top of everything else.

If we were to split it, what would we split it into? I'm having trouble seeing one tropable definition here, let alone more than one.

edited 2nd Nov '16 12:16:04 AM by HighCrate

captainpat Since: Sep, 2010
#9: Nov 2nd 2016 at 9:00:57 AM

I think we should just cut it. This "trope" sounds like a lot assumptions without verification from the characters of those works.

Xtifr World's Toughest Milkman Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
World's Toughest Milkman
#10: Nov 2nd 2016 at 12:22:23 PM

I was thinking of splitting it based on the misuse, rather than the definition. Which is a pretty common and usually successful approach when a trope has a lot of misuse. But it only works if the misuse generally falls into specific categories. Which looks like it might be the case here, but I'm not totally sure.

Likewise, keeping this as a supertrope would involve replacing the current definition with what people appear to think it means, if we can identify that. Which I think is fairly straightforward: people seem to think this means "female role models" approximately.

(Which might be too broad for even a supertrope.)

Like I say, I'm not advocating anything here; merely pondering options. Cutting should generally be a last resort when there's nothing salvageable, and I'm not yet convinced there's nothing salvageable.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
rafi Since: Jun, 2014
#11: Nov 2nd 2016 at 12:26:12 PM

Positive Discrimination is already sufficient for the tropes's purpose. Cut this.

HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
#12: Nov 2nd 2016 at 1:10:57 PM

I get the general theory about splitting tropes, I'm just fuzzy on what the discrete categories of misuse would be and whether there are tropable definitions that could be applied to them.

For the sake of argument, if I had to categorize it, it would go something like,

  • "Female character specifically created to be a role model" (potentially tropable, although I'd want a Word of God requirement to avoid misuse as "any female character that I think is cool," and probably a name change)
  • "Female character who is flat and lacks flaws because otherwise she'd be a bad role model" (already covered by Positive Discrimination)
  • "Well-rounded female character gets criticized by feminists and/or Moral Guardians for having flaws" (complaining magnet, probably not tropable)
  • "Work that has general feminist cred" (not tropable without a much more specific set of criteria for what "feminist cred" consists of, and formulating such criteria is far beyond the scope of this wiki; also already potentially covered by Feminist Fantasy, a trope which has its own problems)

Of those broad categories, only the first one is even remotely tropable, and it would require a complete overhaul of the name, definition, and example list, which makes me think it's a better candidate for a fresh start at the Trope Launch Pad than a TRS overhaul of the existing trope.

captainpat Since: Sep, 2010
#13: Nov 2nd 2016 at 2:10:08 PM

The "trope"'s misuse is all over the place, just a lot of complaining and gushing with no pattern. There's no trope salvage here that isn't covered by Positive Discrimination.

AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#14: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:21:17 PM

My opinion is that the part worth saving is the one covered by Positive Discrimination.

What I wonder about is if it's worthwhile to rework this into (or split off from Positive Discrimination) a subtrope specifically for "female characters specifically about being role models". The hard part about that is that it probably would require some explicit confirmation that they're that way so they can be good role models.

Positive Discrimination isn't just about characters being role models; it's about not wanting to give flaws to minority characters for many reasons, with role models just being one of them. A more common reason is that you get a lot of flak for writing minority characters in a negative way, since then you're some kind of a bigot. For that reason, I don't think it's just The Same But More Specific. All subtropes are technically that, but there are at least two major traits that marks it as a subtrope: a specific category of characters and a specific message.

Check out my fanfiction!
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
#15: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:33:58 PM

I could get behind that. I'd suggest putting it through TLP and looking for a clearer name, and also requiring Word of God that the character is intended to be a role model for girls so that it doesn't get misused as "female character I like".

captainpat Since: Sep, 2010
#16: Nov 3rd 2016 at 2:46:12 PM

If it's requires creator confirmation then it sounds like trivia.

AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#17: Nov 3rd 2016 at 8:17:41 PM

Trivia is when it's external to the work. This is very much internal. Some kind of creator confirmation doesn't make it external, since the trope is still present in the work. That's really just to prevent misuse, and not part of the definition of what the trope is.

The problem, as I mentioned, is that it might be a little hard to actually find those confirmations.

Should be noted that such a thing doesn't need to come from the creator's mouth either. It can be mentioned in-story somehow that the character is a role model (or supposed to be one). If a character is treated as a role model within the work, it would still be okay, assuming she fits the other criteria.

Check out my fanfiction!
Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#18: Nov 3rd 2016 at 8:21:03 PM

I want to say that we should probably just go with a Crafted Role Model where the creator made X a role model, no matter the gender or if we even agree with their choices. Good old Superman comes directly to mind.

AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#19: Nov 3rd 2016 at 8:48:39 PM

That just sounds like Role Model, which probably falls under Universal Tropes or maybe even Omnipresent Tropes.

edited 3rd Nov '16 8:50:22 PM by AnotherDuck

Check out my fanfiction!
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#20: Nov 3rd 2016 at 8:54:55 PM

Speaking of which, the trope examples on Positive Discrimination could use some cleanup because a lot of those examples sound like Complaining About Characters You Don't Like.

captainpat Since: Sep, 2010
#21: Nov 3rd 2016 at 9:51:10 PM

Another Duck, can you give some examples of this trope you're proposing?

AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#22: Nov 4th 2016 at 7:20:09 AM

I'm not proposing a trope. I'm suggesting some guidelines to make it easier to follow the apparently confusing current description of the trope under discussion. If none of the examples on the page actually fits that, it should be cut for lack of examples, or tossed to TLP to gather some.

Check out my fanfiction!
captainpat Since: Sep, 2010
#23: Nov 4th 2016 at 8:45:09 AM

[up] I don't see any examples on this page that fit the guidelines your proposing.

AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#24: Nov 4th 2016 at 8:57:47 AM

As I said, that was the problem. And like OP mentioned, I'm not sure if there's anything worth saving in terms of actual examples. If they're all misuse, then they should all be cut. Was I somehow unclear about that?

Check out my fanfiction!
captainpat Since: Sep, 2010
#25: Nov 4th 2016 at 9:24:16 AM

I guess I misheard. I thought that since you were proposing a rework you had some examples that proved what this trope would be turned into was an actual trope. If that's not the case then there doesn't anything on this page worth saving.

SingleProposition: GirlsNeedRoleModels
7th Nov '16 10:47:22 AM

Crown Description:

Should Girls Need Role Models be cut?

Total posts: 33
Top