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.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
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.Positive Discrimination is already sufficient for the tropes's purpose. Cut this.
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.
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.
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!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".
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!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.
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!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.
Another Duck, can you give some examples of this trope you're proposing?
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!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!
Crown Description:
Should Girls Need Role Models be cut?

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:
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