StrawMisogynist is too narrow?

The trope description of Straw Misogynist states that it's "a character who holds misogynistic views just to show how wrong they are for holding them". However, this sort of Straw Character who is a bigot for the sole purpose of showing how wrong it is exists in many forms and holds different prejudices, so restricting this trope just to straw sexism is a little odd in my view. What is the community's thought on expanding this trope to cover straw bigots of other forms, or creating a new page for them?

The parent index here is The War on Straw. If you can't find a suitable trope for your example, you are welcome to TLP it, although beware of the The Same, but More Specific trap.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 6th 2020 at 9:46:14 AM

Honestly, I've been concerned for a long time by the way that Straw Misogynist sorta implies there's such a thing as a "fair" or "legit" misogynist. Expanding it sounds like a really bad idea.

Well, there's a misogynist portrayed realistically and with real consequences. That's a completely legitimate character type. I've been on an Avatar: The Last Airbender kick lately, and Sokka falls into that category perfectly. He starts out believing in male superiority because that's what he's been taught, tries to pull it on some women who utterly kick his ass, then he swallows his pride and learns from them.

That's just one example. There are lots of ways to do it that aren't Anvilicious.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 6th 2020 at 9:55:18 AM

Under the description given above, Sokka is a Straw Misogynist, because his misogyny exists for the sole purpose of being proven wrong, and the episode in which it's addressed is pretty Anvilicious. I agree that the title is weird in implying the we think that there is some sort of rational argument for misogyny.

Edited by TheMountainKing on Sep 7th 2020 at 9:31:11 AM

Well, in the societies of the past, women are generally thought as inferior (even in the nicest way of saying it), but the term "misogynist" probably didn't even exist back then because it (said thought) was kind of the norm.

What does that have to do with anything?

Not at all. He doesn't fit the description of the trope in any way. He's not set up to be hated, for one thing. We are supposed to identify with him as one of the main characters and be frustrated/annoyed by his hangup. His character development is one of the core elements of the story. Sure, ATLA tends to resolve its arcs in single episode epiphanies, but that's inherent to the format.

A character who meets one group of women who are capable fighters and has his misogyny completely resolved, to the point of never being referenced again, is not a nuanced or mature exploration of misogyny. It doesn't need to be, it is a children's show, but Sokka is such a bizarre example to use in this conversation. Also, is it a part of the definition that the character must be 100% unlikable and not sympathetic for other reasons? Because if that's the core of the trope, not the misogyny existing to be debunk (which Sokka does fit), then the laconic should be changed.

Laconics are not accurate representations of their tropes. I'm reading the actual description.

I also did not claim that it is a "mature exploration", but that it is not a strawman intended to be beaten down to make a point. Instead, it's a character flaw that is overcome in the course of the story.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 7th 2020 at 10:22:08 AM

Laconics for the tropes on this site often have major issues of not actually fitting the trope itself. It's a recurring problem

Sokka is a strawman on this issue in the sense that his arguments are treated as obviously wrong and never given serious consideration by the narrative. But that gets into the problem with the whole "Straw Misogynist" framing, because it implies that what we want is a narrative that seriously considers that misogyny might be correct, which I don't think we do. I also think we should come up with a better example of a non-straw misogynist, because Sokka's case is so obviously simplified for children.

Edited by TheMountainKing on Sep 7th 2020 at 10:29:29 AM

The show takes it as given that women are equal to men, so a character espousing a contrary view is either going to be a villain or reform. When I think of Straw Misogynist, I think about a character whose only salient trait is that they irrationally hate or belittle women, not a complex character with many attributes, a belief in male superiority happening to be one of them.

We could also look at Pakku of the Northern Water Tribe, a waterbending master who initially refuses to train Katara because she's female, but in his case it's built on deeply rooted tradition (and a helping of anger at a woman who scorned him). Of course, the resolution to that is a bit hamfisted, but what can you do.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 7th 2020 at 10:39:30 AM

"What does that have to do with anything?"

Sorry, wasn't clear enough: the context was that we were talking about potentially "good" misogynist, right?

I was just espousing this idea that the views on women change with time, including the concept of misogyny. That is, it's probably not that misogyny was seen as "good", but more like... I can't find the right words, but it was simply a norm to view women in ways that aren't acceptable nowadays. Including well-intentioned ones like "women should be kept home/do less laborious things because they're more vulnerable" or something like that.

I'm kinda being disorganized here, I apologize for that, but do you get what I'm getting at?

Edited by 4tell0life4 on Sep 7th 2020 at 8:48:04 AM

"Deeply rooted cultural traditions" that one person can just decide to change after having a conversation with a teenager. These characters are "strawmen" in the sense that their views exist purely so that they can lose the argument and audience can be told that they're wrong. If by "Straw Misogynist" we mean "a character who's sole defining trait is misogyny", the use of strawman in the name is weird. I'm also just sort of baffled that the example of "realistic portrayal of misogyny" are characters form a children's show whose views are only there to set up heavy-handed anti-sexism Aesops.

Edited by TheMountainKing on Sep 7th 2020 at 11:58:52 AM

A straw character in general is one who is set up to espouse a trait or belief that the authors disagree with so that it can be "proven wrong". The character will be mostly or entirely defined by that belief, and the belief itself will be a caricature of the real thing designed to be easily defeated.

A Straw Misogynist or Strawman Political or other straw character must be unlikable because the audience is not intended to sympathize with them. There are variations, such as when the character is a jerk anyway, which allows the narrative to avoid having to defeat the belief rhetorically.

Thus, we can define a non-strawman character by exclusion. They are not solely or primarily defined by their belief; they are sympathetic or at least portrayed as having redeeming traits; they are intended to be seen as antagonists for reasons unrelated to their belief; or they are given a realistic and nuanced belief that requires genuine effort to debate.

There is not a trope for this because we don't define tropes by exclusion.

Also, while I don't normally appeal to authority, ATLA is widely regarded as having nuanced and deep portrayals of war, disabilities, gender roles, parental abuse, and the like, at least for a "kids' show", so if you want to argue against it, I'll fall back on the overwhelming weight of opinion against you. See, I can be a lazy debater too.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 7th 2020 at 12:13:21 PM

I don't even think we actually disagree very profoundly here, I'm just confused why you picked such a shaky example. Sokka's sexist views exist so that the narrative can demonstrate that they are wrong and teach a lesson to the show's target audience of children. These views are not all of Sokka's character, in fact they only exist for the first four episodes of the series, but in this particular dynamic on this issue he is serving the role of "strawman" in being set up purely for other characters to knock him down. I don't know why the rebuttal to this is "the show is good", unless that's to imply that because the show is generally good it couldn't possibly be sometimes simplistic or lacking nuance (to be clear, I don't even think that's a problem or that it needs to be nuanced, I'm just confused by you describing it as if it is when it isn't). I've also never heard the shows portrayal of gender as called "nuanced and deep". I've heard it praised for taking such a clear stance against sexism, but I wouldn't even describe gender roles as one of the show's major themes, given that it stops being brought up after Book One.

Edited by TheMountainKing on Sep 7th 2020 at 12:36:42 PM

Well, our disagreement isn't whether Sokka's misogyny is set up as an easily defeated character trait — it clearly is — but that it does not define him enough to make him a Straw Misogynist by the definition of the trope. I also find the way in which he discards it to be rather charming, and while it is the first of the episodes in which a character flaw is dealt with in rapid fashion, it's neither the last nor the most ham-fisted, and it does affect his behavior in ways that are detrimental to the team, so it's not just a Very Special Episode type of thing.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 7th 2020 at 12:40:15 PM

I'm arguing that the show, or Sokka, or the particular episode, are bad. I'm just saying that Sokka's misogyny is set-up for a very standard kids' show "episode spelling out a specific lesson", and really nothing else. It can be a well-done, enjoyable version of that, but that's what it is. It's not (and doesn't need to be) a nuanced exploration of misogyny and gender roles. I suppose if there is a deeper question here it's whether a strawman is something a character has to always be, or if a character can be a strawman in some contexts or for specific episodes and not be one in others.

To illustrate, contrast Sokka with basically all of the male characters in A Song of Ice and Fire, who express views that the reader is clearly meant to understand as misogynistic, but this is not a set up for those views to be rebutted to teach the audience a lesson, it's just a feature of the characters an the world. To me, that would fit more unambiguously under the no-straw misogynist category. Before this becomes an argument, I am not making a value judgement about which of these approaches or works is better, just trying to describe the works' differing approaches.

I'm still not sure about the framing of these characters who do exist to get rebutted as "strawmen" because it implies the existence of reasonable arguments for misogyny that the work is refusing to address.

Edited by TheMountainKing on Sep 7th 2020 at 1:08:00 PM

Along the lines of "there's no such thing as a good racist"? That's a social argument that I'm not sure we should be loading onto our media. It's like the idea that you can have a paragon of virtue who helps everyone they meet and saves the world from dastardly villains, but is occasionally patronizing towards... say, Native Americans... and they have to be burned at the stake.

I'm not saying this is your point of view, but I see it more often than I would like.

What I'm saying is that "strawman" implies that there are specific valid, rational arguments for the position that are being "ignored", not just that it's possible to hold the views while still being a complex, nuanced person. The ASOIF characters I mentioned are perfect examples of misogynistic character who are nonetheless sympathetic and compelling. You're hypothetical of a character who is presented as 100% morally pure and then is suddenly casually racist would be weird, from a writing perspective, though (assuming the author is aware the character is being racist and it's not the subject of character development).

Edited by TheMountainKing on Sep 7th 2020 at 1:27:32 PM

This came up because the question was asked if there's a trope for someone who is a misogynist, racist, or other negative character trait without being a strawman, and the answer is, generally, no.

"if there's a trope for someone who is a misogynist, racist, or other negative character trait without being a strawman, and the answer is, generally, no."

It's probably not a trope in itself, but I do believe that someone in fiction can be a racist/misogynist/etc without being a strawman.

Edited by 4tell0life4 on Sep 7th 2020 at 4:15:11 AM

The Tragic Bigot is an example of a character who is prejudiced without being a strawman.

A Straw Character is a character who was designed to expose a particular viewpoint that is considered wrong by the narrative and for the main characters to confront or disprove at some point. It generally does not count if the character is established for other narrative reasons and happens to possess some negative traits. It's the difference between having outdated racist/sexist/homophobic opinions and exposing racist/sexist/homophobia as a lifestyle.

As it was brought up, you can have an otherwise positively portrayed character share controversial opinions and come to learn they were wrong without making them a Strawman.