Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

14th Apr, 2019 07:41:22 AM

This Is A Wiki; people are allowed to edit descriptions. I don't think a revert is needed, although I'd be happy to discuss revising the description a bit more. Their first edit added a lot to the description, and most of it was a benefit to clarity, but I think they may have gone slightly past concise. They've improved the neutral tone in several places, and expanded on several points about the different ways fiction mistreats female lives.

The "nugget" you point out is the definition of Men Are the Expendable Gender. It exists and is fairly contrasted against Disposable Woman. The issue is more with placement; the contrast should appear in paragraph two or three, being out of place in the thesis paragraph.

A revert would waste the useful work in eliminating bad examples from the page.

14th Apr, 2019 09:34:00 AM

Alright, here's Sandbox.Disposable Woman; more concise and reorganized. What do you think?

14th Apr, 2019 09:51:40 AM

Oh a revert is definitely needed. Especially considering the massive rewrite involved and numerous suspicious deletions. I mean the rewrite itself would trigger alarm but the massive swarths of deletions of valid examples to me seems like someone trying to make the trope less problemic by adding a "but what about men and their lack of value" slant.

14th Apr, 2019 09:54:43 AM

And while people are "allowed to edit" it needs to apply. Allowing to edit doesn't mean reshape a trope Willy nilly because you don't like it. If it doesn't count or invalid yes. If it does then don't. If unsure or disagree discussin or ATT.

14th Apr, 2019 09:56:37 AM

Jean Grey was killed in New X-Men #150.
How is removing "major female protagonist" from this trope "suspicious"? The entire point of the trope is to add a Flat Character and get cheap sympathy. Killing off a main character is severe misuse.

14th Apr, 2019 10:01:59 AM

Removing a swarth of examples en masse is suspect. Valid ones included. Example is female killed to cause male protagonist emotional pain. Valid examples removed enmasse despite being correct albiet wordy is a problem.

14th Apr, 2019 10:16:16 AM

Not just any female; they must have little to no characterization as well. Not just male protagonists, it applies in lesbian relationships, too. This isn't just the intersection of female Character Death and Emotional Torque. That's omnipresent in fiction. Removing swaths of misuse is expected troper behaviour (and an Edit Reason explaining this was included).

14th Apr, 2019 10:21:55 AM

^^Thats Stuffed in the Fridge or The Lost Lenore. Disposable Woman is for a minor character who dies. Main characters arent examples.

14th Apr, 2019 10:51:49 AM

Hmmmm...I see and concede to your points.

14th Apr, 2019 10:56:17 AM

Thanks :D

Got any opinions on the sandbox to repair the edits that we both disagree with?

14th Apr, 2019 11:10:31 AM

"The "nugget" you point out is the definition of Men Are the Expendable Gender. It exists and is fairly contrasted against Disposable Woman. The issue is more with placement; the contrast should appear in paragraph two or three, being out of place in the thesis paragraph."

No it isn't. The rewrote Disposable Woman starts like this:

"Men Are the Expendable Gender, so few people really care if a fictional man lives or dies... unless he happens to be a character that the audience already loves. For this reason, putting random men in danger to add drama to the plot can only go so far: without existing character development, the audience has nothing to care about, and your attempt at drama runs the risk of falling entirely flat. By contrast, audiences tend to sympathize with women by default. For example, in general, a single mother being shown as a random fatality in a shooting will make a bigger impact than a father would in the same situation."

This is making an unprovable claim. It states that women are chosen as victims because they "automatically have the audience's sympathy" (as per Men Are the Expendable Gender) and then states that you can't put a man in the same danger unless the audience already loves him for some reason. Then it gives the example that murdering a single mother rather than a single father would produce a bigger impact. That last part is what's most questionable: are we actually able to compare how many movies/stories begin with a father being killed rather than a mother? How much characterization does either need to have in order to prove they have "sympathy"?

Also, I've stated in the past my issues with Men Are the Expendable Gender and it being a magnet of "what about the men" complaining. I don't agree with using it as a pillar to build another trope upon.

Edited by NubianSatyress
14th Apr, 2019 11:12:41 AM

Edit: Just noticed the sandbox version, and that's MUCH better.

14th Apr, 2019 11:14:11 AM

edit thanks! :D I agree that one trope shouldn't be a pillar holding up another trope, especially in cases like this, which is why I said it's placement as the first paragraph was wrong. I'm glad I was able to rewrite it to better fit in the description.

Edited by crazysamaritan
14th Apr, 2019 11:15:00 AM

The Sandbox version definitely is an improvement.

Edited by Tuvok
14th Apr, 2019 11:40:13 AM

Alright, with two posts of approval, I've swapped out the Disposable Woman description for the sandbox. I might hunt through trope description wicks and provide more clear context to those tropes based on the rewrite. Please follow behind me and send messages if there's a problem with any of my changes. Speaking of PM, I sent a message inviting ~ALJO to this discussion so that they can see why waiting on approval is also good.


Back to the OP, I skimmed over Crusading Widower (but I was more interested in the other trope), and I'm not opposed to a revert there. I don't think it improves the page as much, and there is the lack of an edit reason associated with the major edit. If anyone wants to make Sandbox.Crusading Widower, I'd be happy to critique that, too. :)

14th Apr, 2019 01:53:05 PM

The initial trope description needlessly overlapped with Stuffed into the Fridge, The Lost Lenore, and Crusading Widower all at once. We have those three tropes separated for a reason, and that's because they are separate tropes:

  • Stuffed into the Fridge - A woman dies just to provoke another character into action.

  • The Lost Lenore - A woman's death has a lasting emotional impact on the character(s) and the plot. This should discredit her from being "disposable": the whole point is that she was indisposable to the characters and died anyway.

  • Crusading Widower - A man tries to avenge a dead person in his life. Not necessarily an example of a "disposable" woman.

In it's current form, Disposable Woman is essentially a clone of Stuffed into the Fridge... and we already have a trope for that. So I rewrote Disposable Woman to explain a poorly written version of a Lenore, since that's what is seemed like it was trying to say in the first place. The bit about women being seen as special compared to men was there to illustrate the common motivation for having a "disposable woman" in the first place. Think of Damsel in Distress: why is it always a damsel? Because if it were a man, the rescue wouldn't be half as notable. Writers like drama, killing women happens to be more dramatic than killing men. That's not an "unprovable claim" - look at the link below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RWBY/comments/7sii5a/something_that_bothers_me_about_rwby_more_than_it/

It's literally all about how RWBY shows it's female character deaths in long, drawn out dramatic scenes, while the men get offed without much fanfare regardless of their actual screen time or importance. They're not an example of this trope... but they are examples of women being special enough to get the audience to care.

As for why I removed all those examples, most of them were main characters who were clearly integral to the story and just happened to die - thus contradicting the trope - or random female characters who die under any circumstances, including in horror movies. The trope isn't, "Any character died who was a girl", it's "women that the plot treats as disposable." Just because she dies doesn't mean she's disposable - was Shakespeare's Juliet disposable? Or Padme Amidala from Star Wars?

Edited by ALJO
14th Apr, 2019 03:43:11 PM

Reddit is hardly a credible source for explaining cultural baggage behind a trope. Especially when its primary example is ONE show.

Disposable Woman, like any other Women Are Delicate subtrope, has a LOT of social intricacies behind it that can't just be oversimplified into "Women get more sympathy than men"; it also has a lot to do with writers who literally don't know how to write women as anything other than personifications of purity and/or sin or overly-nagging shrews that need to be gotten out of the way so there can be a story.

I don't dispute the fact that characters like Padme are more along the lines of Stuffed into the Fridge (Juliet doesn't count as either, since both she and Romeo dying was the whole point), but the fact that an an entire trope was rewritten based on a Reddit thread is the exact reason we don't do unilateral trope description changes without a cleanup thread or discussion first.

14th Apr, 2019 04:11:35 PM

Rewrites like this generally require TRS, no? Not just a discussion in ATT or the discussion page.

14th Apr, 2019 04:22:09 PM

^ Yeah, that's my problem. I don't particularly care about the reasoning for or against keeping the page the same, but major changes like this require discussion first.

14th Apr, 2019 07:29:19 PM

"Disposable Woman, like any other Women Are Delicate subtrope, has a LOT of social intricacies behind it that can't just be oversimplified into "Women get more sympathy than men"; it also has a lot to so with writers who literally don't know how to write women as anything other than personifications of purity and/or sin or overly-nagging shrews that need to be gotten out of the way so there can be a story."

What's this about nagging shrews and purity? None of that has anything to do with this trope. Also, why is this trope about women being killed just do there can be a story when Stuffed into the Fridge covers that already? It makes more sense for this trope to be about women who die for cheap drama - only - as opposed to women who die for a more substantial reason.

"I don't dispute the fact that characters like Padme are more along the lines of Stuffedintothe Fridge (Juliet doesn't count as either, since both she and Romeo dying was the whole point), but the fact that an an entire trope was rewritten based on a Reddit thread is the exact reason we don't do unilateral trope description changes without a cleanup thread or discussion first."

Actually, I was only using the Reddit thread as an example as far as this specific discussion: it wasn't my rationale for rewriting the trope. My rationale was this tropes extreme similarity to three other existing tropes and the incredible amount of examples that had nothing to do with disposable women and everything to do with "women simply being dead for any reason" - that's too broad to be a trope.

Edited by ALJO
14th Apr, 2019 08:08:30 PM

TRS is appropriate for such a conversation. You do not get to just redefine a trope on your own.

Closing this query. Revert it to how it was, or use the sandbox if it retains the trope definition.

Top

Example of:

/

Feedback