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. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Author-tract or not there's really nothing to penalize him for if he's technically right in the arguments he's presenting.
All Abusers Are Male is in fact a trope that IS harmful to both male AND female victims of abuse where their abuser was a woman so on that one in particular he's not wrong in noting it's Unfortunate Implications
Edited by CryptidProductions
^ I agree. While they're (can't assume they're a male, for the same reason it'd be wrong to assume someone wonking about feminism is female) definitely acting with an agenda, their edits aren't... wrong. They're bringing up actual issues, and the only reason I can think to find them questionable beyond that they're author-tracting is, well, that it's about men's issues, which is a highly controversial topic and has a lot of really awful representatives discussing it. But the subject itself has no reason to be taboo- it's important.
But, yeah; have they made any edits you'd classify as outright erroneous? Or are you just worried about them editing with an agenda (which is perfectly valid to be worried about, I should add)?
Edited by WarJay77 Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
As I said, they have a habit of soap boxing where it’s not appropriate. Take, for example, the Red Pill edit made last night. It’s full of gushing for the film and it’s arguments.
You can look at few of their edits and see how they’re sometimes overeager to add subjectivity to topics that should remain impartial. Discussion of men’s rights often has a habit of making it about choosing to help men OR women, not both, and his edits subtly lean toward that narrative.
Edited by NubianSatyress
While some passages like "a lot of the points the activists make are well-presented and worth considering" do come across a little gush-y, I think you're being more than a little hyperbolic accusing this troper of going on a "crusade."
I'd consider "mildly overeager, at worst" to be a more accurate characterization.
And while it's certainly true that "discussion of men’s rights often has a habit of making it about choosing to help men OR women, not both," I'm not seeing any evidence that that is the case with this particular troper.
Has anyone alerted Old School DM to this discussion?
Edited by HighCrate
(Mild) Gushing on the main page is okay. Only when it becomes a constant is it bad.
Are they (this editor, not male rights activists) really that one-sided? Looks rather neutral to me. You can be an activist for two things.
Edited by EarthboundFan
I think you're being more than a little hyperbolic accusing this troper of going on a "crusade."
Well I mean, they've been at this for months and on several different pages, including Morton's Fork.Other, MortonsFork.Real Life, Women Are Wiser, The Unfair Sex, The Red Pill, Quotes.Double Standard Abuse Female On Male, All Abusers Are Male, and Analysis.Men Are The Expendable Gender. I think "crusade" (in the sense that, they really want this point to be made on the wiki) is a fair word to use considering how frequently they've made these types of edits, as well as the unambiguous gushing they have for the viewpoint.
In addition, they have habit of adding "information" which is difficult to verify without prior knowledge, which is (to put it mildly) dangerous for topics of this type. For example, the aforementioned edit on Analysis.Men Are The Expendable Gender argued that "at least three evolutionary biologists" state that it was more advantageous to early man to treat women as less expendable. It was deleted by another troper who just happened to have sources from Wikipedia discrediting that point of view, as well as a link to an archived discussion which discouraged use of that argument. It's exactly the kind of situation that Righting Great Wrongs warns about.
But that sort of editorializing is a common element of their edits, and not everyone has the time, awareness or credentials to fact-check every little subtle claim that is made in edits of this nature. For my part, I've tried to trim some of the more egregious examples to simply what was said and by whom, but even then, there's the question of the "source". For example, the two quotes they added to Quotes.The Unfair Sex and Quotes.Double Standard Abuse Female On Male by Karen Straughan, who is a pretty well-known anti-feminist and A Voice for Men advocate that used to go by the moniker GirlWritesWhat. Quoting her is maybe one or two steps down from quoting someone like Paul Elam.
And no, I didn't PM them.
Edited by NubianSatyress
Yeah, I think they should be PM'd about this discussion, and now I'm understanding your point more.
I don't think this user is acting in bad faith more than they're just trying to talk about an issue they care for, but you have a point that the way they're doing it is an issue.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I'm of a mind that everyone has an agenda. It's not a problem until it becomes disruptive.
Clicking through some of the links Nubian Satyress provided, I agree that some of them are a bit soapbox-y.
I'd tend to agree with War Jay that the best thing to do at this point would be to DM the troper so they can be made aware of the issue. While some of their edits do warrant deletion or edits for neutrality, I'm not seeing anything so egregious as to prompt me to presume bad faith.
Edited by HighCrate
I didn't come here hoping for swift punishment to be dealt to him or anything. Just a general cleaning up and promoting awareness of the problem is enough to satisfy my query.
Edited by NubianSatyress
Hey guys, there's a new development on this query.
A few months ago Tropers.Old School DM added the following
to Analysis.Men Are The Expendable Gender:
It was deleted by Tropers.Megabot, who cited several Wikipedia sources which called out the entry as being incorrect. It was readded by Tropers.Old School DM with the edit reason: The reasons this was deleted originally were arbitrary and based solely on the personal opinions of the person who deleted it. In addition, the citation of "some cultures" doing thus and so does not mean that *all* or even *most* cultures did that. And lastly, cultural mores are not evolutionary forces, and thus have no impact on this entry.
My take: the entry in itself is questionable for several reasons. "At least three evolutionary biologist"? Who are they? Are their findings accepted by scientific consensus? If not, then what merit does the entry have? You can find three people in scientific fields who can claim anything, from flat earthism to creationism.
Regardless of that, though, Old School DM performed a add > remove > readd Edit War. He also has a habit of making Justifying Edits. He also edit warred on this page regarding the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp situation. Within the same page, he has had multiple entries removed or rewritten as well, which were brought up here.
^ As I noted about the quotes on Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male, the troper added a quote that is *not* in line with the consensus of the field regarding domestic violence, with the added questionable factor of being unable to verify that the quote was actually said/written after multiple search attempts didn't find a match. You said it well: "adding "information" which is difficult to verify without prior knowledge, which is (to put it mildly) dangerous for topics of this type". Without being in this field for years, I wouldn't be able to assert that there's scientific consensus vs. "Common Knowledge" about the topic.
The hardest part is that it's not easy for me to 100% disagree with what they're saying because their edits bring up some decent, realistic points- it's just that they're so bogged down in bullshit and falsehoods that you can't trust a word they say, which honestly backfires severely on them and their cause; like, if you want to fight for shit like men being taken seriously when suffering from abuse, spreading misinformation is the worst possible way to do so. I think it's an important issue that not enough people care about, and it infuriates me that the people most known for talking about it are scumbags who don't care for the facts.
So if nothing else, these edits need to go for being flat out lying, regardless of the politics behind them. (Not that the obvious political slant helps their case any, but you know what I mean. Even if they were talking about something completely uncontroversial, misinformation is misinformation. And, of course, bringing up political agendas here anyway is already problematic...there's all sorts of issues here.)
Edited by WarJay77 Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
^ I'm up for editing things about abuse to acknowledge that it isn't just male-on-female *without* the slant. I can present drafts first if that's preferable or just go on an editing spree. New to writing about this on TV Tropes, but plenty experience writing about it IRL.
Yeah, like if there's any edits they made that are otherwise legit and truthful, we should definitely rewrite them to be unbiased and fact-focused.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I mean if they are flat out making falsehoods and are on a bias slant then their edits need to be cut. Their obsession regarding the Depp Heard situation is worrisome. Even more so the fact that they re-added the evolutionary argument regarding MenAreTheExpendableGender without citing sources. If no sources should it not be removed? It seems to smack that men are taken for granted due to evolution and sacrificed to protect woman who are needed for being baby making machines. Slanting towards men sacrifice everything for the woman and treated unequally to ensure babies because evolution???
Edited by Tuvok
Re-reading this thread it does look like most of their edits were fine, but they did get into the habit of spreading misinformation which needs cleaning.
Have they ever actually been PM'd?
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I sent them a PM about the "three different researchers" statement and why it may be problematic to some without the proper citation, but otherwise, no, I didn't bring up any other editing issues.
We've suspended them.
Here's the prior version of All Abusers Are Male:
Examples of this trope sometimes even attempt to educate the audience about serious issues like rape and abuse. They do this while upholding the idea that men are the only perpetrators of abuse. A story where a man abuses or rapes a woman is not an example. A story that features multiple abusive situations and has men as the perpetrators in all of them without a good reason (such as a story focusing on gay men), for example, is-because it addresses these issues while only acknowledging one sex as potentially abusive. This can also happen when a character "becomes" a lesbian to avoid evil men, or when characters are seriously anti-rape and anti-violence yet overlook the possibility that women can commit these acts. While more male abusers are reported to the police each year than female abusers, many times this is assumed to mean that only men can be abusive. The pervasiveness of tropes like this can also affect the statistics, where people are ashamed to admit they have been abused by women, or the police refuse to file reports on what they consider unimportant, or consider the wife's abuse of the husband "preemptive self-defense" and arrest him. In addition, most shelters ban men, and people trying to bring attention to male victims or start male shelters have been ignored, ridiculed, accused of diverting attention from women's issues, and even received death threats in some cases. This is also an issue for lesbian and bisexual women (see Rape and Switch above)—after all, if only men can be aggressors and so relationships with women are supposed to be perfect, then your partner can't really be abusing you, right? And if it's admitted to be abuse at all, this will usually be in cases where the accused is butch, or at least less feminine than the victim.
The most common aversion of this trope is the Wicked Stepmother. Also note that most (if not all) of the subversions and aversions listed on this page are intended to be a Plot Twist in the story... meaning that even when the trope's not enforced, the writers still obviously expect the audience to believe in it.note
Please avoid Take That! edits due to the nature of this trope.
Studies by the US Centers for Disease Control, the Harvard School of Medicine, and over 286 other scholarly investigations into domestic violence and how often women are the perpetrators rather than victims have clearly demonstrated that this is NOT Truth in Television. Unfortunately, despite the clear evidence that women can and have been just as violent as men, it is still widely believed to be by many people.
This has lead to some glaring Double Standard tropes.
Here's my possible revision...
Examples of this trope may attempt to educate the audience about the seriousness of rape and abuse, but only as perpetrated by men and usually against women. They may or may not have male victims, such as a story focusing on gay men). If the story doesn't depict the abuse happening, it may have a female character who only interacts with other women to avoid evil men, or characters who are anti-rape and anti-violence yet overlook the possibility that women can commit these acts.
This trope is not Truth in Television. In real life, female perpetrators are more common than fiction suggests, and they are just as capable of serious violence and mistreatment. While more male-on-female abuse is reported to law enforcement and social service agencies each year than any other gender combination, this gets misinterpreted as ''all'' abuse is male-on-female. The pervasiveness of tropes like this can also skew the statistics. Many men are ashamed to admit they have been abused by a woman, and many women abused by other women are afraid of homophobic police officers. The police refuse to file reports on what they consider unimportant, do not believe the victim's account, or consider a woman's abuse of a man "preemptive self-defense" and arrest him. In addition, most domestic violence shelters ban men and sometimes older teen boys for the comfort and well-being of female victims, and people trying to bring attention to male victims or start male shelters have been ignored, ridiculed, or accused of diverting attention from women's issues. This is also an issue for lesbian and bisexual women— after all, if only men can be aggressors, how can your female partner really be abusing you? If police do believe abuse occurred, they may automatically assume a Butch Lesbian is the perpetrator against a more feminine partner when the reality is vice-versa.
This trope is different from Double Standard Rape: Female on Male, Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male, and Double Standard: Rape, Female on Female. Those tropes acknowledge that women commit acts of domestic violence and acts of rape, but treat them as less serious and easily forgive or dismiss them based on their gender dynamics.
The most common aversion of this trope is the Wicked Stepmother. Most of the subversions and aversions listed on this page are intended to be satire or a Plot Twist in the story... meaning that even when the trope's not enforced, the writers still expect the audience to believe in it.
Please avoid Take That! edits due to the nature of this trope.
A problem I see in the description is the assumption this trope is in play if there's male abusers/female victims. Maybe a lot of the straight examples are actually misuse. Basically, if they're portraying male violence against women, someone's going "what about men?!" So it's unclear to me how this is a trope that happens except when a work actually makes an explicit claim that dismisses the idea of male victims/female perpetrators.
ETA: Almost all of the "examples" are also "averted"/"subverted" rather than straight examples, so... this trope ain't working.
Edited by immichan
It's a Trope in Aggregate, so what you describe is kind of the nature of the beast.
^ Ahhh, mentioning that may help? Or if it's one of those "only list subversions/aversions" tropes?
This might be overly wall-of-text in the interests of being factual/neutral... And maybe needs to go to a cleanup of rape/abuse tropes rather than just a cleanup of this troper's Righting Great Wrongs. So here it is but if we need to lock this and move the topic elsewhere...
This trope is not Truth in Television. In real life, female perpetrators are more common than fiction suggests, and they are just as capable of serious violence and mistreatment. People of any gender can abuse someone of any other gender. While more male-on-female domestic abuse and rape is reported to law enforcement and social service agencies each year than any other gender combination, this gets misrepresented as if ''all'' abuse is male-on-female rather than most.
The pervasiveness of tropes like this contributes to skewed statistics. Men and boys rarely see depictions of female abusers and male victims; many question whether their experience is really abuse and are ashamed to admit they have been abused, especially by a female abuser. Police officers refuse to file reports on what they consider unimportant, do not believe the victim's account, or consider a woman's abuse of a man "preemptive self-defense" and arrest him. Most domestic violence shelters ban men and sometimes older teen boys for the comfort and well-being of female victims, and people trying to bring attention to male victims or start male shelters have been ignored, ridiculed, or accused of diverting attention from women's issues.
Many men abused by other men and women abused by other women are afraid of homophobic police officers. The officers may mistreat them or misidentify the perpetrator and victim based on masculine or feminine traits, such as assuming a Butch Lesbian is the perpetrator against a more feminine partner when the reality is vice-versa. Some officers won't believe abuse is possible outside male-female couples or will arrest both parties to sort it out later.
This trope is different from Double Standard Rape: Female on Male, Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male, and Double Standard: Rape, Female on Female. Those tropes acknowledge that women commit acts of domestic violence and acts of rape, but treat them as less harmful and easily forgive or dismiss them based on their gender dynamics.
Straight examples must imply or explicitly state that abuse/rape is only perpetrated by men, and women are either never abusive or never to the same extent as men. The most common aversion of this trope is the Wicked Stepmother. Most of the subversions and aversions listed on this page are intended to be a Plot Twist in the story... meaning that even when the trope's not enforced, the writers still expect the audience to believe in it and be surprised when an abuser is female.
Please avoid Take That! edits due to the nature of this trope.
This part:
"Most domestic violence shelters ban men and sometimes older teen boys for the comfort and well-being of female victims, and people trying to bring attention to male victims or start male shelters have been ignored, ridiculed, or accused of diverting attention from women's issues."
This presents two issues (banning of men from women's centers and accusations of diverting from women's issues) as being inherently problematic rather than a Morton's Fork. Because the first is done for the privacy of the women—no shelter worth its salt will divert a man from their care without also pointing him in the direction of other places that can help. Further, anti-feminists and misogynists actually do attempt to use these arguments to divert from women's issues.
That isn't to say that the problem isn't serious or needs to be ignored—it certainly doesn't. But the way that segment is written makes it seem like an open-and-shut case of "this is wrong" when it's more of an issue of making a difficult choice to avoid other problems.
^ The issue is though, there are no man-only domestic abuse shelters, AFAIK. A man who tried to create one was Driven to Suicide over it. There's nowhere for those men to go when they're kicked out, because as you said, those shelters want to protect the traumatized women and children. And they have every right to do that, but it's unhelpful to the men because there's not many places the men can go, if there are any places for them to go.
Maybe it can be rewritten to explain why the men aren't let into the shelters, but I think it's wrong to claim that the shelters do anything to try and help them because there's not much they can do if no domestic abuse shelter will allow men in the first place.
I think the crux of the issue is the fact that those man-only shelters don't exist and that attempts to make them haven't worked, creating this vicious cycle where to help the women, the men get kicked out and have nowhere to go, because people don't throw their support behind creating shelters for the men, so the men are SOL. That's what that paragraph should be focusing on.
Edited by WarJay77 Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
To prevent this from getting too big for ATT, please take it to the discussion page of All Abusers Are Male.
Tropers.Old School DM has been making edits for months on a pretty blatant crusade for Righting Great Wrongs about male victims of abuse and domestic violence, and has attempted to make it clear on most gender-related pages (such as Women Are Wiser and All Abusers Are Male) how "harmful" they are to men. Most of his edits have been steeped with pretty unambiguous moral soapboxing—something I first noticed on a recent edit he made for The Red Pill.
Some of these edits I haven't changed (such as the All Abusers Are Male one where he lists a bunch of sources to discredit the trope) because the edits are technically true and technically aren't harming anything...but he's been at this for months and a look at any gender-related trope he's edit (and a few others, such as Mistaken for Racist) make it clear that he's on a mission.
Edited by NubianSatyress