Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Main / TheVirus

Go To

Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
But not every story is about combat. And non-warriors are not worth any less than warriors. //
Being a strong person/character, male or female, is ''not'' about strength in combat. It's about character strength, which doesn't have to be connected to physical strength ''at all''. //
to:
But not every story is about combat. And non-warriors are not worth any less than warriors.
Changed line(s) 4 from:
n
The gender binary issue comes in with the fact that pretty much everyone thinks it's okay to say males are worth less for having a softer appearance, preferring certain styles of dress, etc. Even when people accept non-hetero-exclusive men, they look down on
to:

Being a strong person/character, male or female, is \'\'not\'\' about strength in combat. It\'s about character strength, which doesn\'t have to be connected to physical strength \'\'at all\'\'.



The gender binary issue comes in with the fact that pretty much everyone thinks it\'s okay to say males are worth less for having a softer appearance, preferring certain styles of dress, etc. Even when people accept non-hetero-exclusive men, they look down on \"sissy\" men. I don\'t, and I think the world needs more soft, elegant, pacifist men \'\'and\'\' women, and less warriors and violence, but that\'s just me. Everyone else apparently still thinks you have to be a warrior to be worth something. //
You know what\'s a sexism issue, though? People who think that in order for women to be worth something, they have to conform to the traditional warrior ideal for men, regardless of the fact that violence and war are \'\'objectively bad for the world\'\'. This trope is pointing out that that attitude is harmful.


The thing to do to fix the trope is to point out that traditionally feminine traits are acceptable on men as well, and that the body parts you\'re born with have nothing to do with the fact that any traits are all equally okay for both.
Top