Discussion History Main / SpoilerTitle

I wasn\\\'t \\\"going over the sexist against men\\\" category, just picking out things which were obviously not sexist by their very nature. I did not expect to start a rehaul or anything, though while we are here:

In response to your concerns:

Yes, a HouseHusband is AlwaysMale, but AlwaysMale does not make something sexist against men--it can only be sexist in execution, for example, if the male is portrayed in a negative light for making the decision to take care of his children, where the housewives are not. Many of the examples listed in HouseHusband are not sexist against men and their decision is treated respectfully.

Similarly, crossdresser lists plenty of female examples. Women can be crossdressers, though women have to go much further in order to earn the \\\"crossdresser\\\" label that\\\'s not really what the trope is about. In any case, the trope of crossdresser isn\\\'t inherently sexist, though it CAN be depending on the work and if a male character is treated like a freak for wanting to dress in a feminine manner.

I don\\\'t think a woman hiding anything down her shirt is inherently sexist against men. Gendercide I\\\'m a bit torn about--is it possible to do tastefully (so long as it doesn\\\'t glorify said mono-gendered society), or is it always inherently sexist to play off the destruction of a entire gender for dramatic effect? I think I\\\'ll leave it for now.

My thoughts to your own suggestions:

I agree with a lot of your combination, maybe add a \\\"/\\\" between them all since they are all related to the same sexist idea--I disagree with WhiteDwarfStarlet though, I think that\\\'s related more to age than to beauty (?), and its a character type..hm. Torn about GiveGeeksAChance--never seen a non-sexist example and not sure how one would work. Actually maybe it would be \\\"Sexist against either\\\", the same way BeastAndBeauty and UglyGuyHotWife already are.

GirlsNeedRoleModels doesn\\\'t\\\' say anything about what boys need. And saying boys don\\\'t need role models isn\\\'t even \\\"sexist against boys\\\" really, because people, and children in particular, should not feel the need to fill any particular \\\"role\\\" (gender based roles or otherwise).

Agree with RightThroughHisPants moving to \\\"sexist against either\\\", and I\\\'d add HeHadItComing and PrisonRape, which flat out also apply to women. (and are no less sexist for it).

\\\"Are female characters being punished for being feminine or not being feminine? \\\"

That would depend on the work, wouldn\\\'t it? It\\\'s perfectly possible for two tropes to contradict each other. I think RealWomenNeverWearDresses is a way of equating femininity with weakness, but VasquezAlwaysDies is just killing off the masculine woman, because even if a masculine woman is supposedly \\\"strong\\\", who wants a \\\"strong\\\" love interest.

Some of my own suggestions (while we are doing rehaul here), in addition to PrisonRape and HeHadItComing listed earlier:

On the guy side in terms of combinations (like I said I never really \\\"went over the man\\\'s side\\\", and I like the idea of combining the tropes which center around a particular idea, since it shows how sexism works in a system really appeals to me):

*AbuseIsOKWhenFemaleOnMale, RapeIsOKWhenFemaleOnMale, RapeIsFunnyWhenMaleOnMale, MenAreTheExpendableGender, GroinAttack, BeautyIsNeverTarnished (hm which also seems like it could be sexist against either), GirlsHitHarderThanTheVillains, WhyDoYouMakeMeHitYou--all variations on the idea that violence against women (including sexual violence) is usually viewed as a much more serious/more dramatic thing than violence against men, which can be used for comedy, to punish a guy for a bad move, to just show how strong the big bad is without necessarily crossing over the moral event horizon etc.
*AllGaysArePromiscuous, AllMenArePerverts, maybe AManIsNotAVirgin--The idea that men are all very highly sexual
*BumblingDad, CloserToEarth
*MenDon\\\'tCry, WaterWorks

I\\\'d move AllWomenAreLustful to the \\\"sexist against woman\\\" category--not sure how it\\\'s implying anything about men? Any explanation? And also LicensedSexist there as well. Its currently under \\\"Sexist Against Men\\\", under the claim that \\\"men need excuses, womens excuse is the men themselves\\\"--but most of the DoesNotLikeMen characters -do- have excuses (of the Freudian variety), and most of the LicensedSexist characters don\\\'t have excuses, their misogyny is played as comedy. I think they are both equally \\\"sexist against\\\" their respective genders, because having a character whose sexism is not called out and treated iike what it is--is sexist.

Also if I may suggest something ~radical~ here, maybe I missed the justification in the other discussion--do we need to have \\\"Sexist against men\\\" and \\\"Sexist against women\\\" and \\\"Sexist against either\\\"? If something is sexist it is sexist and it inherently enforces a certain gender norm. For example, it would certainly be beneficial I think, to also group together \\\"All Women Are Prudes\\\" and \\\"All Men Are Perverts\\\" to discuss the overall difference in how the media treats the sexuality of men and women. Or Wouldn\\\'tHitAGirl and GirlsHitHarderThanTheVillains. Just my opinion though, and I know this DoubleStandard page has had that \\\"Sexist against....\\\" bullshit going on for a while so maybe it honestly has a good reason behind it. Any thoughts? I\\\'ll seriously start a crowner/thread on this one if it hasn\\\'t been done before. The subheadings instead could be \\\"Differences How the Sexes are treated when it comes to Looks\\\" \\\"When it comes to Sex\\\", \\\"When it comes to violence\\\", \\\"When it comes to representation\\\" \\\"When it comes to skills/interests\\\" and maybe a \\\"Miscellaneous\\\" folder if we need one...

I wasn\\\'t \\\"going over the sexist against men\\\" category, just picking out things which were obviously not sexist by their very nature. I did not expect to start a rehaul or anything, though while we are here:

In response to your concerns:

Yes, a HouseHusband is AlwaysMale, but AlwaysMale does not make something sexist against men--it can only be sexist in execution, for example, if the male is portrayed in a negative light for making the decision to take care of his children, where the housewives are not. Many of the examples listed in HouseHusband are not sexist against men and their decision is treated respectfully.

Similarly, crossdresser lists plenty of female examples. Women can be crossdressers, though women have to go much further in order to earn the \\\"crossdresser\\\" label that\\\'s not really what the trope is about. In any case, the trope of crossdresser isn\\\'t inherently sexist, though it CAN be depending on the work and if a male character is treated like a freak for wanting to dress in a feminine manner.

I don\\\'t think a woman hiding anything down her shirt is inherently sexist against men. Gendercide I\\\'m a bit torn about--is it possible to do tastefully (so long as it doesn\\\'t glorify said mono-gendered society), or is it always inherently sexist to play off the destruction of a entire gender for dramatic effect? I think I\\\'ll leave it for now.

My thoughts to your own suggestions:

I agree with a lot of your combination, maybe add a \\\"/\\\" between them all since they are all related to the same sexist idea--I disagree with WhiteDwarfStarlet though, I think that\\\'s related more to age than to beauty (?), and its a character type..hm. Torn about GiveGeeksAChance--never seen a non-sexist example and not sure how one would work. Actually maybe it would be \\\"Sexist against either\\\", the same way BeastAndBeauty and UglyGuyHotWife already are.

GirlsNeedRoleModels doesn\\\'t\\\' say anything about what boys need. And saying boys don\\\'t need role models isn\\\'t even \\\"sexist against boys\\\" really, because people, and children in particular, should not feel the need to fill any particular \\\"role\\\" (gender based roles or otherwise).

Agree with RightThroughHisPants moving to \\\"sexist against either\\\", and I\\\'d add HeHadItComing and PrisonRape, which flat out also apply to women. (and are no less sexist for it).

\\\"Are female characters being punished for being feminine or not being feminine? \\\"

That would depend on the work, wouldn\\\'t it? It\\\'s perfectly possible for two tropes to contradict each other. I think RealWomenNeverWearDresses is a way of equating femininity with weakness, but VasquezAlwaysDies is just killing off the masculine woman, because even if a masculine woman is supposedly \\\"strong\\\", who wants a \\\"strong\\\" love interest.

Some of my own suggestions (while we are doing rehaul here), in addition to PrisonRape and HeHadItComing listed earlier:

On the guy side in terms of combinations (like I said I never really \\\"went over the man\\\'s side\\\", and I like the idea of combining the tropes which center around a particular idea, since it shows how sexism works in a system really appeals to me):

*AbuseIsOKWhenFemaleOnMale, RapeIsOKWhenFemaleOnMale, RapeIsFunnyWhenMaleOnMale, MenAreTheExpendableGender, GroinAttack, BeautyIsNeverTarnished (hm which also seems like it could be sexist against either), GirlsHitHarderThanTheVillains, WhyDoYouMakeMeHitYou--all variations on the idea that violence against women (including sexual violence) is usually viewed as a much more serious/more dramatic thing than violence against men, which can be used for comedy, to punish a guy for a bad move, to just show how strong the big bad is without necessarily crossing over the moral event horizon etc.
*AllGaysArePromiscuous, AllMenArePerverts, maybe AManIsNotAVirgin--The idea that men are all very highly sexual
*BumblingDad, CloserToEarth
*MenDon\\\'tCry, WaterWorks

I\\\'d move AllWomenAreLustful to the \\\"sexist against woman\\\" category--not sure how it\\\'s implying anything about men? Any explanation? And also LicensedSexist there as well. Its currently under \\\"Sexist Against Men\\\", under the claim that \\\"men need excuses, womens excuse is the men themselves\\\"--but most of the DoesNotLikeMen characters -do- have excuses (of the Freudian variety), and most of the LicensedSexist characters don\\\'t have excuses, their misogyny is played as comedy. I think they are both equally \\\"sexist against\\\" their respective genders, because having a character whose sexism is not called out and treated iike what it is--is sexist.

Also if I may suggest something ~radical~ here, maybe I missed the justification in the other discussion--do we need to have \\\"Sexist against men\\\" and \\\"Sexist against women\\\" and \\\"Sexist against either\\\"? If something is sexist it is sexist and it inherently enforces a certain gender norm. For example, it would certainly be beneficial I think, to also group together \\\"All Women Are Prudes\\\" and \\\"All Men Are Perverts\\\" to discuss the overall difference in how the media treats the sexuality of men and women. Or Wouldn\\\'tHitAGirl and GirlsHitHarderThanTheVillains. Just my opinion though, and I know this DoubleStandard page has had that \\\"Sexist against....\\\" bullshit going on for a while so maybe it honestly has a good reason behind it. Any thoughts?

I wasn\\\'t \\\"going over the sexist against men\\\" category, just picking out things which were obviously not sexist by their very nature. I did not expect to start a rehaul or anything, though while we are here: