Discussion Main / DoubleStandard

Shouldn't tropes that actually have Double Standard in their name, like Double Standard: Rape, Divine on Mortal and Double Standard: Rape, Sci-Fi be indexed here?

I think "Evil Matriarch" under "Frequently sexist in execution or delivery, but not sexist in nature" is miscategorized all together since it seems to be talking about Matriarchal leaders/societies where the actual trope is about evil mother characters.

I feel like a lot of the tropes under the "sexism against men" section would fit more under the "sexism against women" section, or at least the "sexist against either" section. I would edit the page itself OR simply make a forum thread, but I'm not able to do either, so...

• Pretty much all of the abuse and rape tropes paint women as too weak/innocent/stupid/pure to actually know what they're doing and commit abuse and rape, and men are weak for succumbing to it because men should always be stronger than and overpower women.

• Bumbling Dad relies on forcing women to pick up men's slack and wait on men hand and foot, and also forces women on a pedestal with very little wiggle room for mistakes. Similar to Ugly Guy, Hot Wife, they have to be flawless and impeccable, but men can show up however and it's all nothing.

• He Man Woman Hater: I feel like this is a false equivalence. It's Truth in Television that women who hate men typically have a long history of being abused/raped/looked down upon/threatened by men, or put into danger because of men, and thus grew a distrust of men as a whole, without their being any man around in their lives to portray a good example of male behavior(and if this didn't happen to them, it happened to a woman they know.). Meanwhile, men who hate women are typically just bigots who think women are beneath them, too emotional, only good for sex, weak, etc.

• Huh. I thought Dude Looks Like a Lady was about men who look like women through their physical appearances, not their clothes. Shouldn't it be Creepy Crossdresser instead? But regardless, it still stems from the idea that women are beneath men and so for a man to wear women's clothing makes him deserving of mockery because he's placing himself in the "lower" role of a woman, and in the process portrays femininity as a joke. The same is true for portraying anything men do that isn't sufficiently manly as a sign of "weakness". Because by being weak they're acting more like women that way. Women are allowed to do these things because they're expected to be weak already, society doesn't expect anything more from them.

• Pretty much all the tropes about women's lives being valued over men's and thus women being saved over men stem from the idea that women can't defend themselves from harm and thus require extra protection, not because people care about their lives more, but because otherwise they'd be reduced to a red splatter.

• I'm pretty sure fangirls are treated even worse than fanboys. Women are punished in fandoms for liking basically anything, told that they're not a true fan, and that just by liking something, they're intruding upon a male space(if it's a male-aimed work or anything) and ruining it for everyone. Count the amount of times women are told to list excessive and incredibly little-known facts to prove that they're real fans of something male-oriented. Or are made the butt of the joke for whatever they like, especially if it's Yaoi, a female-dominated work, or fanfiction. When men like something, they are portrayed as cool and passionate. When women like something, they are portrayed as delusional and losers. When men become fans of a female-dominated/centric work, suddenly the work is cool now solely because men like it(and even if they are made fun of for it, it's still due to the Girl-Show Ghetto!). When women become fans of a male-dominated/centric work, they are bullied to no end, told they know nothing about it, or that they ruined the work with their fiddling exxtra X-Chromosome. And a lot of this is due to masculinity being held in higher esteem. The part about sleeping with celebrities is also widely wrong. Girls with celebrity crushes are delusional and told that it would never happen and to give up on their crush on him because he's out of their league. Guys with celebrity crushes are seen as cool or having good taste. Just look at the entire history of teenage girls liking The Beatles. Only when men liked them were they seen as cool. Even though they never would've become popular if not for teenage girls' devotion.

• Henpecked Husband is misogynistic too in that it makes fun of men for being under control of a woman, because the man HAS to be the dominant partner in the relationship. They don't call it "wearing the pants" for nothing. And often a man will be portrayed as a Henpecked Husband for simply being on equal grounds with his woman, or for actually listening to what she has to say, or for taking time out of his day to spend it with her over his male buddies. The idea here is that women don't deserve respect, attention, care, or even love at all. And also that equality isn't good enough, men must play the dominant role in the relationship. It's the same logic behind men telling off men for being sexist; they're seen as "simps" or "white knights". Men are taught to see women as a burden, and despite the fact that marriages(at least nowadays) are supposed to be based around love and mutual trust and respect, men are encouraged to hate their wives.

• Tropes about women being more inherently worthy of redemption come from the stereotype that women, once again, are incapable of doing wrong for the same reasons as the abuse and rape tropes above.

• Men Act, Women Are: I don't think I need to explain this one.

• Momma's Boy: Same as Henpecked Husband but for parent/kid relationships, in that the man is supposed to be the dominant one and that women are supposed to be helpless victims. Men dominated by women are losers because women should never be dominant over men.

• No Bisexuals: Rides on Girl on Girl Is Hot, in that women are permitted to be bisexual more than men are only because it satisfies men's fantasies of girls' getting it on. It relies on the omnipresent male-centric worldview. Men getting it on with men isn't hot... to men, so it's not allowed, at least, not in fiction.

• No Guy Wants to Be Chased is literally a subtrope of Men Act, Women Are. I'd argue it's more offensive to women, because it dictates that women aren't allowed to be proactive because it "emasculates" men and they need to be passive damsels. Hence why women are portrayed as deranged lunatics whenever they try to chase after a man. Women aren't even allowed to initiate feelings for men who haven't decided they liked them first, they must only be passive receptors to men's attraction. Thus when they chase after them they are seen as stupid for thinking any man would like them back, when they should've waited their turn.

• Pædo Hunt: Men are more likely to be seen as pedophiles because of the cultural idea that women are more nurturing then men. Which in turn ties into the idea that women are best suited for the home. And if men are applaued for having sex with a woman even if it was nonconsensual, it's only because women are seen as sexual conquests for men to use to prove their manhood. Once again, our society is incapable of seeing women as having any sort of power against men, thus the idea is laughable and implausible.

• The Unfair Sex: All the responsibility lies on men in a relationship because men are seen as the only ones capable of making their own autonomous, proactive decisions.

• Wouldn't Hit a Girl: Women are too weak to be hit, which means this trope is sexist against women, not men.

I hate this double standard bullshit. It's stupid, and hypocritical, and needs to be done away with.

I made a version of the main image with a transparent background like it is asked in the Pages Needing Transparent Images page.

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Getting too broad(pun unintended), time for a split? , started by SAMAS on Feb 24th 2011 at 10:32:35 PM

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Overall Edit, started by MercuryInRetrograde on Apr 13th 2011 at 10:10:40 PM

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: There should be a separate index for sexism., started by DesertDragon on Jan 6th 2012 at 6:01:02 PM

Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Ambiguous Name, started by wrm5 on Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:43:49 PM

Does this page imply theres automatically malicious intent if a work uses these tropes?

Like Super Mario Bros for instance: Are the games bigoted for Peach being a female Damsel? Is Miyamoto a bigot for writing it that way? Likewise, should we have no more dopey dad characters like Peter Griffin or Homer Simpson? Are those misandrist on men for implying they are stupid?

Maybe I'm getting the wrong message here despite the "Tropes are not bad" disclaimer(and I guess the "Nothing wrong with fanservice" line too) but a lot of these come off as malicious interpretations.

Should these tropes never be done in fiction? (specifically like the one I used as an example). Plus I feel it erases a lot of context in many of these tropes, either biological, cultural, etc. because there simply not being some even ratio.

Unintentionally or not, this is what I'm getting from this.

I ask because I been reading T Vtropes for years and this was the first time stumbling on, I guess, a "divisive" page like this. I can't imagine I'm the only one with these questions. (edited to be more clear)

Excuse me. Please add Menswear Ghetto (which definitely counts). Thank you.

P.S. I have no idea how to make a proper pothole link here. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Is Pay Evil unto Evil seen as this?

I know this sounds like a rant, but it seems like there are a few double standards on This Very Wiki. For instance, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that this refers only to tropes that are sexist, and furthermore, specifically sexist against women. About half the tropes listed on the page seem to get a lot less of a negative response in different places (it seems like pages like this mention Ms. Fanservice or the camera's near-constant focus on her assets, And That's Terrible. But look for this trope under a character page that mentions said character being Ms. Fanservice...and that's awesome! Hypocrites much? Don't try to tell me it's because the editor on the latter was "obviously" a male, either). Second, this doesn't just apply to sexism; one case that seems to bug me is a lot of people on this site's attitude toward some supposedly non-Acceptable Targets in the religious realm. If there are cases where religious nutjobs make the whole sect look bad, they may be admitted as such, but are still considered "real" cases. Contrast this with militant atheists who openly bash religion to the point of Kick the Dog, so much so that even other atheists don't like them, but these are treated as Hollywood Atheists (read: not "real" atheists) or just trolls trying to make non-believers look bad.

Am I wrong to feel like someone's getting jipped here? I don't mean to offend anyone (though I'm sure I already have), but I'm just saying.

Talking about partner's ages... I am not sure about Western world( because I live outside of it) but more conservative society I belong to seems to be far more acceptive of older man/younger woman relationship than vice versa. Tropes that lead to this and how is this predjuice displayed: 1) Hollywood Old. It's not uncommon to believe that aging uglifies women more than men( which was actually mentioned in article) so some find it harder to believe in genuine love between an older woman and younger man. Younger man/older woman( again, maybe not in Westernized countries) are more frequently seen as "He is a Gold Digger and she is not in touch with reallity". 2) Even when the sexual attraction and romantic feelings in younger man/older woman couple are not denied, such relationships are often treated with disdain, judged, seen like a foolish impulsivity and a mistake, people are often very pessimistic about future of such relationships. They often get such treatment from the very same people who see old man/younger woman as something fine. Such relationships are often stereotyped as very uneven and unhealthy, where one is giver and other is a taker( either she is an Extreme Doormat and Love Martyr with zero self-respect and she will always sacrifice herself for immature child or he is a Henpecked Husband of controlling and tyrannical monster). This tendency has many things to do with "Ingenue"/"Manchild" double standard that is mentioned in article. Some people are even predjuiced against couples where a woman is only a year older or such. I often hear that the perfect couples are where husband is older than wife in 5-7 years or such.

Would All Women Are Doms All Men Are Subs be a fitting addition to this page?

That trope is (partly) based on the idea that women inflicting violence against men is innocently kinky, while men inflicting violence against women is dangerous and scary, even if it's consensual.

Bondage Is Bad is already on the page, so All Women Are Doms All Men Are Subs would fit with that trope.

On the Sexist against either folder, the link in the Samus Is a Girl / Unsettling Gender-Reveal section seems to be broken.

So, can we add Real Men Hate Affection? Since it implies that a guy shouldn't express love since it's "gay" and "unmanly"?

Does this page count as how to be manly in real life. Because a. I don't give a fuck about my gender, b. It is offensive af.

Under the folder for tropes that are sexist against men, would it be a good idea to add the trope A Man Is Not A Virgin to the list. The double-standard there is that a woman who is a virgin is considered to have done something good while if a man is a virgin he is often viewed as inferior or having some kind of problem.

On a side note this discussion section appears to display a double-standard; so many comments lined up to console women about the double-standards against them, but any mention of the gender-based discrimination men have faced is met with scorn. That should not be.

I feel like I'm going to be sick reading this. A full list (with individual pages!) of MRA bullshit about how men are 'sooooo oppressed'.

This whole page needs to be nuked.

An example of how Tropes Are Not Bad, even for this:

Imagine the conversation between Eggsy and the princess in Kingsman: The Secret Service with the genders flipped.

There's a bit of Linking to an Article Within the Article on the page, but I can't remove it since it's locked.

There are some entries that seem to be in the wrong places. I'd edit it myself but the page is locked.

Beauty Is Never Tarnished should be in 'sexist against either' seeing as the Beauty Is Never Tarnished page outright states that the implication is that women must be hot. Also all the entry on this page says is that it "goes hand in hand with Men Are The More Expendable Gender" but doesn't elaborate how. A better explanation of how it's sexist against men should be written.

Never a Self-Made Woman should be in 'sexist against women' and not 'sexist against either' seeing as the entry doesn't give a single reason as to how it's offensive to men.

Also Defiled Forever should go in 'sexist against women' as a counterpart to the Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil in the male entry. Eg. Men are never harmed by sex (not even rape), and women are forever ruined by sex (especially rape).

Is it considered a Double Standard if one says that women cry more than men? I most definitely think so, even though it's half-true in my case. Also, are there tropes on this topic that relate to crying?

I feel like "No Bisexuals" is pretty sexist against both females and males, just in different ways. I'm not going to expand on how it's sexist against men because the example already does that, however, in the main page, it says that if a female character likes both females and males, then it means that she's "kinky". I don't see how that's a positive/accepting example. It's not only pretty skeevy, but it also implies that she doesn't like both genders because... that's just what her sexuality is. It's because it's "hot".

"A Man Is Not a Virgin: Or if he is, he's inappropriate and pathetic."

That's not what the trope is about. It's not man vs woman, it's man vs boy. It still fits here, but should say something like "A Man Is Not a Virgin: if they are male and a virgin, they are still boys.

Please, could anyone edit this nonsense? "does not a sexist trope make". I think, it's supposed to be "does not make a sexist trope". I have no right to do so. Thanks in advance!

I would like to suggest that Macho Disaster Expedition be moved from "Sexist Against Men" to "Sexist Against Either." Yes, the trope does make men all look like morons, but it also inherently implies that Women Are Wiser, and that a woman's place is in the kitchen, even if it's on a camping trip in the middle of nowhere.

"Sexist Against Men" needs to be changed. You cannot be sexist against men. You can be BIASED against men, but to be sexist requires the other genders to be in a position of power over males, and per 1,000s of years of patriarchal domination, men have held the dominant social position.

Many of these examples should really be edited to be less rant-y. Additionally, there are tons of examples in "Sexist Against Men/Women" that are then described as "Sexist Against Either", and should be re-categorized as such.

Is there a Double Standard trope for when no one bats an eye at all the human bloodshed they're laughing at, but when the dog or cat gets hurt, the line has been crossed & the mood goes down?

This entry needs to be rewritten to deal with the strident tone and the sub-bulleted part.

• Moe: Moe characters are frequently stupid, clumsy, naive, and female... and this is supposed to be cute and make the audience want to take care of them!
  • The Gender Flipped version, however, is considered adorable by women (who would hate them if they were girls) but will be The Scrappy for male audience since they lack the violent manliness that is usually demanded from a male character.

Shouldn't Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil be moved to the 'Frequently sexist in execution or delivery, but not sexist in nature" folder instead of the "Sexist Against Men" one? Unless it specifically states that the trope doesn't apply to male victims, it's not sexist on its own.

Can somebody with the authority to work around the lock do something about the All Men Are Perverts example under 'Sexist against Men'? Even if the ideas are somehow sacrosanct, the grammar and the confusion between 'then' and 'than' is irksome. Cooling the rant-like quality off a little would be nice, but I'm not insisting.

Wouldn't Hit a Girl should be under "Sexist Against Either", since part of the trope is that women are exempt from violence because they're weak. I'd move it myself, but the page is locked.