Follow TV Tropes
This whooooole trope description suffers from itself.
Assuming that the \"traditionally masculine\" character is always better. Like.
The page references All Girls Want Bad Boys, but acts like that goes *with* the trope... the reason Sissy Villain characters are more attractive is because they\'re Non Action Guy s. Because they think before punching. Which is why those characters are resented by conforming males, and always painted as villains by male writers. Those males think, \"Hey, I\'m the one following the rules, I\'m the one who builds muscles and punches things and doesn\'t cry, and doesn\'t listed to classical music because that\'s sissy, how could anyone like that guy over me?\"
Because Non Action Guy s are better people, that\'s why.
You don\'t need a big muscle girl to save a \"wimpy\" \"dude in distress\", you need to show the Non Action Guy *and* girl characters as better than the violent characters.
You need to show male and female characters as equally intelligent and angelic.
You need to show them both solving problems, together, as equals, with their brains and not their fists.
You make a lot of assumptions here. Not the least of which is the assumption that tropes are mutually exclusive or have the same meaning in all cultures and time periods. What would be a Sissy Villain by today\'s standards could be considered manly by the conventions of its time or culture. Japanese people, for example, think that bulky muscles are gawdy and mostly unattractive compared to the leaner, more \"functional\" muscles of what Western audiences my call \"pretty boys\" or \"sissies\". Also, there was a time when men of nobility wore lavish clothes, including wigs, high heels, and even skirts not because they were effeminate but because it was the expected style for nobles of their era.
This trope describes the general attitude that male characters exist to perform powerful acts while women need to look pretty first and foremost to fulfill their roles in the plot. This nor its examples are really concerned with how to \"fix\" the problem—just describing the various forms it can and has taken. Whether or not more progressive writers choose to respond to this trope by creating more non-action guys or more action girls is up to future tropers to notice.
I'm confused about this page - are they saying that this trope is ALWAYS in effect?? I find that to be ridiculous, especially the part where it says that a female's actions are irrelevant to her attractiveness to the opposite sex!
I know of many people who have been in bad relationship with physically attractive women who were nasty and mean as hell so they dumped them, they didnt care how hot she was cos she was a nasty bitch! yes, I admit that at first glance a guy might not care about a woman's actions, only her looks, but that will wear off very quick if he finds out she is a nasty mean-hearted bitch!!!
so is this trope always in effect? I find it silly
It's a trope talking about gender expectations in fiction. Exceptions can occur, but we don't care how it works in Real Life.
... A trope doesn't have to be "always in effect," either in fiction or in reality, to be a valid trope. A trope is just a recurring pattern in fiction. The different expectations applied to the two genders, as described on this trope page, definitely form a common pattern in fiction (and, yes, also in reality, if not to the same extent).
I'd be surprised if there was even one trope on this wiki that was literally always in effect.
Community Showcase More