What happened to the 'YMMV' tab on the page? Was it cut due to lots of arguments or something?
Hide / Show Replies
I'd imagine so.
That, and people can't resist troping Sarkeesian herself rather than just her show.
Anyone still watching this page?
Where do I put Conversed Tropes? In the "Discussed Tropes" section? I'm talking about things like:
I still think that's a Discussed Trope. Conversed tropes are in-universe conversations, aren't they?
Oh, right. Conversed Trope is the second kind of Discussed Trope.
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576
No, because that will easily derail into a shitstorm of arguing and ranting.
Storm Kensho, I 2nd that it's a good idea and dont agree with Rahkishi500 Due to the fact that there are more people out there capable of being confused by her opinions and not being a dick about it.
I don't need no reason!
I suspect the mods don't want to bother policing something with this much tension associated.
I'm not sure how and why my blue links were deleted: how is resistant reading not related to death of the author? Or aberant decoding a direct cause of misaimed fandom and Fan Dumb? or baseless mockery not a direct result of a Hate Dumb?
Fan Dumb and Hate Dumb are Flame Bait. Meaning we don't list them on work pages at all.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I just made one (I expect it to be deleted though).
Just as a precaution to TV Tropes mods, though: some of Anita's more "dedicated" fanbase is really clever in how they word opposition to criticism about her. Even the most innocent of criticisms can be viewed as vitriolic by them. I'd be careful about blindly believing that something is as such until clear evidence is presented to support that claim.
If you're truly trying to be fair about it, though, that applies equally to both sides.
Well, no, actually a lot of anti-Sarkeesianites are rabid complainers. Nuisance but of a different kind.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I meant in regards to using slick wording. There are a lot of haters who try to word their complaints so that her views or actions seem more extreme, deceitful or illogical than they actually are.
Alright, here's something we should nail down on how to depict: should her tropes take priority within the context of the page, or should the wiki's? Her discussed "tropes" are tropes that she or other feminists define, some of which come from the wiki or at least have the same names the wiki uses, but it's not the same thing as TV Tropes. On TV Tropes, we think of the whole thing as one solid compendium of tropes and discuss the wiki's tropes on work pages as if it completely covers what's going on, which makes sense given the wiki being about applying its own tropes to everything. What Fem Freq puts forward, however, is a different set of tropes as suits the needs of the feminist critiques. So far, the page has been trying to manhandle these foreign tropes to fit them into our tropes so that the page can be more like a standard work page that treats our tropes as the only way things can be defined. When we say "these are the tropes that Fem Freq discusses," it's misleading, as it sounds like Fem Freq discusses TV Tropes' tropes instead of its own. It ends up with a brief reference to what Fem Freq defines a trope as while it tries to shove a square peg into a round hole by throwing out related TV Tropes tropes. As a consequence of the confusion, people get the impression that her conclusions are unsound because she doesn't follow how TV Tropes defines tropes instead of paying attention to how she defines them. I propose instead establishing that Fem Freq uses different tropes, putting the series' declared tropes front and center, and then discussing how similar they may be to established TV Tropes tropes in a section at the end to make it clear that these discussed tropes are two different sets.
Hide / Show Replies
I would stick with our own tropes.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Actually I think the OP is quite right. The "Tropes discussed in this series" section should contain the trope names used by Sarkeesian herself and the definitions of these tropes she uses in her videos.
As of now, the page says that part II of the "Tropes vs. Women" series is about Women In Refrigerators. Thing is, Women In Refrigerators is not a trope on our wiki and clicking on Women In Refrigerators will actually lead you to a work page. We do have a trope called Stuffed in the Fridge. But Stuffed in the Fridge is not identical to Women In Refrigerators because it is not gender-specific by definition.
These things should obviously be fixed. I don't think we need another 'section at the end', though. It should be rightaway explained in the middle section.
Edited by LordGro Let's just say and leave it at that.
I think that's a good point. Something similar is like the Turkey City Lexicon. It identified tropes but doesn't necessarily use the same name as we do. Or I forget what it's called but Roger Ebert used to do this thing of identifying common movie tropes- and again, I'm sure there's some overlap in concepts between what he identified and this site but we aren't necessarily using his term for those things.
I should clarify that by "section at the end," I meant in the same paragraph but at the end, out of the way of the discussion of her tropes instead of suggesting a whole other heading.
I've been wondering what personality a character would have if he's a Mr. Female Character. A Ms. Male Character is Bowser's daughter who is vain, spoiled, bratty and quick to anger. How would an exaggerated male character act?
Hide / Show Replies
Mr Female Characters don't exist, because men are depicted as varied in skill and personality. A Mr Female Character would mean female is treated as the default, and that never happens. That's the point of the trope.
You could have them wear a baseball cap or something, but any dialogue or communicative movement would involve some deeper characterisation: like making them a jock. Which- while masculine- is not considered cultural shorthand for masculinity, so you wind up with a jock character, not a Mr Female Character.
Bullshit. Name one game where they aren't just stereotypical masculine males with varying personalities, and prove that that's the norm for men.
A lot of games have males as merely being tools to explore female personalities and back stories.
A Mr.Female character would be a typically docile male who only engages in "typically" feminine stuff. They're treated as an awkward existence and not looked upon too nicely. Because while we allow females to engage in anything, we don't extend that to males. Which is misandry by itself. It's sexism. If they aren't pigs who we can laugh at, find reasons to hate, or admire them for the tail they get, then most people don't care and would rather have them die. In life, and media, males aren't allowed to be something without being berated.
Assholes aren't worth my time unless they come out as assholes. Only asshole brothers be welcome here.
What about her thoughts on the Femme Fatale, The Vamp and the all encompassing Evil Demon Seductress - er, female villains and or antiheroes in general?
Many people think she is against the feminine or feminism being portrayed in any bad light, but I think it is more on the way that female villains and antiheroes are using sex, violence or a mixture of the two to satisfy their goals.
Could that be chalked up to writers wanting or being pressured to cave in to the very patriarchal ideas that violence must be used on these "evil women" (air-quoting) and their crazy and or sex-crazed violent nastiness to bring them back under control?
But seriously, what do you think on this idea?
Edited by PeachLover94 Peach Lover 94 It's a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done. A far better resting place that I go to, than I've ever known.
This trope is now In-Universe Examples Only. If it fits, feel free to put it on the main page.
- Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch:
- Remixing video game stock footage for a blog that praises the game Portal for being about "non violent conflict resolution" and criticizes "you hardly see" Chell.
- Complaining about The Powerpuff Girls' use of the Straw Feminist trope and forgetting the character was revealed to not be a feminist at all (on top of the irony of her caring about appearance). And applying real life problems to things in episode that don't even apply to those problems.
- Lumping Y The Last Man and the Daughters of Amazon therein as example of "crazy man hating Straw Feminists without any realistic feminists showing up" when not only do calmer more grounded feminists appear but Brian K. Vaughan explicitly created the characters as examples of one type of feminist school of thought and other characters as opposing ones
.
- Dismissing Clarice Starling from Silence Of The Lambs because she's overshadowed in the cultural memory of the film by a male character (Hannibal) even though Clarice fits her previously established criteria; she has the most screen time in the film, the story arc revolves around her, we see her make decisions and she is the character that the viewer identifies with in a role that earned Jodie Foster her second Oscar along with Anthony Hopkins for his Hannibal Lecter role. It's virtually impossible to describe the plot in a way that makes Hannibal seem anything like the lead character, but Sarkeesian says the exact opposite of this.
- She lists Clementine from Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind as a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, even though she is a character who was an outright subversion of this trope who actually says to her romantic foil: "I'm not a concept. Too many guys think I'm a concept or I complete them or I'm going to make them alive, but I'm just a fucked up girl who is looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."
- Under research failure specifically, this post from another feminist blog argues that understanding the history of certain phrases in the song reveals that "Baby It's Cold Outside" is not actually about date rape. To be fair to Sarkeesian, though, this is one where quite a lot of people don't do the research.
- Another example is the video game Bayonetta. Not only did she not address the satirical nature of the game, there were several hints that she was not very familiar with the game. The biggest one is when she says Bayonetta is a single mother, something that is not true. Bayonetta does play the Action Mom trope, but only metaphorically (the girl she takes care of is HERSELF from the past), while Sarkeesian portrays it in the video as if she is a literal single mom. Made even worse by stating that that's her one and only positive character trait. To be fair, she later rectified and edited the video removing the parts in which she talks about the game itself and left only her complains about the marketing campaign in Japan, which were much more legitimate.
Seem more like the examples would fit under Cowboy Be Bop At His Computer instead. Still wouldn't be listed on the main WebVideo namespace, though.
Not right away, not right away
Whatever this is sounds like YMMV to me
Oh look I mispeled somethink.
So... All our folders say "the series", presumably referring to "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games"...
But, Feminist Frequency is now a organization and a site, and doesn't just host that series, so should we rename the folders? If so, to what?
...
Just gonna say "Its videos"...
Edited by Malady Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576