TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

[Melina22]

11 minutes ago, melanie.hiscock said:

Plus the media makes women think only men being kicked in the crotch is painful. In the real world, a hit to the crotch is painful for a woman too. 

Agreed. And it can also be very damaging, for both presumably. I don't enjoy how often it's portrayed as being funny. Sure, if a woman does it because she's being attacked, I get it, but I'm tired of seeing it shown as amusing.

[Homily]

55 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

But here's the part that really struck me. At first the audience was wildly cheering the women on, convinced they could be the underdogs and beat at least some of the men. As it dawned on everyone (including me!) that that wasn't even close to happening, a weird, embarrassed silence fell over everyone. Like they were thinking, "You mean men really ARE physically stronger than women?" and at the time I remember thinking that the media are doing everyone a disservice in warping reality this way. 

Last year my husky 6 ft 4  husband was injured and paramedics were involved.  All the paramedics who attended were women - and it took 3 of them to get him onto a stretcher and into the ambulance.  They were wonderful women who knew their stuff but bottom line was the two women who arrived first had to call for back up to get one 240 lb guy into the ambulance.  Would two male paramedics have had the same problem?  I don't think so.

[melanie.hiscock]

I think a lot of the media - and the women that they aim at - don't want to admit reality or that their 1970s mothers lied to them in their propaganda.

[Melina22]

16 minutes ago, Homily said:

They were wonderful women who knew their stuff but bottom line was the two women who arrived first had to call for back up to get one 240 lb guy into the ambulance.  Would two male paramedics have had the same problem?  I don't think so.

My takeaway from the Fire men's Challenge was that although I have enormous admiration for female firefighters (and paramedics), if I ever need to get pulled out of the third floor of a burning building and carried down a ladder, I want it to be by a male firefighter. 😊

[Rose Quartz]

1 hour ago, Melina22 said:

It's so weird you posted this right when I was thinking of posting a trope that's really bothering me, but it's sort of controversial. 

I'm getting tired of the trope of small, fit young women (or older, more regular sized women!) beating up men, sometimes several at a time. It's literally everywhere. Sometimes they're superheroes, sometimes they're regular humans trained in mysteriously effective martial arts, sometimes they're normal  women who are just really "feisty". 

Now I'm all for female empowerment and the depiction of strong women. But this particular trope is so common it's skewing people's view of reality. 

I was discussing this with a friend last week and I think you're absolutely right.  I remember when this trope first became common in the '90s and it was refreshing to see a tiny young woman like Buffy fearlessly take on all the bad guys.  But now it's become such an overused cliche that a lot of times we'll see this tiny woman take down bad guys who have already demonstrated that they can take down a larger male good guy who's supposed to be equally competent, and I just have to roll my eyes at how unrealistic that is.

[Homily]

1 hour ago, Rose Quartz said:

But now it's become such an overused cliche that a lot of times we'll see this tiny woman take down bad guys who have already demonstrated that they can take down a larger male good guy who's supposed to be equally competent, and I just have to roll my eyes at how unrealistic that is.

This has also led the the notion that a woman hitting a man is as bad as a man hitting a woman.  Yes, technically of course it's as bad in the "we don't hit people" sense of bad but the consequences are not the same.   As I used to tell my daughter when she would pick on her little brother "some day he will be bigger and stronger than you and you may be very sorry for this!"

[Melina22]

12 minutes ago, Homily said:

This has also led the the notion that a woman hitting a man is as bad as a man hitting a woman.  Yes, technically of course it's as bad in the "we don't hit people" sense of bad but the consequences are not the same.  

So true. Although this takes us to the old trope, maybe not as common now, of a woman slapping a man across the face for various infractions. It used to be played quite a lot for humour. I've always had very mixed feelings about the trope. 

Usually, it was because the man was being "fresh". Maybe he kissed her and it wasn't welcome. Or he said something she found inappropriate. Sometimes she just misunderstood him. It always bothered me because I have literally never seen it happen in real life, or done it. In movies, it was always portrayed as harmless or funny. The man never retaliated. Mostly he laughed or looked perplexed or guilty, while onlookers laughed. I have a feeling that IRL it wouldn't go like that at all but I'm just guessing. 

Oh, now that I think of it, nowadays the trope is more likely to be a woman dumping a drink or food on a man, or occasionally kicking him in the crotch. Then striding out of the restaurant, bar or party to general applause. Again, I don't see this going nearly as well in real life. 

I don't recall ever seeing the roles reversed, not that I want to. 

[meowmommy]

59 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

Oh, now that I think of it, nowadays the trope is more likely to be a woman dumping a drink or food on a man, or occasionally kicking him in the crotch. Then striding out of the restaurant, bar or party to general applause.

Wasn't that a plot point in Moonstruck?

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, Melina22 said:

it was because the man was being "fresh". Maybe he kissed her and it wasn't welcome.

So a woman defend herself against an assault.

[Ohiopirate02]

4 hours ago, Melina22 said:

It's so weird you posted this right when I was thinking of posting a trope that's really bothering me, but it's sort of controversial. 

I'm getting tired of the trope of small, fit young women (or older, more regular sized women!) beating up men, sometimes several at a time. It's literally everywhere. Sometimes they're superheroes, sometimes they're regular humans trained in mysteriously effective martial arts, sometimes they're normal  women who are just really "feisty". 

Now I'm all for female empowerment and the depiction of strong women. But this particular trope is so common it's skewing people's view of reality. 

Awhile ago I was at a Fireman's Challenge in my city to cheer on my son in law. About 100 local firefighters were in it, mostly men but a few super fit, tough women. It was great except for one thing. It quickly became obvious that the weakest men could easily beat the strongest, fastest women in all the challenges, which involved running, climbing, lifting, dragging, all in heavy gear. 

The women were amazing - tough and fearless, they never gave up. But they trailed way behind every one of the men. Which wasn't surprising, given the men's biological advantage. 

But here's the part that really struck me. At first the audience was wildly cheering the women on, convinced they could be the underdogs and beat at least some of the men. As it dawned on everyone (including me!) that that wasn't even close to happening, a weird, embarrassed silence fell over everyone. Like they were thinking, "You mean men really ARE physically stronger than women?" and at the time I remember thinking that the media are doing everyone a disservice in warping reality this way. 

It seems like in TV and movies, the "strong woman" trope endlessly depicts women beating up men. In reality, a strong woman is something completely different and way more inspiring. 

Sorry for the long post, but I've been thinking about this for a long time. 

I don't have a problem with a smaller woman beating up a larger man if she is using some for of martial arts to compensate for her size disadvantage, and the actress actually has visible muscles.  Your typical size zero Hollywood actress would never be able to achieve this.  

[Melina22]

25 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

So a woman defend herself against an assault.

Oh, I'm not saying he maybe didn't deserve it, but rather that IRL a lot of men who have no problem doing something offensive to a woman are not going to have a problem retaliating in this scenario. It always bugged me that TV and movies portrayed slapping a man across the face as a funny, harmless way of responding, when in IRL it could actually be dangerous for the woman. Yes, I know I'm taking a silly trope too seriously, perhaps because of some of my life experiences. And it's not like not responding is a great response either. 

It's such a complicated, multi-layered thing that it should probably have its own thread. 😕

[melanie.hiscock]

Being compliant can get you killed, but so can fighting back.

[Glendenning]

To Ohiopirate02: Your typical WOMAN wouldn't be able to be Buffy Summers or some ninja in the movies.

[supposebly]

14 hours ago, melanie.hiscock said:

Plus the media makes women think only men being kicked in the crotch is painful. In the real world, a hit to the crotch is painful for a woman too. 

Any woman who has ever fallen on the bar on a men's bicycle knows. That's a pain you don't forget. Believe me. 

[Glendenning]

3 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Any woman who has ever fallen on the bar on a men's bicycle knows. That's a pain you don't forget. Believe me. 

Unfortunately "King of the Hill" went with the usual "I think you'll find i have *no* testicles!"

Sooner or later, the media - and to be fair, a lot of feminist activists - are going to get women seriously injured or killed with their propagation of false reassurances and false beliefs.

[DoctorAtomic]

No one should slap anyone, but I bitch slapped a dude who said something racist about my then gf, and it was a scene right out of TV where everyone stops and the sound dies. All we needed was a record scratch. 

[Ohiopirate02]

9 hours ago, Glendenning said:

To Ohiopirate02: Your typical WOMAN wouldn't be able to be Buffy Summers or some ninja in the movies.

No she would not be.  At least Buffy has the "chosen one" backstory to explain why Buffy is able to do what she does.  My biggest issue with this trope is how the woman is always filtered through the male gaze.  She has to still look "hot" and non-threatening while kicking ass.  This also bleeds over to movies as well.  What young actress except for Gwendolyn Christie even looks like she could beat up multiple men.  If you look at top female athletes, they all have obvious muscles, but young actresses never do.  If you want to have a female character beating up guys left and right, can't she at least have vintage Linda Hamilton arms?

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

No she would not be.  At least Buffy has the "chosen one" backstory to explain why Buffy is able to do what she does.  My biggest issue with this trope is how the woman is always filtered through the male gaze.  She has to still look "hot" and non-threatening while kicking ass.  This also bleeds over to movies as well.  What young actress except for Gwendolyn Christie even looks like she could beat up multiple men.  If you look at top female athletes, they all have obvious muscles, but young actresses never do.  If you want to have a female character beating up guys left and right, can't she at least have vintage Linda Hamilton arms?

I guess that would be like when Chris Evans was reported to not want to do the things needed to keep in Captain America shape. Over the years while the female lead body shape has changed from longer legs to a more pronounced butt and allowing leads with shorter legs to get the Gina Carano's, Jenette Goldstein's or Cynthia Rothrock's  will take time and changing standards

[Ohiopirate02]

58 minutes ago, Raja said:

I guess that would be like when Chris Evans was reported to not want to do the things needed to keep in Captain America shape. Over the years while the female lead body shape has changed from longer legs to a more pronounced butt and allowing leads with shorter legs to get the Gina Carano's, Jenette Goldstein's or Cynthia Rothrock's  will take time and changing standards

I don't want actors and actresses to harm themselves getting ready for a role--steroids, crash diet, extreme workouts, etc; but, I am never going to believe a tiny actress like Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jennifer Garner, the actresses on Chicago Fire, Cobie Smulders, etc can constantly win in a fight without any visible muscle.  They all work out to stay thin, not to build muscle.  

[meowmommy]

On 9/28/2019 at 4:04 PM, meowmommy said:

Nope, never did.  But they made my daughter and me very uncomfortable.  

They're back.  One of them is back.  The black SUV that was hanging out in the alley has been back in the alley for the past two days.  With the guy sitting in the front seat.

[Melina22]

Can you call the police? 

[meowmommy]

Just now, Melina22 said:

Can you call the police? 

I just don't know what I'd say.  They're only there during the day, and they don't do anything, just sit there.

[Melina22]

8 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I just don't know what I'd say.  They're only there during the day, and they don't do anything, just sit there.

Say that. Tell them what they're doing and that it's making you and your daughter very uncomfortable. The worst they can do is ignore you but they probably will do a drive by at least unless you're in a super high crime area. Or they may know what's going on if it's undercover, not that they'd tell you. 

Normal people don't sit in cars all day doing nothing. 

[DoctorAtomic]

I saw a dude outside in a car at the next house over and I was getting ready to call the police until I realized he was the contractor and it was his lunch break. 

[PennyPlain]

34 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

Normal people don't sit in cars all day doing nothing. 

And if it's a PI or anyone from law enforcement you'd think they'd know better than to make themselves so conspicuous!

[biakbiak]

50 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I just don't know what I'd say.  They're only there during the day, and they don't do anything, just sit there.

If you do make sure to use the non-emergency number.

[Haleth]

14 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I just don't know what I'd say.  They're only there during the day, and they don't do anything, just sit there.

It can't hurt to report it.  You know how they always say, if you see something, say something?  It should be a comfort to know that it's being checked out.

[Drogo]

Back to the topic. 

[Glendenning]

As seen here, The Torkelsons dressed Mary Sue (played by Rachel Duncan) in a way more befitting 1951 than 1991. I'm pretty this is a trope - either Southern Belle or just to make the character look as cute/adorable as possible which they felt couldn't be done with trousers or shorts.

[Blergh]

1 hour ago, Glendenning said:

As seen here, The Torkelsons dressed Mary Sue (played by Rachel Duncan) in a way more befitting 1951 than 1991. I'm pretty this is a trope - either Southern Belle or just to make the character look as cute/adorable as possible which they felt couldn't be done with trousers or shorts.

Or it could be to somehow comically highlight how 'out of touch' the Southeastern US is supposed to be by having characters wear attire decades out of style [ see also Mama's Family,etc.]. 

[Ohiopirate02]

2 hours ago, Glendenning said:

As seen here, The Torkelsons dressed Mary Sue (played by Rachel Duncan) in a way more befitting 1951 than 1991. I'm pretty this is a trope - either Southern Belle or just to make the character look as cute/adorable as possible which they felt couldn't be done with trousers or shorts.

36 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Or it could be to somehow comically highlight how 'out of touch' the Southeastern US is supposed to be by having characters wear attire decades out of style [ see also Mama's Family,etc.]. 

I live in the South, and this style of dress is always available in stores.  A taffeta dress with a bit of crinoline underneath is a classic style of dress for girls.  I don't know if it is the same for the rest of the country.  A quick peek at a southern department store (Belk) shows a few similar dresses with one being made by Ralph Lauren.

I see this as showing a specific type of girl--the girly girl who likes to dress up and hates anything "gross."  She is not the type to be out roughhousing with the boys and getting all dirty.  Unless she is a tomboy who is forced to wear these dresses by her mother/grandmother.  

[Glendenning]

I think "tomboy" is a outdated term nowadays as girls having short hair and wearing trousers all the time is normalized. If anything, the focus of activists now is to normalize boys having long hair and wearing dresses without being subject to ridicule or violence. Trans men aren't see to count in that fight as they were raised and socialized as girls. 

[Forsaken]

On 10/2/2019 at 12:10 AM, melanie.hiscock said:

Plus the media makes women think only men being kicked in the crotch is painful. In the real world, a hit to the crotch is painful for a woman too. 

Plus a man being kicked or hurt in the crotch or in any other way is just hilarious! Oh the fun of watching a man in pain! A woman in pain though is a much more serious matter. Same with violence against women, serious. Violence against men especially by women? Female empowerment. 

6 minutes ago, Glendenning said:

I think "tomboy" is a outdated term nowadays as girls having short hair and wearing trousers all the time is normalized. If anything, the focus of activists now is to normalize boys having long hair and wearing dresses without being subject to ridicule or violence. Trans men aren't see to count in that fight as they were raised and socialized as girls. 

I think they are more careful with Trans males because a lot of women/feminists don't like the idea of it. 

[Ohiopirate02]

32 minutes ago, Glendenning said:

I think "tomboy" is a outdated term nowadays as girls having short hair and wearing trousers all the time is normalized. If anything, the focus of activists now is to normalize boys having long hair and wearing dresses without being subject to ridicule or violence. Trans men aren't see to count in that fight as they were raised and socialized as girls. 

It is an outdated word, but also a trope.  The dichotomy of girly-girl and tomboy is still present in today's TV even if we don't use those exact words.  Heaven forbid a girl like clothes and makeup and sports, playing with the boys, science, math, etc.  Then anything traditionally considered "girly" is immediately seen as less than.  Smart girls can't be bothered with their appearance.  

[PennyPlain]

I'm not sure if this a trope or not but I'm getting tired of TV shows that have a Christmas gift exchange with a family (mom dad and the kiddies maybe a grandparent or two) and people are getting one gift each.  I don't know any family that does this - least of all the kind of monied upper middle class families that tend to be featured on the TV shows I'm thinking of!  

Edited October 4, 2019 by PennyPlain

[Glendenning]

a lot of the "girly = lame" is a legacy of the radicalism of the 1970s. When you consider that the mothers of todays TV writers were the feminists of the 1970s and most people's views are inherited from their family, it's not too hard to figure out.

[PennyPlain]

19 minutes ago, Glendenning said:

a lot of the "girly = lame" is a legacy of the radicalism of the 1970s. When you consider that the mothers of todays TV writers were the feminists of the 1970s and most people's views are inherited from their family, it's not too hard to figure out.

True no doubt but I think the pink aisles of toy stores nowadays is a reaction of today's parents against the more gender neutral way they may have been raised.  At least that's one explanation anyway of the way girls are now being socialized to be Disney princesses and wear pink and sparkles.  

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, Glendenning said:

a lot of the "girly = lame" is a legacy of the radicalism of the 1970s. When you consider that the mothers of todays TV writers were the feminists of the 1970s and most people's views are inherited from their family, it's not too hard to figure out.

I get it even if I have never agreed with it.  Which is why I love Elle Woods in Legally Blonde.  She is smart, girly, and her knowledge of frivolous things saves the day in the end.  TV related, I had to bail on The Big Bang Theory because they kept on reinforcing this outdated trope.  Penny is hot and dresses in skimpy clothes  so of course she is dumb, Amy is smart so she dresses dowdy, doesn't style her hair, and doesn't wear makeup.  I know Mayim Bialik chooses to dress modestly, but there is a difference between modest and frumpy.  

[Glendenning]

Ohiopirate02 and I both make the point that this trope is not good and that you can like dresses and jewelry and perfume and still be equal to boys

[PennyPlain]

10 minutes ago, Glendenning said:

Ohiopirate02 and I both make the point that this trope is not good and that you can like dresses and jewelry and perfume and still be equal to boys

What I hate is the idea that just because a girl likes pink she has to be dumb.  But what I also hate is that in defending the girl who likes pink by pointing out that she can still be strong and smart it feels like I'm still saying there's something wrong with liking pink and "girlie" stuff.  "Girlie" is still not good to most people.  Aargh.  

[Shannon L.]

5 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I get it even if I have never agreed with it.  Which is why I love Elle Woods in Legally Blonde.  She is smart, girly, and her knowledge of frivolous things saves the day in the end. 

This is what I loved about Big Hero 6, too.  The geniuses in that one went far beyond the stereotypes.

[Mabinogia]

7 hours ago, PennyPlain said:

What I hate is the idea that just because a girl likes pink she has to be dumb. 

Not just dumb, also typically shallow. Most "girly" girls on TV are shallow, only concerned with their looks, their clothes, their followers. You can like to wear dresses and makeup and look pretty one day and wear a baggy sweatshirt, no makeup and old dirty jeans the next. People just aren't as simple as TV wants us to think they are. We can't be pigeonholed. 

I guess they do it for an easy visual reference instead of having to flesh out the character, but it's lazy and makes for cardboard characters. 

[VCRTracking]

I remember in Beverly Hills 90210 and Party of Five where one of the main characters are dating someone for a few episodes then they turn out to be racist and have to break up with them. Yes this does happen in real life but I can't help think the reason is the writers want the main character to end a relationship so they can get with another main character but do so in a way that it's totally not their fault. They do it for a moral, noble reason. It's not because of a shallow reason like Jerry does on Seinfeld. It's why I love the episode of Andy Richter Controls the Universe where Andy Richter's character is dating a hot girl who turns out to be anti-semitic but he's like "Maybe I can overlook this!"

[DoctorAtomic]

Criminally underrated show with a even more notoriously overlooked comedic performance of Paget Brewster.

[Forsaken]

23 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I remember in Beverly Hills 90210 and Party of Five where one of the main characters are dating someone for a few episodes then they turn out to be racist and have to break up with them. Yes this does happen in real life but I can't help think the reason is the writers want the main character to end a relationship so they can get with another main character but do so in a way that it's totally not their fault. They do it for a moral, noble reason. It's not because of a shallow reason like Jerry does on Seinfeld. It's why I love the episode of Andy Richter Controls the Universe where Andy Richter's character is dating a hot girl who turns out to be anti-semitic but he's like "Maybe I can overlook this!"

There was some racism on Seinfeld from the other side as well. Jerry and George are talking about how they call non Jewish women "Shitzka's" which means unclean or whore. Something they don't go into on the show, they just palm off the term as no big deal. 

[Lugal]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

You can like to wear dresses and makeup and look pretty one day and wear a baggy sweatshirt, no makeup and old dirty jeans the next. People just aren't as simple as TV wants us to think they are. We can't be pigeonholed. 

I guess they do it for an easy visual reference instead of having to flesh out the character, but it's lazy and makes for cardboard characters.

I agree.  There is the exception of a few "dreamgirl" characters who are simultaneously into everything the writers are (comic books, motorcycles, baseball, scifi movies, fantasy novels, muscle cars etc).  But beyond that, it seems like only the "quirky" characters get to have disparate interests or different traits.  But real people are more complex.  As a real life example, if you've ever been to a gem and mineral show, especially in an area with a strong rockhounding scene, you will find grizzled old men wearing some of the gaudiest, showiest jewelry you've ever seen.

[Glendenning]

With Mary Sue Torkelson, by the retooled second second "Almost Home", she has a more "suburban" hairstyle and is wearing pants more... and is a lot less charming. They've also given her Michelle Tanner type snark which i hate.

[Irlandesa]

13 hours ago, Glendenning said:

a lot of the "girly = lame" is a legacy of the radicalism of the 1970s. When you consider that the mothers of todays TV writers were the feminists of the 1970s and most people's views are inherited from their family, it's not too hard to figure out.

That type of misogyny pre-dates the the 70s.  70s feminism may have imperfectly reacted to it but they sure as hell didn't invent that trope.

Even the female characters who aren't supposed to be girly usually have a perfect face of makeup or clothing that is cinched in just the right places. The "radical makeover" trope is basically having a woman in a daytime look going to a night time look. 

[Glendenning]

The "first bra" episode trope I loathe because the tweenage actress's growing breasts have either been obvious long before the episode (18 months in the case of Sally from Home and Away) or they are shown wearing clothing (or swimwear) designed to accommodate "tits and arse".

[kiddo82]

On 10/4/2019 at 7:02 PM, VCRTracking said:

I remember in Beverly Hills 90210 and Party of Five where one of the main characters are dating someone for a few episodes then they turn out to be racist and have to break up with them. Yes this does happen in real life but I can't help think the reason is the writers want the main character to end a relationship so they can get with another main character but do so in a way that it's totally not their fault. They do it for a moral, noble reason. It's not because of a shallow reason like Jerry does on Seinfeld. It's why I love the episode of Andy Richter Controls the Universe where Andy Richter's character is dating a hot girl who turns out to be anti-semitic but he's like "Maybe I can overlook this!"

Andy Richter Control the Universe also subverted the saintly person with cancer trope.