Probably the most famous double standard... "If you're a guy who is close to girls, then you're a sick pervert. If you're a guy who is close to guys, you're totally gay. If you're not close to anyone, you're still a pervert." (Notice the FridgeLogic of the last example)

How does the last one make sense, provided "close to" means "social toward"?

It doesn't, hence the "FridgeLogic" mark. The closest "explanation" you can get in this incoherent mess of InsaneTrollLogic is that when someone is a sick weirdo/pervert/(''insert random insult here''), he ('''rarely''' female) is shunned by his peers and therefore isn't close to anyone. It makes about as much sense as the rest of InsaneTrollLogic. The DarthWiki/{{Wallbanger}} of this whole matter is that '''there are people who actually believe this load of bullshit!!!'''

This male Troper is very physically close with my friends by nature. So I tend to have only female friends. Why is it so bad for a dude to hug a dude? Why is it automatically assumed that you're gay if you hug someone? I'm sad and need a hug now...:(

*hug*

They say there's a proper way of hugging your fellow man.

This Troper has noticed that some members in ThisVeryWiki advocates DoubleStandards. Despite all the complaining and Wallbanging here to stop, many tropers seem to still use them. Now that's a Wallbanger.

Most of the examples here will be challenged. In some cases, they have a point but in too many cases, this pretty much reinforces and justifies the DoubleStandard claims.

"People who oppose same sex marriage are insecure with their own sexuality and are probably gay themselves."

"People who support same sex marriage do it for the reason that they are either secretly gay (or at least curious) themselves."

Both retorts are on the same playing field logically but the latter is considered "ignorant and offensive", while the former is an accepted paradigm. In any case why would supporters of same sex marriage be offended if being gay is perfectly normal?

Because it's considered rude to insist that someone is X, despite all evidence to the contrary, even when X itself is not a bad thing. Witness the plight of Koreans who are assumed to be Chinese, for instance. Or possibly Japanese. Same thing, right?

So its rude the other way around? (first example) Or is it a justified insult?

It's justified, because time and time again the most outspoken of anti-gay conservative politicians are caught with gay prostitutes. It isn't an insult to say that they are homosexuals who are overcompensating because they hate themselves, it's a statement of fact that is proven true time and time again. Of course, there isn't actually anything wrong with their orientation, but they feel that there is, which is why they hate themselves so much, which manifests as their rage against other homosexuals who they see as "tempting them to sin."

I'm sorry, I see your point and the cause is noble, but I can't accept the fact that we can use an argument that we consider offensive in other people to use.

Claiming that gay marriage supporters are more likely to be secretly gay is, essentially, accusing them of having their position not from a desire for equality but from hidden vested interests. I'd call that more offensive than suggesting that their most rabid opposites may just be a little confused.

"It's a statement of fact that is proven true time and time again." Um, no it isn't. Not even close. Putting aside the massive amount of {{Unfortunate Implications}} that come with saying that it takes a gay person to hate other gay people, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever to imply that all those who express homophobic or anti-homosexual attitudes are secretly gay themselves. A very, ''very'' small minority may be, but they just happen to get all the media attention. This attitude is ''very'' insulting, because it implies that only gay people can express hatred for gays. Sometimes, people can be truly prejudiced, not just confused. Try thinking about things through next time before you go mouthing off theories full of {{Unfortunate Implications}}.

I managed to find an inversion for MathIsStupid. On TV, there's this one show (Bobb'E Says), and it tells you what NOT to do of you want to be cool. In this case, one of the things TO do is "Shut up and do the math".

This troper and his sister were watching some random sea life show on some various nature network, and there was a turtle. Then a shark came into view. The turtle went behind the shark, and bit him. This troper said "Is that turtle... EATING the shark?" My sister and I almost simultaneously said "That's awesome." Then this troper noticed something and said, "Wait, if the shark was eating the turtle, wouldn't we be disgusted?"

This one can actually be justified in defience of a naturally expected predator/prey senario. The turtle eating the shark would be extrodinay because of how little it happens.

A couple of years ago I got involved in a dispute in college with one girl repeatedly yelling and hitting another person and try to push them apart. The argument heats up with the girl screaming at me to stay out of this until she picks up a chair and attempts to brain me with it. I grab the chair and force her off balance, knocking her down and stopping her from continuing. The teacher who dealt with this decided to gloss over the fact someone tried to bash my head in with an improvised weapon and I get a lecture about how it’s never right to attack girls under any circumstances.

This troper was once told - after pointing out that the previous week our group of CIT's had unanimously agreed to do a parody of The Internet Is For Porn - ''by the week's CIT director'', that it shouldn't matter that the girls (who made up 9/10 of us) had decided to switch last minute. "You're a guy, this really shouldn't matter that much to you." Cue FreakOut by this troper as he goes into an overly emotional rant about how people shouldn't cancel agreements just because something new came along. Not that it helped any, in the end.

This Trooper thought it was rather unreasonable a boy was being made fun of for crying because he had a broken bone. She told the kid that she'd cried when she broke a bone (It was actually 2 fractures, 2 breaks, and a dislocated lung), and was told that she was a girl, so that was absolutely normal.

This troper notices that people seem to be much harder on FanDumb than they are on HateDumb - HateDumb can be ''just'' as stupid if not ''even MORE'' stupid than FanDumb any day of the week, as the hatedoms for JustinBieber and ''Literature/{{Twilight}}'' show.

There are some ''very'' arrant gaming double standards:

You're free to trash on {{MMORPG}}s all you want. But any criticism of any FPS game, MMO or not, your responses are always "Suck less", "Play with friends or don't play at all", or "You aren't playing on a good server". Not to mention, they're allowed to be ''just'' as repetitive as they want and are never called out on it, whereas an MMORPG that is ''constantly updating'' and giving free patches has to always be giving something completely different. It's because [=RPGs=] are AcceptableTargets nowadays, so FPS and wide open sandbox games are almost always given a free pass.

Another thing about the MMO genre: On a topic about older [=MMOs=] (especially WoW), many people would complain about how grindy they were. Yet when people complain that newer [=MMOs=]' timesinks, the same people would insult their play style or schedule. Or they throw the reliable "is-ought" assertion.

If there is a NewMediaAreEvil article, scapegoating an MMORPG, the comments will stupidly be ''agreeing'' with it. But if it scapegoats something like say CallOfDuty, then the comments will be disagreeing with it and saying the game does not cause people to do stupid things.

It's more than okay to say that ''FinalFantasyVII'' is a shitty game nowadays because it is dated. However, if you say the same thing about ''Daggerfall or Morrowind'', you're called out on your "stupidity" and are called a spoiled brat for not being able to appreciate the genius of retro games.

This troper thinks both are awesome.

PC FanDumb is ''always'' given a free pass despite the sickening amount of highbrow elitists and elitists there are.

You're allowed to list common RPG tropes and elements as "weaknesses" of a game and those are considered "legit" criticisms. Yet doing the same about FPS games? You're called out on it.

And likewise, you're also allowed to do the same for any form of animation (Anime or not), romance, and other such genres that are AcceptableTargets.

FanDumb around japanese franchises is ''always'' considered a legit criticism of the work, yet the ''massive'' FanDumb around anything made by Valve is ''not''.

VideoGames are a waste of time because you do not gain any real life skills from it. Never mind that the ''exact same stuff'' can be said about entertainment in ''general''. "Oh you can read WarAndPeace in the time it takes to play ''WorldOfWarcraft''." Well guess what? Think of all the ''other stuff'' you could do in the time it takes to read. Naturally, if you spend all day reading something, you're apparently broadening your mind as if reading a book that ''nobody cares about'' but you and ''maybe'' an english teacher or book club is somehow more productive than playing ''TeamFortress2'' all day. And during the time it takes to follow a band or sports team on tour, you could have taken classes in like massage therapy, something you can make money off of. (Which is considered "Valuable") Oh, and try tallying all the time you take doing stuff like watching sports games, going to political rallies, "important" and "mature" stuff, and think of what you ''could have'' been doing instead of that. Apparently only gamers don't know how to manage their time when ''you see these people in EVERY Fandom''.

The DoubleStandard towards saying VideoGame fans and other such fandoms that include teenagers primarily are supposedly immature and social outcasts because of the stuff they say on the internet. Well gee, it's the ''internet''. Have there ever been reports of people destroying a game store because they ran out of ''HaloReach''? Have ''{{Naruto}}'' fans ever crashed a train? Have Furries ever rioted in the streets for whatever reason? Take one look at the AcceptableTargets page in the "Non-gender oriented" and you'll see what I mean.

Apparently, playing for gaming trophies is "throwing your life away", whereas people trying to go for minor league or major league sports aren't. What happens if you ''don't'' make the draft? Apparently it's okay if they're going to school while doing it - yet ''not'' if they're a gamer.

The USA is basically the TropeCodifier for nationality related DoubleStandards (and compared to ones against men you'll be hard pressed to find one that admits to it). Americans tend to receive much more international and even domestic ire about any controversial acts, VocalMinorities, and even open displays of patriotism from America much more, and more often than if the controversy came from another country; even if they are no different or better when it comes to this. For example...

{{Eagleland}} and OnlyInAmerica, enough said.

The majority of the examples in MisplacedNationalism have been towards the US and/or Americans, and many of the examples are so huge and ridiculous that i couldn't blame someone if someone did call it a DoubleStandard (and the tab on that page where Americans would go does mention this).

America's ValuesDissonance compared to other nations. For example people will rage at America for what they call "controversy" (Janet Jackson's SuperBowl WardrobeMalfunction for example), but if another country does something similar, there is little to no international ire.

Most of the ValuesDissonance examples in ThisWiki are compared mostly to America's cultures. However YourMileageMayVary if this is for better or for worse if anything.

Fans of TheBeautifulGame, even in ThisVeryWiki, will bash Americans a lot for using the name "soccer" for what almost everyone else calls "football," and for using the word "football" to refer to "gridiron" footall. Generally they don't know (or care) how and why Americans came to call it "soccer" (which is short for ''As'''soc'''iative Football''), that more than one sport lays claim to the name "football" (e.g. rugby, AKA rugby football), and that the word was actually originated in England (no, really). Canadians never seem to catch heat for this, even though they ''also'' refer to the sport as "soccer" and have their own version of American "gridiron" football that they also call "football."

Speaking of Soccer, people have been [[strike:criticizing]] flaming Americans for not "embracing" soccer and other British sports. Yet nobody calls out the Britains for calling out American sports as "Pussy Sports". While to be fair, some Americans are just as bad as this but they are subjected to a huge InternetCounterattack (to the point where even politely saying that you prefer AmericanFootball over soccer is flamebait), while soccer fans and fans other football codes when they do the same thing are left for the most part unscathed.

Plenty of Americans certainly do flame Britons who claim gridiron is for wusses, usually by way of claiming gridiron is the ''less'' wussy of the two because it's more physical and in-your-face. Then someone mentions rugby and it comes full circle.

It is not uncommon to hear a NoTrueScotsman like fallacy if those that criticize America for such things occur in their own country later (or earlier) on. For example: An American goes on a mass murder? That's clearly ''all'' of them. A Canadian goes on a mass murder? They don't represent ''all'' Canadians out there!

ThisTroper sees this quite a bit around the Internet. If there is a {{Troll}} trolling, he is automatically assumed to be an American (as well as a male, but that's another issue), because "only stupid people come from there" as well as the opinion that other cultures like Canadians and Britains "don't make such Monsters" so to speak.

ThisTroper thinks that this is probably so is perhaps that due to the amount of Americans in the media compared to many others, it has brought some UnfortunateImplications as more American VocalMinorities are seen in the media compared to...well anyone else and because of this and America's political power, everything that comes from this country will be lambasted much more than if it came from another country. Of course to be fair, other countries can be subjected to this as well and some advocators can also be American.

A truly astounding moment of this DoubleStandard on TVTropes itself was in the JustBugsMe page for Canada before it was nuked. A troper was calling out on the MisplacedNationalism of some Canadians against the US. What response did he get? Someone spewing hatred and distrust about patriotic ''Americans'' and subtly suggesting they are like Nazis, completely and utterly ignoring the original topic about Canadians, thus proving the troper's point exactly.

Many will accuse other nations of showing PatrioticFervor, but if their own country does it, it is often ignored regardless if it is just as bad if not worse. For example: Many will routinely criticize American Exceptionalism but will give Eurocentricism a free pass.

What kills me is people insulting America's reluctance to convert to the Metric System as being too stupid to understand it. Yet, when anyone suggests that Europe switch over to imperial, they act as if someone's asked them to kill a man. And they make arguments that it's easy to convert imperial to metric by showing a complicated conversion method as apposed to a much easier one, and if someone steps up and says it's complicated, they laugh it off. Apparently, for them it's standing up for their roots, and for Americans it's ignorance, fear, and stupidity.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If innocent Palestinians are killed at the hands of the Israelis, the pro-Israel side ignores, excuses or white-washes it, while the pro-Palestine side endlessly condemns it as a war crime. Conversely, if innocent Israelis are killed by Palestinians, the pro-Israel side labels it as an atrocity, while the pro-Palestine side takes it turn at white-washing and making excuses.

There's a good reason that "Parentism" rhymes with "Tarantism", because they're both tons of B.S. Lessee, for starters there's the issue of teasing...if you don't think something your family's teasing you about is funny, then you need to grow up and learn to laugh at yourself. However, if ''you'' tease ''your parents'' over something that ''they'' don't find very amusing, then ''you'' need to learn that some things people don't find funny. Do you see the DoubleStandard here?

If you're mature about the teasing, then yes, it's a load of bull. But if you aren't, your parents might just be trying to teach you respect for one's parents.

Nom it's a load of bull. They want to laugh at others mistakes, but they don't want to be laughed at for ''their'' mistakes. My parents taught me that if I'm teasing someone about something that they do not find funny and aksed oyu to stop, then it's torment. I then proceeded to torment them to teach them a lesson that yes, I can be tormented to. "But we're laughing ''with'' you, not ''at'' you." DO I '''''LOOK''''' LIKE I AM LAUGHING? That line is another common parentism just because they don't want to admit they were laughing at you.

If a character shows interest in another character of the same gender, there's nothing unusual in assuming them gay ''or'' bi. But if a character shows interest in someone of the opposite gender, they're automatically straight and commenting that they could be bisexual is "making the character gay, CharacterDerailment and ignoring {{Canon}}". Of course, the same "straight until proven otherwise" mentality is very common in real life.

Write a positive review about a popular work, and all is well and good. Write a review where you justify your dislike for the popular work, and suddenly half the fanbase is up your ass telling you that you fail at life and that your opinion is invalid because you don't think it's perfect.

If a female character is an OtakuSurrogate, she's automatically deemed as hot. But if she's a YaoiFangirl, she's automatically TheWesley or TheScrappy.

At my school, the Christian club got permission to do a prayer thing out in the front of the school before the bell rang. When the Muslim student's club asked if they could do the same thing (the prayer would've been open to all students regardless of faith, I believe the Christian one also was but I'm not ENTIRELY sure) they were denied because "it would cause tension". DoubleStandard, much?

A man is bad at math, he's just bad at math and that's it. A woman is bad at math, it's because she's a woman. LAME. A man speaks his mind and defends his opinion, no one complains, it's totally normal, but a woman does it, and she's a loudmouth bitch. Man has a lot of sex, he's a "playa", woman does it, she's a slut. Man doesn't want kids, it's perfectly okay, hell, it's normal, but a woman doesn't want kids, and she's crazy. When I said if I ever even wanted kids at all, I would adopt, a guy asked if I was afraid of sex. Uh, no. If I ever want kids, there's no point in ruining my body to bring another kid into the world, when I can adopt one who still needs a loving home. I shouldn't be labelled a freak because I don't want to squeeze a living being the size of a small watermelon out of my lady parts. As you can clearly see, sexist double standards are a huge pet peeve of mine...

Girl, I hear you. In fact, double standards in general are kind of a BerserkButton for me. I particularly hate hypocrtisy, but double standards are not cool.

I frequent a popular community website, and have an account there that I use solely for the purpose of voicing controversial opinions. I recently made a pair of nearly identical posts, one pro-misogyny and the other pro-misandry; within mere seconds, the former received a reply that amounted to "NoJustNo", and the latter was added to someone's favorites list.

If I went onto youtube right now and commented that "I firmly believe in god and that jesus saves, and I hope you may see the light some day and not continue to be brainwashed by Richard Dawkins", chances are I'd get a bazillion thumbs down. On the other hand, If I went on to youtube right now and commented "I place my beliefs firmly in science. I am an athiest and a skeptic. I hope that someday you will see the truth in science and not continue to be brainwashed by the bible" I'd get a bazillion thumbs up. No wonder I'm agnostic.... (and before anybody links the xkcd comic about agnostics I've already seen it; it's hilarious)

YMMV. Science and religion are two entirely separate spheres with two entirely different vocabularies and frames of thought; the morality is far too blue and orange for any such comparison to ''not'' be biased towards one side or another based on how the question is framed and phrased. In this case, use of the word "belief" and phrasing indicative of dogma rather than reasoning and thought automatically leans towards religion and against science to a great degree showing its own double standard no different than the incredible double standard against religion that'd show through if I phrased it.

But the fact remains that if you admit that your first allegiance is to god instead of to pure reason, it's taken as license to assume that nothing you say carries any weight or need be worth listening to at all.

If I was on the bus reading "Mein Kamf", chances are I'd have people berating me and calling me a Nazi. (nevermind the fact that I might be reading it for educational purposes....) On the other hand, if I was on the bus reading "The Collected Works of Chairman Mao" I'd probably be left alone- maybe even praised for it. The same could really be applied to anything related to Communism vs. Fascism. Vladimir Lenin shirt? "Whoa dude, your like, such a rebel!" Benito Mussolini shirt? "FUCK YOU FASCIST PIG!". This troper is thoroughly left wing, but the constant disregard for the atrocities committed under Communist regimes disgusts him. Hate to burst your bubble, but it claimed FAR more lives than fascism ever did- it's just that Stalin wasn't as discriminate as Hitler and Himmler were when it came to killing people.

...where the hell do ''you'' live where wearing a Lenin shirt or reading The Collected Works of Chairman Mao gets you ''praise''?

This troper, the one who wrote initial comment, lives in very Left-Wing Seattle. So it isn't too surprising, however, he saw plenty of the same stuff.... in Oklahoma. As the below comment points out, even ultra Right Wing places are not safe.

Even in Right-Wing Utah, students proudly wear Mao or Che shirts, or jackets with CCCP patches, or the hammer and sickle.

The slaughtering of extremely intelligent and empathic animals such as Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises and so is a horrible thing. But what about the much larger amount of Sharks being slaughtered each year? Nobody seems to care, despite the fact that were they to be fished into extinction the results.... wouldn't be good. Of course, given my username I'm obviously a bit biased, but none the less... every year, around 5000 whales, dolphins, and porpoises are killed. Horrible, right? Every year, 100 Million (yes, million, you read that right) sharks are killed. But let's see... how many humans are attacked each year by sharks? Around 60 seems to be the average as of late. But how many people are killed? Well, in 2007 the number was a staggering ONE! Yeah, only ONE fatal shark attack was reported on the entire earth in 2007. Let's just say the number doesn't usually rise much beyond that, either. It revolts me to no end to see tons of videos and pictures of men and boys killing sharks *for fun*, and so they can prove how "masculine" they are. On top of all that, do throw out that common misconception that sharks are dumb eating machines; recent studies have shown that they can be extremely intelligent. Hell, many great whites may be just as intelligent as ole' Rover there in the doghouse. As you can see, this particular issue gets this troper.... rather riled up .

It's also pure double standard in that we often defend the killing of non-humans by stating they are less intelligent than humans (as though human measure of intelligence equates moral worth), yet ignore that there are plenty of non-human animals more intelligent than humans (pigs are at least as intelligent as 2-3 year old babies, yet we don't say it's acceptable to kill babies for their meat).

Not an example: measuring moral worth of a life by intelligence is not a double standard, it's a single standard. One you may disagree with, but still a single one. Babies, even if less intelligent than pigs, also carry an emotional investment from others which is different from their intelligence value, something your average pig doesn't have. Killing pets is considered a far worse offense than killing wild animals of the same species, which is, again, not a double standard. Similarly, the effort in raising a baby, and in having built a relationship with it, raises the baby's value to above that of a pig. Besides, babies have much less meat on them, and will therefore satisfy the needs of far less people with their consumption. Given these two standards of moral worth - emotional attachment from others and intelligence - you can justify not killing babies.

Although, Mr. Swift had a modest proposal.

Also, in regards to prehistoric animals, elephants with slightly longer tusks and fur are considered "cool", while things like the biggest flying creatures of all time or unique mammalian predators whose closest relatives are aardvarks are not worthy of even one second of attention. WHAT?

How come you can tell someone who's skinny to eat more, but can't tell someone who's fat to eat less? This tropette and her sister have been bullied or picked on for being skinny, something we can't do anything about, by 8/10 obese people we know, and it's almost never been taken seriously. Two teachers, both who are obese, even accused us of the bullying. One of them even proclaimed that I don't trust the obese, and that we "must've been mocking "guy's name" with our figure. Now imagine how those teachers would've reacted if we were bullied because we were fat by someone who's skinny or *GASP* a healthy weight.

Yeah, I hear you. Being a string bean myself, I occasionally get a bit of flak for not eating enough. One doctor even assumed I had an eating disorder. People probably assume that I ''am'' anorexic when I decide not to eat (it doesn't help that my parents are both obese), and wearing a lot of dark clothes isn't much a help. I think the assumption is that if you're thin, you're either not eating enough or too obsessed with your weight, whereas if you're fat, you're probably irresponsible with your health, but having all that extra weight is such a burden that calling you out on it or pointing it out only adds to their suffering. Because really, everyone knows skinny people don't suffer!

When you're seeing a doctor, interestingly, the reverse is true, at least in my experience. They will always go on and on about how you gotta lose that weight (they've done it with my father). But for someone who's terribly underweight like me, no one's ever said anything outside of one ignorant, unwarranted comment last year (about me needing to consume "[more] calorific foods"), much less help me with what ever could be wrong. Nevermind that it doesn't matter, my weight hasn't seemed to fluctuate even a bit for years irregardless of my diet. I don't think I've been bullied because of it though, maybe since I'm quite tall (I did know some acquantences who called me "lanky fucker" in a joking sort of way however).

Endemic to the internet as a whole regarding {{Fanservice}}, going both ways. Example situation: two fans of anime, one male one female, are discussing anime. When GurrenLagann comes up, the female will be offended by Yoko, while the male will admit that its blatant pandering to male intrests, but show no other complaints. Then when the topic turns to FruitsBasket or OuranHostClub, the man will be creeped away by the manservice and get angry, while the ''female'' makes a token gesture towards admitting pandering before going back to oggling. This is multiplied by a factor of several dozen when it comes to GirlOnGirlIsHot and yaoi fangirls, and neither gender will ''ever'' acknowledge that maybe its kinda hypocritical of 'em to treat the GenderFlipped version of their interests as offensive. See also: any page on this wiki dealing with a work that includes fanservice directed at anyone; any reviewer of such works, etc.

A very odd case given that, since there's two independent double standards going in opposite direction, as far as equality goes its very fair, just rather annoying and an impediment to reasoned discourse.

One slight rant (and possibly seeing an argument that doesn't exist: oh well) this troper has: if a guy places his hands on a woman's chest, even by accident, he is a pervert, but, if a woman does it, it's ok. What. Admittedly, he noticed this with the alto section of his school choir, who are VERY touchy feely and that the main offenders were friends, but I still would like an answer to this.

Well, it might not take away the DoubleStandard, but it has to do with how they're viewed for men and women. Men don't have the same "appeal" that women do when it comes to breasts, although I'm not sure just ''what'' makes the breasts have that effect on guys (but for example, cleavage on a dude is mostly an instant turn-off, but on a girl..). That's all I can think of for now.

It might have something to do with the fact that female breasts are more sexualized than male chests. (unless you meant a woman touching another woman's chest, in which case it might just be GirlOnGirlIsHot)

(OP here) I should explain that I meant a woman touching another woman's chest, not a woman touching a man's chest.

Anyone notice that after ten years people will be still be offended by remotely realated to 9/11, but things like the film 2012 for example, should remind people of the 2004 tsunami which killed five times as many people, but yet no one complained?

Well, the tsunami was an act of nature, compared to a group of humans attacking America's largest city and arguably its "heart". More of an "knowing" vs "unknowing".

Okay, how come black kids can be totally biased against white kids and not get called out? This has happened to me before. Also, if a white teacher punishes a black kid, they get called "racist". One teacher (Miss F.) finally blew up and totally called them on it.

Speaking as a teacher candidate, ^^ this!

I third this. I once went to an inner city school, where I was one of ''only'' TWO non-black students there. The things that happened there were.... not pretty.

I would add another to the list of "Frequently sexist in execution...": PersonalityPowers. Male characters are much more likely to have SuperStrength and other "active" powers, while females are more likely to have psychic or empathic powers, or HealingHands. In games, the male StaffChick is a subversion. For instance, in ''NoOrdinaryFamily'', Jim is essentially a FlyingBrick without the flying, while Stephanie has the more passive power of SuperSpeed. The kids subvert it, as both their powers are passive, but Daphne is more powerful.

That's not always true, depending on the work. Some plots will give a FieryRedhead pyrokinetic abilities, which lack "passiveness" to the point of a fault. You also have the BlackMagicianGirl, who have offensive powers as their whole shtick. However, you're right in that there aren't a whole lot of guys out there with {{Invisibility}} or wind-based attacks (and if so, it's usually TheSmartGuy or WeakButSkilled, and if there's a girl on the team, ''she'' usually gets that role).

I wouldn't call super speed more passive than super strength.

This tropette gets a lot of flak from her mom because she doesn't cry very much. She says it's not healthy to 'hold it in,' but in reality, I just don't see the need for tears. Granted, I don't like crying, and I have some funny sensory-related motives behind it (it makes my eyes swell and achy and my vision gets all blurry and I'm exhausted and tired afterwards and can't think clearly...), but there are moments when I have let out some "eye-leaks" (like episode 39 of ''SoulEater''), but it's not very often. However, when my ''dad'' cried at some crucial moment of ThePrincessDiaries (yes, really), mom joked that he may be in need of hormones. What the HELL, PARENTS?!?!?!?!?

The "funny sensory-related motives" are normal.

Men are allowed to consume media for perverted reasons; women aren't. Men can admit it when they do and people just shake their heads and say "boys will be boys", but women get no such break. At this point its self-enforcing as men will admit ''to themselves'' that they're doing something for perverted reasons, but women ''won't'' admit it to themselves.

Could someone please tell this troper why it's okay for boys to sag their pants, but not girls? This troper herself doesn't want to do it, but she sure would like to know why it would be unacceptable if she did want to.

This troper has two different stories in which characters have sexual relationships with their parents. The relationship between the female character and her father is portrayed as horrific and terrifying, whereas the relationship between the male character and his mother is portrayed as sympathetic and even a little romantic. Yeah, this troper is definitely messed up, and he is sure there are plenty more (unintended) DoubleStandards in his work...

This teenage troper's mother, with him and his adopted seven-year-old sister. In essence, he CantGetAwayWithNuthin. ''At all.'' Literally, whenever we have a dispute, I take great care to remain calm, not lose control, always act reasonable, never raise my voice, mentally catalogue everything that happens for later recollection to parents, et cetera et cetera. She can flip the fuck out and attack me, and I can easily come off worse. There are two particularly {{Egregious}} occasions:

Once, when I was on the computer, (reading TV Tropes, natch) she came into the room, after playing on it for literally the entire previous day, from her return from school to bedtime, eating dinner in front of Habbo Hotel, and told me it was "her turn". I made a logical chain of reasoning, and pointed out that she'd used it all day yesterday, and for most of the previous few days. She insisted traditional laws of fairness do not apply to her (not kidding about that, she really said it, although not in so many words), and the argument went downhill from there. Five minutes later, she started screaming and kicking me, and then proceeded to bite me several times. After my mother arrived on the scene and attempted to find out what happened (my sister didn't even deny attacking me, and said I deserved it because I was apparently confusing her with my logical replies to her InsaneTrollLogic), and I showed my mother the ''tooth marks on my arm'', this was her verdict: fifteen minutes of "Time Out" for my sister, and when she was done, I had to get off and let her play.

A somewhat smaller example from the same troper that seems to encapsulate the entire dynamic: After a similar argument which I'd won because my dad came in and took away her computer privileges for screaming at and hitting me, she got mad and, when I went to bed that night, I discovered that she had emptied the hand soap container in the bathroom all over my bedsheets and blanket. I told my parents, and my mom woke her up and proceeded to give her a lecture about personal space, and how she had violated the one part of the house that was unequivocally mine, and how now I would have to sleep in a sleeping bag downstairs that night, and all about how what she did was such a big deal. Her exact words after that? "Don't do it again. Now go to bed."

This troper had very tomboyish years as a young girl, with her pride (as she knows of present-day) enforcing her need to avert every little girl stereotype out there (masculine colours over feminine colours, shorts over skirts, shonen-esque role-plays where she plays the hero--''not'' the DistressedDamsel, etc). Then one fine lunch hour in the 3rd grade this troper was standing by the door, when a teacher came in to check on the class's good behaviour before the bell rang for lunch recess. This troper burps, glad of how loud she was and how cool she would be for it, and caps it off with an "excuse me". The teacher flips, gives this troper a look of disgust and shock and chastises this troper for doing that. "I said 'excuse me'!" "You are a girl, you shouldn't do that!" Right, so, if I had a dick instead of a vagina the only thing wrong about that is because it was ''rude''? I'm already 18 and that memory still ''pisses me off''.

Kinda tying into that: One thing that always used to piss this troper off was that adults always assume girls to be better behaved and less likely to lie. It wouldn't be too bad if it was just a stupid stereotype, but many girls I knew actually used that to their advantage, knowing that if a boy and a girl give to conflicting accounts of the same situation, the adults (usually parents or teachers) will ''invariably'' believe the girl and punish the boy not only for whatever he was accused of doing, but also for lying. I had two double standards going against me (quadruple standard?) when my older sister would, whenever I refused to do something she wanted me to do, go to our parents claiming I'm doing something bad and call her names when she tries to chastise me. Every single time they would disregard my protests and punish me.

Seconded. I still remember one time when my sister hit me and I replied in kind. I was told to never "touch your sister in anger" ever again. Her punishment? Nothing at all. I was pretty well raised on that notion of "never hit girls; the reverse is okay and encouraged", and my sister has inherited it (for instance, saying "awesome" when she sees girls hitting their brothers, and being horrified at the opposite). I shut that notion out of my mind in 6th grade when some of the people that bullied me were girls (another point of contention: for that bullying, the victim, myself, was punished just as much as the other boys who did it, and the girls weren't punished at all).

The only handcuffs Ann Summers have in stock are dainty little ones "designed to be worn by girls", which I thought was a little odd. Not to mention disappointing. Still, it's hard to hold it against them since they're, well, AnnSummers.

The blatant double standard of some 2nd generation feminists(read: The generation that many 1st generation feminists accuse of ruining the whole equality movement by thinking it's actually about misandry and female dominance) who go on and on about how the world would be a utopia if run exclusively by women, forgetting that this actually is sexist from both angles. It first assumes that all men are evil Jerkwads who constantly fight amongst each other like some broad fore-headed Neanderthals and then it assumes that all women are delicate little flowers who are always sane, rationally minded and would sooner go to an ice cream social, than to war.

One way to sum up my old middle school class? Take the image on this trope's main page, but replace "girls" with "Asians". If you're not Asian, and you do something stupid...well, then, you're stupid. But if you ARE Asian, '''''God forbid''''' that you do something stupid, because if you do, you get to hear a whole barrage of racist insults towards ''the entire Chinese race'', and are sometimes even told to "go back to China"...'''even if you're Japanese, Filipino, whatever.''' And if you correct them, they'll tell you that "you all look the same/are the same".

Site hacks and security leaks. It doesn't matter if it's Anon or more recently Lulzec. Something like the MPAA or Scientology church is hacked? They're regarded as heroes and people say they deserved it. Something like Valve, Sony, Microsoft, Sega, Bethesda is hacked? Immediately everyone's wishing for the hackers' violent and bloody demise via Burning at the Stake.

The other examples sure, but if this troper may play devils advocate for a mere moment, as the ChurchOfHappyology has actually committed crimes worthy of being banned in European countries, has attempted infiltration of the U.S. government and coups in others and has harmed the lives of everyday people who were either part of it or were simply people who openly made statements against it, this may be justified, though YMMV.

TVTropes TroperTales. For example, one negative trope is filled with real-life examples and of course, these don't give people the warm-fuzzies or the lulz, so they get deleted. Fictional troper tales in the same negative trope, though, are left alone. Why? Because they didn't happen of course. Anything disturbing and uncomfortable that has actually happened (if tropers are to be believed) apparently isn't suitable to be in Troper Tales.