Does this trope only apply to men who wouldn't hit women? Can it be applied to a woman who is fine with hitting men, but would never hit other women? If not, is there another trope for that?
Edited by Megia
Sorcerer in training
- Danny Phantom which usually averts this has one exception. Girls and guys regularly get smacked around. Sam of the Token Trio is just as likely to take damage as her friends. Danny, being a hero, constantly battles both male and female villains without clause. That also includes Anti-Hero Valerie whom Danny only avoids hurting her enough that she won't, ya know, die.
I pulled this from the main page. This would go under Would Hit a Girl. Plus it's not particularly well written, missing commas, spelling/typos, and the grammar needs work.
- Soundwave doesn't follow this trope, and with ignoring Wouldn't Hurt a Child too, attacks Sari with the power of rock, slamming her against a wall.
Removed, since this also goes on Would Hit a Girl
Edit: Danny Phantom example already on Would Hit a Girl
Edited by 69.172.221.6 Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Removed some of the natter on the Professional Wrestling section. Essentially just demonstrating Real Women Never Wear Dresses before it was reworked.
They see me troll'n
I think there should be a mention about men having higher pain tolerance then women as well.
I'd put it in myself but I can already imagine the edit war with enraged feminists talking about how women go through much more pain in labor yadda yadda.
But that's because their bodies become more pain tolerant during pregnancy.
My other signature is a Gundam. Hide / Show Replies
I was about to say that before you mentioned it. But yes you are quite right that males due tend to have higher pain threshold overall, specifically because they do not need to horde all of their strengths for a critical moment such as labour, their bodies can afford to invest.
Does this page really need loads of aversions listed? Search for "averted" gets 44 results... I'm guessing you could just not mention most of them.
Hide / Show Replies
Seems like a mixed bag to me - some of the aversions make sense to mention, because the "wouldn't hit a girl" trope is explicitly mentioned or expected in some way.
Others, though - nobody would really expect The Punisher to follow this trope, so mentioning that he doesn't is pretty pointless.
Jet-a-Reeno!
The trope is so common that I think aversions are worth mentioning, at least in action/adventure stories. So people who are unfamiliar with The Punisher might expect him to avoid hitting girls.
"(The cynical might point out that this philosophy functions as a handy way for the male character to avoid the humiliation of being beaten by a woman; if he refuses to fight against women, there's no way for a woman to ever prove she could defeat him at his full strength...)"
Wouldn't "idealist" be more fitting than "cynical"? Or am I missing something?
EDIT: On second thought, it actually does make sense, if you think of it in terms of the strength of a guy who really Wouldn't Hit a Girl. My apologies for my ... not thinking.
Edited by themilexa
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Cleanup needed
, started by McJeff on Oct 20th 2010 at 8:18:30 AM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman