Wiping it out from the future product lines, not wiping it out from history.Agent_Z said:
And that's bad because...?
Disney May Ban Leia's Gold Bikini From All Star Wars Merch
- Thread starter PatrickJS
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm curious as to how you get from an uncomfirmed rumour that there may be no more Slave Girl Leia toys to slut shaming.MonsterCrit said:
I was challenging your statement about people not buy the slave Leia stuff with the idea that even if true, this type of product decision has come up before, will come up again, and as such are going to attract anyone angry that they have lost something or sees themselves as possibly losing something. It's a war of ideals and values now and it's best to accept that.erttheking said:
As such, the rest of my post was to, while in empathy to the frustration you feel toward how these topics go, point out that the topic itself, the defense of it happening, and the frequency it comes up, are a large part of what causes that entrenchment and the feel of a need to fight every battle. It's probably too much to ask anyone that swore when the talk of representation of women in games and comics started that they didn't want to take away our toys, to take that step back and say "we weren't supposed to be about this" when companies [might] start making decisions to stop supporting sexy products. But still, I don't think the conversation can move forward if one side is always told to "calm down" while the other never has to stop and ask if they are doing, supporting, or giving the appearance of same, the thing that is making the other side angry. That, in this case, supporting the removal of that type of outfit from incidental merchandise in the future is not the way to combat a view of being a sex-negative person trying to tell others what they can and can't have.
The differences between the freedom and social justice sides aren't going to go away, but we might learn to get along if both sides look at themselves to ask if they're aggravating things needlessly, not just the one side.
I was talking about people specifically on this website. I know the people here and I've seen the way they talk. I doubt even half the people in this thread complaining about this were going to buy anything Leia related. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just pointing it out.Redd the Sock said:
Companies might stop supporting sexy products? Is there any evidence that this is a large trend? Because people who complain about the over saturation of sexiness don't want it to go away, they want alternatives. And I really don't see any evidence of people even considering getting rid of sexy items. Things like this are so minor they're barely a blip on the reader. Doesn't help this one is STILL just conjecture. Yeah, well, both sides are pretty guilty of pissing the other side off. You know, the only people I've seen supporting the removal of this outfit is the removal of it from kids isles. Which I'm not gonna lie, is kinda messed up. Christ, I came into this thread for the first time wanting to make a fucking joke about how an outfit I had fantasized over was being taken away in an over the top manner, but then I remembered I was on the internet and all the fun and joy got sucked out of the room
Well I guess both sides just need to calm down and understand each other and things will be over...get comfy.
Has anyone ever stopped to consider that this might be less pandering to SJWs and more Disney trying desperately to be family friendly? I'm not defending it, I don't really like the idea of it being taken out of everything (though I won't complain if it's out of kids isles) but remember how violently family friendly Disney is? Remember how they didn't want gays in The Old Republic?
So enlighten me. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict it's going to go the opposite direction, though.MonsterCrit said:
Yes, this has been addressed several times, usually with the same logic: people die in the movies, therefore this is a double standard. Or "Ariel wears less," which strikes me as a super awkward way to argue the point.erttheking said:
I don't think they're good arguments, but they've been brought up several times already.
You see, that's the point I'm challenging. Why does getting more of something mean having to get less of something else? Is Disney up to its limit in production capacity? For anyone that actually means that, they should be madder than anyone for the bad rep this action would give their side, as well as how stupid it is for business to think you can only appeal to one side or another, rather than both (maximizing profits). I implied it above, but this is the example of the line I see a lot of people not realize they cross between trying to get something for yourself, and trying to stop something you don't want. The more the active focus seems to be on the latter, the more I think it was the point in the first place.erttheking said:
I joked about it in the off topic thread of the same subject: it's never too early to teach kids our bodies are disgusting shameful things that need to be covered up as much as possible. Yeah, the idea that this is based on potentially old world conservative definitions of family friendly doesn't make me more accepting of the idea. I'd actually be less.erttheking said:
I repeat, why is sexy bad? Are we on a mission to make sure no one is sexy in media? That's bleak and puritanical.LifeCharacter said:
Likewise, did she not present fear before strangling his ass?
Uh, where did I imply that this was a zero sum game? Meh. I don't really play the rep game. People who are pissed at the social justice side will always be pissed at the social justice side. I tried playing moderator a long time ago, tried to build bridges. All it did was make me frustrated and people actually mocked me for it. When someone likes being pissed and angry, trying to calm them down and reach out to them is an exercise in futility. Besides, you're still basing all of this off of the fact that Disney is doing this because of sex, which is still jumping to conclusions, that is, if they're even doing this at all. Is there really an active attempt to get people to stop buying things? I can't remember the last time I saw someone shammed for buying a product with the exception of when everyone was getting a hate boner towards casuals and saying they weren't allowed to buy COD because they were destroying the industry or something.Redd the Sock said:
I'm not trying to make it acceptable (Hell I said I'm not for it) I'm just tired of it always being the SJWs fault when something happens that people don't like.
If they wanted that, they'd have probably done this quite a while back...and if they wanted to be more family friendly, then maybe they might've started with some of their own original properties?erttheking said:
But it is sorta funny seeing so many theories being jumped between about as fast as they're grasped to begin with though. There's been alot of pushback against any amount of what is deemed "sexy" or "anti-woman" by a certain political leaning the last few years. Is it really that hard to think that that might be a part of it as well? Especially after Whedon, and by extension Disney, just got lambasted by a bunch of uppity shitheads because Black Widow exists and doesn't conform to their damned headcannons not that long ago?
Easily done. Ask yourself 3 things:Something Amyss said:
1. How is is Slave Leia different from Carbonite Han Solo?
2. Why Remove merchandise that is accurate to the story it is drawn from?
3. What is the logic behind trying to ignore what was in fact a very character defining moment for Leia?
Should I feel ashamed for wanting to see that?Kahani said:
Because I'd pay real money to see that. And the inevitable fan reaction.
Oh gods....the reaction. That would make any ticket price worth it.
Dude, when it's actually confirmed to be about sexualization and not about whatever THEN you can go flying off and talking about feminazis. Also, Feminazis. Because when in doubt, compare people you disagree with to the nazis.mxfox408 said:
In fact, before you go pointing fingers, maybe wait to see if this ACTUALLY happens. There's a "May" in the title for a reason.
There are too many flaws with that idea though. While I certainly don't disagree that the directions they head will likely always have the Mouse keeping a closer eye on things to make it more kid tolerant from the start so these sorts of revisions or decisions dont need to occur, I think the idea of trying to go back and deny the past simply has issues. From the offset, the controversy it causes (if this thread is any indication, an openly admitted removal would cause a controversy) would explode interest into it, preventing any hope of keeping eyes off of the costume, and likely causing an out and out political conflict with the franchise and parent company caught in the middle. No stable company wants that sort of conflict in their back yard, especially not close to a major election where candidates will chime in for the popularity and eventually one side or the other will be left bitter and angry at the company. Even ignoring current internet human nature, there are flaws with the idea logically. The violence in the series is pretty heavy, and while things like blaster fire and killing robots might be easier to tone down to kid acceptable levels, you have major plot points tied into dismemberment as a running theme, death and violence is very active parts of the galazy. At that point, any attempts to soften a little bit of skin to protect the kids looks almost absurdly selective (which in turns leads to and fosters the first problem mentioned above) when so much violence and death is allowed to run free. Considering the responses toward sex-negativity, I can't see it playing out in any way that wont result in disney being presenting as slut-shaming prudes or rampant social justice panderers (or both). In a practical sense, if the outfit is iconic and popular enough to still have sales after 30 years, it is just bad business to remove it because of an outcry against it that doesn't even exist. That sort of staying power is hard to come by in merchandise, and any business worth its salt knows that if they stop selling a popular product, others will pick it up with gusto.erttheking said:
yeah... I am not a fan of various attempts to pander to a select group of people's particular sensitivities while ignoring everyone else either, but this, this doesn't help. Actually sort of gets used to justify that sort of behavior. May want to tone down this sort of thing and stick to arguments instead of just insults.mxfox408 said:
Honest Question: yes, it is all in the hypothetical now, but would you be saying anything different if this was a confirmed story / will you say anything different if it gets confirmed? Sorry, I've heard the same plaitiudes after some form of change has been made to the point where I don't think people think I'm over reacting, but rather they're just upset I voice my displeasure that their getting what they want costs me something I want or value. That's ironiclaly the only thing about these topics that actually does upset me: people that wonder why geek culture isn't more inclusive and is always angry, but keeps doings things they know upset us and try to brush the response off by making us the bad guy for being angry at things they don't want us to be angry about. Even your dismissive attitude: since when does anything from looking down on, ridiculing, and otherwise being dismissive of someone's fears and concerns (even irrational ones) actually get people to not have them? It just gets them angrier because you come off seeing them as unimportant.erttheking said:
I try not to see SJWs as bad people, but I do see a surprising lack of concern for other people and what they value and what bothers them when they're trying to get something they want, even if they didn't start that ball rolling themselves (directly), and tactics that make me question the honesty of stated goals like "just wanting more variety". And honesty, I think SJW causes would be stronger if they actually tried to address, or at least acknowledge that how people outside their clique see them so as not to take paths that open them up to resistance from others.
The obvious solution is to sell a Burka Leia and rec-cut the films to show her serving Jabba faithfully while defending him from the Patriarchy.. That would eliminate her problematic objectification and give her agency.