Hasbro: We've Released "Plenty" of Female Star Wars: Rebels Toys - Update

[faefrost]

There are several things going on here. Key among them is that boys and girls do tend to play differently and look for different toys. Starting around 6 or 7 and up to mid teens their play styles segregate. The whole Blue aisle vs pink aisle is simply toy companies brutally capitalizing on this normal pattern of development and play.

So as a result over in the blue side of town we see fewer female characters and smaller production runs of those we do get. And this happens in pink land too. Go look at Barbie. What do you think the packing rate is on the Ken dolls? How about Monster High? Ever notice how few male characters there are? And what shelf warmers?

And this becomes a self propagating effect. Those April O'Neil figures don't sell well at an equal run with the main Turtles. You end up with stacks at clearence at Wallmart. But the Marketing people look and see "the female characters don't sell well" rather than noting which specific character didn't. Thus next time you get law production numbers on The Black Widow because nobody wanted April O'Neil. Because Marketing is looking at past predictors, past behaviors in order to guess on the next results, and often sees the wrong patterns.

 

[Gorrath]

they need to make not only a case for representation being an ethical right/responsibility but also that that ethical right/responsibility trumps the responsibilities and duties the company has to its investors. I have seen no reasonable argument that this is the case.

You are aware that morality is subjective, right?

If you believe money is more important than social equality, then nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

Morality is not subjective. Morality is or relates to the well being of sentient/sapient beings. In any situation where you have perfect knowledge, you can assess that situation and come to a conclusion as to what course of action would best serve the well being of the sentient/sapient creatures involved. Since there is no way to have perfect knowledge about any situation, there is and will be debate about what the most moral course of action is, while also guided by the lens of personal and cultural values. (It is values that are actually subjective, not morality.)

Also, stating things the way you did suggests that it is either one or the other. Either I value money more or I value social equality more. That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. I don't value either one more on its own, I value one or the other more depending on context. That is why I presented the quandary that I did. In the context of non-essential goods and representation, who has the greater claim to their interests being served? Doing what you did and trying to boil it all down to a false dichotomy is absurd.

I also find your last line to be unfairly dismissive. I am quite open to being convinced of things. If you have an argument that, in the situation given, people who simply desire specific representation in the production of non-essential goods trump the interests of people who have invested their own wealth into the creation of said goods I am open to hearing it. Phrasing things the way you did here makes it sound like you think I'm wrong but won't bother to explain why because you believe I can't be reasoned with. Frankly I find that a bit insulting though I will concede that you have an uphill battle if you'd like to try; I've never read an argument that convinced me of your position. But again, I am open to listening and giving any argument you wish to make a fair shake.

Edit: It's also worth noting that we aren't talking about morals in this instance, we are talking about ethics. Simplistically, morality relates to personal conduct and ethics relates to social structures. Since our debate is about social structures and not personal conduct, it falls under the banner of ethics.

 

[Vivecxz]

Forcing feminism on children is the same as forcing any kind of religion or political view on them(yes that encompasses anything from nazi doctrine to Buddhism).

So a parent ought to never instill moral values in a child? Nihilistic bullshit. You should be ashamed for suggesting such ridiculous nonsense. People ought to stand for something, people ought to believe in things, people ought to teach others likewise and try and affect society.

Instilling moral values in a young person very dangerous. Once it is there - it is entrenched. And later in life other people who do not share those moral values are often considered abnormal, most of the time even a threat. And at that point its not about opinions anymore - it's the foundation of their belief system and if they ever want to change it, they will go through a painful ordeal. That's why you should instill only the most basic, universal and useful moral values(don't harm, steal and lie). Your specific personal opinion should be irrelevant at this stage since this stage of human psychological development is all about learning to coexist and aggressive ideologies such as religion and various -isms only serve to the opposite, therefore they should not be taught as moral values.

Best thing to do is to expand their horizons in all possible directions and NOT shove ANYTHING in their heads just because YOU like it.

So I should only expose them to ideas that I personally disagree with? Idiotic. I will expose them to what I view as truth, I will teach them to look for truth, and when they have attained the ability to make up their own minds about things, then I will expect them to do so. If they disagree with me, then I would hope they have found some justification for that. If they agree with me, I would hope the same.

A child is not your mirror, they are a person with the capacity and the most basic right to learn anything they wish. Your wishes and approval on the subject should be secondary - you are there to provide them means and guidance to THEIR ends, not the other way around. Also - truth is not an opinion, neither is it an idea - it is a representation of reality and reality is universal, there a no personal views on reality, unless your chemical brain state has been drastically altered, so please try not to use the term so lightly.

Yes I know it is sometimes hard, but you shouldn't really expect an enlightened era to begin if you don't want to make the effort and let people decide for themselves. New ideas and concepts can only be achieved in a civil conflict of existing ones. Nothing worthwhile will come from raising mindless drones(take the nazi, ISIS, WBC brainwashing) who will someday form a large, homogeneous mass - not even a community, more like a hive in which everyone have their preordained rights, duties and where everyone thinks the same.

And what does this have to do with raising a child to have values? To follow some code of ethics? Surely, being raised to follow some moral guideline does not make you into a mindless drone, and it does not exclude the possibility of discovering some other truth.

It's completely normal to have personal values and everyone finds them on their own accord. However restricting a person's code of ethics to fit one mold might not seem like a horrible thing, but when applied to a large population it becomes a roadblock for natural and beneficial conflicts (Diversity of ideas and beliefs on a small scale teaches people social and problem-solving skills), and when that same restriction is applied to several large populations, a "us vs them" mentality emerges - large scale cultural, national, economical conflicts begin. Such conflicts only serve to benefit one at other's expense and are REALLY hard to control/solve.

Also remember that children have a tendency to take things one step further to prove others that they "belong" in their group - you might be a rational feminist, but your child might go to extremes if he/she thinks it would further "the cause"(That's how radicals are made) - never form ideological camps.

If my child took my ideals to some radical angle, I would expect them to have some justification. If they just had my ideals I would expect that. I would raise them to find that. My child could stray to any extreme, regardless of whether I instill some values in them, but if I raise them with none, then I risk them finding none, which is worse than any extreme.

Radical "angles" are never a good idea when it comes to ideologies, as ideologies tend to be complex and radicalization of said ideologies makes them really artificially inflated, unwieldy and needlessly aggressive so other people react defensively to them and in turn radicals become even more radical, often losing nuances of an ideology to simplify it. And so radicalization dumbs down an ideology to a meaningless slogan to be shouted at anyone who passes by. In turn people start to respect that set of ideals less and less and that only breeds aggression among the radicals - sometimes to a boiling point and the tragedy that follows. And don't think that anyone needs your forced guidance - people, who smart enough to find their own "way", will find their "way"(they will ask for help if they need it). And as for people who are not smart enough - well neither them nor you will benefit from agreeing out of ignorance. Exception to this rule would be people who are mentally challenged or damaged.

I grew up with a new age mother, an eastern orthodox father, a feminist catholic grandmother, two atheist uncles, a mentally disturbed uncle, a right-wing(NOT a nazi) godfather, a liberal(who was ashamed of pretty much being alive) godmother and a bunch of other relatives, and none of them tried to indoctrinate me, none demanded anything from me - and yet I understand all of their views(yes, even the mentally disturbed uncle) without subscribing to a particular one. And I am also familiar with countless people who ridicule and sometimes outright hate others, who don't share their ideologies and in most cases their ideologies were forced upon them early in life. That's NOT enlightenment - that's plain ignorance. Let people be people - to err is human.

No. To stand for nothing is to let society falter. It is man's moral duty to make something of themselves. I would rather a thousand radicals than a single passive individual, believing nothing and letting life crash over them. That path is destruction. At the very least, if a child is raised to value and believe, to seek truth and to act, then they are unlikely to make nothing of themselves, which is the one situation I would avoid above all others.

As for your anecdote, I have seen many rich men who grew up poor and now hate the poor. I have seen many once proud progressives who now hate their progressive roots. I have seen many adopt an ideology late in life and grow to hate all others. Your anecdote means nothing to me.

How come you equate equate peaceful coexistence with being passive? And it is not a responsibility, nor a right for a single person to dictate to society what is and what is not ok, you might only suggest and advocate your ideas, not force them upon others - we do not live in a social dictatorship, nor do we live in a social democracy - we live in social anarchy - and that is a wonderful thing.

Sorry for taking a day to respond - I only have a few spare hours in a workday to spend.

Also, don't take what I say personally(even if I say the word "you" a lot) - these are my general thoughts on the subject of raising children and ideologies.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Forcing feminism on children is the same as forcing any kind of religion or political view on them(yes that encompasses anything from nazi doctrine to Buddhism).

So a parent ought to never instill moral values in a child? Nihilistic bullshit. You should be ashamed for suggesting such ridiculous nonsense. People ought to stand for something, people ought to believe in things, people ought to teach others likewise and try and affect society.

Instilling moral values in a young person very dangerous. Once it is there - it is entrenched. And later in life other people who do not share those moral values are often considered abnormal, most of the time even a threat. And at that point its not about opinions anymore - it's the foundation of their belief system and if they ever want to change it, they will go through a painful ordeal. That's why you should instill only the most basic, universal and useful moral values(don't harm, steal and lie). Your specific personal opinion should be irrelevant at this stage since this stage of human psychological development is all about learning to coexist and aggressive ideologies such as religion and various -isms only serve to the opposite, therefore they should not be taught as moral values.

And what about respecting women as equals is not basic? What about respecting other races as equals is not basic? Once, these would have been seen as extreme opinions. Once, telling your child that slavery was bad, or that freedom was good, that would have been unthinkable. But today such ideas are taught to all children. Because they are right. And so, if I am to think that I am right in the things I believe, as any sane person must, then how can I not teach that?

Who cares if righteousness is an ideology? Who cares if it is aggressive? If it is right, then that is all there is to it. Any idea, any moral, was once seen as aggressive, once seen as an -ism. So why are some acceptable now to teach to the young while some are not?

Best thing to do is to expand their horizons in all possible directions and NOT shove ANYTHING in their heads just because YOU like it.

So I should only expose them to ideas that I personally disagree with? Idiotic. I will expose them to what I view as truth, I will teach them to look for truth, and when they have attained the ability to make up their own minds about things, then I will expect them to do so. If they disagree with me, then I would hope they have found some justification for that. If they agree with me, I would hope the same.

A child is not your mirror, they are a person with the capacity and the most basic right to learn anything they wish. Your wishes and approval on the subject should be secondary - you are there to provide them means and guidance to THEIR ends, not the other way around. Also - truth is not an opinion, neither is it an idea - it is a representation of reality and reality is universal, there a no personal views on reality, unless your chemical brain state has been drastically altered, so please try not to use the term so lightly.

Why? Why should I not argue that they should do what is right? Why should I not argue for better behavior by all people? Why is complacency so much better than the risk of extremism to you?

And I'm talking about truth in the philosophical sense. What is right, what is real. And reality is universal? I am surprised to hear we have all come to that conclusion then. I guess that debate is closed.

Yes I know it is sometimes hard, but you shouldn't really expect an enlightened era to begin if you don't want to make the effort and let people decide for themselves. New ideas and concepts can only be achieved in a civil conflict of existing ones. Nothing worthwhile will come from raising mindless drones(take the nazi, ISIS, WBC brainwashing) who will someday form a large, homogeneous mass - not even a community, more like a hive in which everyone have their preordained rights, duties and where everyone thinks the same.

And what does this have to do with raising a child to have values? To follow some code of ethics? Surely, being raised to follow some moral guideline does not make you into a mindless drone, and it does not exclude the possibility of discovering some other truth.

It's completely normal to have personal values and everyone finds them on their own accord. However restricting a person's code of ethics to fit one mold might not seem like a horrible thing, but when applied to a large population it becomes a roadblock for natural and beneficial conflicts (Diversity of ideas and beliefs on a small scale teaches people social and problem-solving skills), and when that same restriction is applied to several large populations, a "us vs them" mentality emerges - large scale cultural, national, economical conflicts begin. Such conflicts only serve to benefit one at other's expense and are REALLY hard to control/solve.

I would not "restrict." That is idiotic, authoritarian, and counterproductive. I would guide. I would tell them what I view is right, and if they find some other idea, I wouldn't punish them for it, though I would certainly question them. I would expect them to question me as well. I certainly do not support any us vs them mentalities.

Also remember that children have a tendency to take things one step further to prove others that they "belong" in their group - you might be a rational feminist, but your child might go to extremes if he/she thinks it would further "the cause"(That's how radicals are made) - never form ideological camps.

If my child took my ideals to some radical angle, I would expect them to have some justification. If they just had my ideals I would expect that. I would raise them to find that. My child could stray to any extreme, regardless of whether I instill some values in them, but if I raise them with none, then I risk them finding none, which is worse than any extreme.

Radical "angles" are never a good idea when it comes to ideologies, as ideologies tend to be complex and radicalization of said ideologies makes them really artificially inflated, unwieldy and needlessly aggressive so other people react defensively to them and in turn radicals become even more radical, often losing nuances of an ideology to simplify it. And so radicalization dumbs down an ideology to a meaningless slogan to be shouted at anyone who passes by. In turn people start to respect that set of ideals less and less and that only breeds aggression among the radicals - sometimes to a boiling point and the tragedy that follows. And don't think that anyone needs your forced guidance - people, who smart enough to find their own "way", will find their "way"(they will ask for help if they need it). And as for people who are not smart enough - well neither them nor you will benefit from agreeing out of ignorance. Exception to this rule would be people who are mentally challenged or damaged.

We owe freedom to radicals. We owe democracy to radicals. What you view as extreme may be the most justified way to live. Radicalism is a word invented by reactionaries to instill fear in a complacent populace. In fearing radicals, we fear change, and thereby progress. And ultimately, what is at fault for their radicalization to begin with? The brokenness of society and those who profit from it being so.

And by standing around ignoring our disagreements, do we discover what is right? Do we find truth? Or do we simply waste our time, our very existence, in meaningless complacency. If no one stands for anything, then nothing can change. So yes, others do need me, and I need them, or else how will any of us be corrected and find truth, and thereby progress?

I grew up with a new age mother, an eastern orthodox father, a feminist catholic grandmother, two atheist uncles, a mentally disturbed uncle, a right-wing(NOT a nazi) godfather, a liberal(who was ashamed of pretty much being alive) godmother and a bunch of other relatives, and none of them tried to indoctrinate me, none demanded anything from me - and yet I understand all of their views(yes, even the mentally disturbed uncle) without subscribing to a particular one. And I am also familiar with countless people who ridicule and sometimes outright hate others, who don't share their ideologies and in most cases their ideologies were forced upon them early in life. That's NOT enlightenment - that's plain ignorance. Let people be people - to err is human.

No. To stand for nothing is to let society falter. It is man's moral duty to make something of themselves. I would rather a thousand radicals than a single passive individual, believing nothing and letting life crash over them. That path is destruction. At the very least, if a child is raised to value and believe, to seek truth and to act, then they are unlikely to make nothing of themselves, which is the one situation I would avoid above all others.

As for your anecdote, I have seen many rich men who grew up poor and now hate the poor. I have seen many once proud progressives who now hate their progressive roots. I have seen many adopt an ideology late in life and grow to hate all others. Your anecdote means nothing to me.

How come you equate equate peaceful coexistence with being passive? And it is not a responsibility, nor a right for a single person to dictate to society what is and what is not ok, you might only suggest and advocate your ideas, not force them upon others - we do not live in a social dictatorship, nor do we live in a social democracy - we live in social anarchy - and that is a wonderful thing.

Sorry for taking a day to respond - I only have a few spare hours in a workday to spend.

Also, don't take what I say personally(even if I say the word "you" a lot) - these are my general thoughts on the subject of raising children and ideologies.

It is our collective responsibility to discover and promote what is ok. And as someone who favors a kind of anarchy (idealistically), I agree, it is wonderful that to some extent society is beyond the control of any individual. I wish that this were even more true then it currently is. But that doesn't mean that we should just sit around never challenging each other. We still must deal with one another, and even in anarchy, the machine of society must work to improve itself on every level. But we are all the engineers of this, and so we must all find the best way to fix things.

 

[DrOswald]

"Leia isn't important" snip

Whoa whoa whoa....you did NOT just go there!

I'm sorry, but as a long-time Star Wars fan I simply cannot let this slide:

Ok, lets be clear here. I am not saying Leia is not important to the lore of Star Wars. I am also not saying Leia isn't cool or that she isn't badass. What I am talking about there is marketability in terms of children's toys, and the effect that Leia's role as second fiddle in the movie has on that.

What sells toys to kids? Well, what sells a Luke action figure? All the cool things the kids saw him do in the movie. What sells a Han? All the cool things the kids see him do in the movies. If you have ever watch kids play you know that they like to play act and recreate scenes from the movie or, as they get more creative, create new scenes where everyone fits into their role.

So, lets look at each of your comments individually with that in mind.

-In the radio dramatization of A New Hope there's an extra scene on the planet Raltiir where Leia successfully bluffs Darth Vader.

As you point out, this is in the radio dramatization. Not the movie. How many little girls, hell, how many people ever have listened to the radio dramatization of A New Hope? Essentially a non factor in terms of marketability.

-She was the one that transferred the Death Star plans to R2-D2, setting the events in motion that would lead to its eventual destruction.

An important role to be sure, but hardly something kids want to reenact with toys.

-She shot an Imperial Stormtrooper immediately prior to being captured.

The fact that you are highlighting when she shoots a single storm trooper kinds of proves the point. Storm troopers are the ultimate mook, killing one and them immediately going down is hardly impressive. And that scene is completely eclipsed by Darth Vaders scene moments previous.

-She withstood all Imperial attempts at making her reveal the Rebel base, including a full-on torture session by Vader and the threat of her homeworld's destruction by Tarkin (which he went through with anyway because he's an evil bastard).

Again, cool, important, and iconic scenes. But hardly the sort of dramatic action that sells children's toys.

-She provided covering fire for Luke during the grappling hook scene, even managing to shoot a Stormtrooper with her eyes closed!

Second fiddle to Luke

-She bravely manned her post on Hoth even as Imperial troops were storming the base to coordinate the evacuation of the last transports.

Again, cool. But not the sort of thing that sells childrens toys. No kid wants to reenact Leia bravely manning her post. They want to reenact Luke taking down a AT-AT with a light saber and a grenade.

-She more than held her own during the running firefight to escape Cloud City.

True. And a good enough dramatic action scene which is completely eclipsed by the duel between Luke and Vader.

-If Leia hadn't heard Luke's call for help via the Force, he would have died or been captured.

Leia is used as a plot device, once again, in the more important and interesting story of Luke.

-She killed Jabba the Hutt with just a chain and her bare hands. She was also the one that pointed the sail barge's guns at itself so Luke could destroy it.

Jedi sees Leia being a much more active participant in the dramatic action. You will notice I specifically noted her time as a slave girl as the major point where she breaks out from Luke and Han's shadow. I should note that the immediately preceding Thermal detonator scene is also great.

-She survived an extremely dangerous speeder bike chase on Endor and overcame an Imperial ambush (with the help of Wicket the Ewok).

Point. Again, Jedi sees Leia as a much more active participant in the dramatic action.

-She gunned down a Stormtrooper that had cornered herself and Han, even while being wounded in the shoulder.

Again, highlighting when she takes out a single stormtrooper kind of demonstrates the problem. I would never specifically point out each time Luke takes out a TIE, for example.

And that's just the official canon. I'm not even getting into her accomplishments of the "Legends" EU, including raising a family, becoming the New Republic's head of state, and eventually learning the ways of the Jedi like her brother. Frankly, it boggles my mind that Disney wasn't even considering making toys of such an influential character in the Star Wars saga.

And how many children's toys is the EU going to move? Toys are not sold because of relative importance of the character to the universe. They are sold because they make money. Children's toys are sold because children want to play with them.

...Ahhh, that was fun. Been a while since I went all nerd-lore like that.

To be clear, Leia toys were being made, they were just not official Disney products and therefore not sold on the official Disney online storefront. And the Disney store was actually selling Princess Leia toys before the whole hubub. It is just that they were only selling slave Leia figures. Because they know what sells.

Disney has access to all of the sales data Lucasarts has collected for years and their own sales data of toys sold in Disney Land under their long years of lucrative partnership with Lucasarts. I know for a fact that Princess Leia merch has been available there for years, along with all the other toys. They have the data to know what sells. They have been doing this for longer than I have been alive, and I have a daughter of my own.

My guess is that Disney is now selling Leia toys purely for PR reasons. And even though I seriously doubt that Leia toys are currently selling very well I am sure it is worth it to them for PR reasons alone. Disney wants to sell Star Wars toys to girls. I will be very surprised if we don't get a seriously kick ass action girl in episode 7. Disney wants all the dollars, and that is a hole in the Star Wars lineup that could be exploited.

 

[Vivecxz]

*snip*

Sorry for the snipping of post, but the amount of text was getting unwieldy.
Anyways, I see you are starting to get my meaning.

I am not against ideologies and -isms in general - as long as a person chooses to subscribe to them, and I'm not at all opposed to conflict, as long as it stays civil. However instilling complex sets of morals into young children is not moral in itself as they have no real choice in the matter and they probably wont understand those morals and just go along with them for the basic fear of abandonment(this fear is deep rooted in our biology and it doesn't matter that you wouldn't actually abandon them). However, if they are curious and ask their parents about something, then it is your duty to explain it to the best of your ability or find someone who can explain it better(you should teach and not preach).

The question of extremism is simple - extreme ideas and extreme measures result in change but usually at a huge cost, extreme ideas and simple measures usually result in a small change and a lot of frustration, simple ideas and extreme measures result in infamy but little to no actual change and finally simple ideas and simple measures result in a slow, lasting change. This might seem a bit too simple, but in my experience it's almost always true.

Furthermore, the concepts of gender, race and equality are simple in themselves, however "race and gender equality" raises too many questions for it to be a solid foundation for moral principles in a young person's mind, so just ditch "race" and "gender" and just stick with simple "equality" - no -isms and history lessons are needed to explain that one.

The problem of gender and race equality has meaning as long as people give it meaning. Now, I'm assuming you live in a modern country, so there is always one thing you can always NOT do - give attention to fear and hate mongering. You live in a free society - you don't like that some company isn't making specific toys? Make them yourself, have them custom made, lead by example - actions speak louder than words. And being aggressive is never a good idea if you are trying to change someones stance - aggression will only make people defensive and less likely to change their mind(once again - simple biology). Passion is fine as long as you keep it in check. And no, raving about something doesn't look as good in reality as it does on television - it's just a pat on the back for those who already share your opinion.

And about the question of radicalization - yes I perfectly remember the history books - radical IDEAS gave us some pretty good things. However - radical ideas and ideologies are two different things: ideas are simple, not related to years of history or other ideas. Ideologies are exactly the opposite - they are good at explaining things, but not solving real problems. Radical ideas provoke dependent thought that in turn may provide solutions, radical ideologies expect everyone to agree with something just for the sake of "if enough people believe like us, the world will be a better place".

Ok, thats enough for today, I have work in the morning.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Companies spend millions on market research. Sorry but your sociology 101 class doesn't have a better grasp on why there are not more female toys. If they were going to make money on them there would be more of them its really that simple.

 

[Ramus]

They should because it is right...

...but honestly, the better argument is that making such toys would be the right thing, market forces be damned.

Yeah sorry, but once you start arguing that companies should put their money (not yours) at risk because they have some sort of moral imperative to make plastic figurines out of fictional female characters (regardless of whether there is actually a market for them), it's a little hard to take you seriously. Adios!

But then how are all of the backseat marketing executives around here going to go on about how multi-million dollar corporations owned by and reporting to stockholders, are too stupid to hire analysts that don't know the difference between an unpopular female characters sales, and female action figures worldwide demand. It's obvious that we have discovered the only thing more powerful than greed in a capitalist society, misogyny! Why have money and power when you can waste it all offending the next generation of women by not printing enough plastic wonder woman.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

This is the most ridiculously hilarious first world problem I have had the displeasure to read dribble about since people microwaving their smart phones. How about some perspective huh? This is a company that makes toys, TOYS. Their job is literally to produce nonsense for children to futz about with and throw at each other. I just.... ugh, let them make whatever they want. If I was them my response would be something like "I make toys I think are cool, sorry if you do not like them" and that would be it. They do not need to justify making toys to you.

Not only that, So far gorrath is the only one who has described the situation how it actually exists in reality, as far as I can tell.

 

[Lilani]

If female character figures sell less than male character figures, then surely this would be expected? The market responds to demand. If people aren't buying female figures at the rate of male figures, then of course there will be a shorter supply of female figures. What is Hasbro supposed to do about it? If Hasbro could create demand out of thin air, they'd be the most successful company in the world.

There are many factors beyond demand which can affect this, though. Everything from how many they produce (if they produce fewer female toys which reach fewer stores so of course they won't sell as quickly) to the store layout itself. Remember, the toy sections of stores are extremely stratified and binary. If all of the Star Wars figures--both male and female--are getting placed in the "boy's" section, fewer girls are going to see them or be aware of their existence because the store layout is designed to make sure neither ever enters the other's "world."

 

[Dragonlayer]

While it's surely far too late to save them from the frenzied hordes of the gender concerned, I still think Hasbro should just say "Every one of the thousands of Stormtrooper figures made is female: suck it!".

 

[Jake Martinez]

I really think this is just the "umpteenth" repeat of the most stupid and fallacious argument about gendered toys and media that people level at companies.

The very concept that Hasbro is for some unknown reason denying itself the opportunity to make money is simply ludicrous. I know this simple fact will not stop people from concern trolling them over this, but they shouldn't get upset when other people who don't have their heads firmly lodged up their rectum mock and ridicule them for such obviously idiotic ideas.

 

[Karadalis]

Let boys be boys... they will have to deal with this liberal BS soon enough when they hit puberty. Stop forcing your political agendas down kids throats. Kids that have no fucking clue about it in the first place.

Yes, let boys be boys, let girls be girls, let people be people, let rapists be rapists, let Nazis be Nazis. Demand nothing of your fellow man, because that's just dumb liberal progressivism.

Fuck, the very foundation of raising children is to not just let children be children. That is tantamount to neglectful parenting. You must guide them to be more than what they currently are, even if it seems trivial, because what we see as trivial today may be seen as heartless in a more enlightened era.

Wow.. you really hit the strawman/slippery slope metre out of the park...

Going from boys to rapists to nazis... arent you the most intelectual honest person i have ever met?

Demanding from kids to understand highly complex topics when they just want to play with their favourite toy and have no clue why liberals like you are so pissed at them only playing with the male toys?

You have no idea what kids want, but have no problem forcing your own liberal BS agenda down their throats. If little timmy wants to play with han solo instead of princess leia then you have no right to tell him that he is a bad kid for favouring male over female characters.

Yet here you are... but instead of saying it out loud you attack the toy producer.. because attacks on kids arent getting you any liberal points i guess.

And no.. being kids means being kids.. they will have to face the harsh reality soon enough once they hit puberty. You are NOT suposed to force your political ideas on kids, no matter their age but especialy not on kids below the age of 10 who dont even understand the very concepts youre talking about.

All they know is that mommy and daddy get angry if they dont play with the female action figures too and will only do so because it pleases them.

You will make one hell of a parent.. no wonder the US of A have such problems.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I am female, I started collecting Star wars figures and ships when I was 7 years old. My AT AT walker, tie fighters, Cantina, rancor and Millennium falcon are my favorites. While I have collected female characters from them, there are not many to choose from and are often difficult to find. I do hope they expand on their female characters as well, as both males and female enjoy collecting these figures.

I think the idea that females do not like action figures is clearly false, they frequently do, just often do not feel very welcome to buy them. " That's for boys" doesn't exactly let girls know it is normal for them to like them too.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If female character figures sell less than male character figures, then surely this would be expected? The market responds to demand. If people aren't buying female figures at the rate of male figures, then of course there will be a shorter supply of female figures. What is Hasbro supposed to do about it? If Hasbro could create demand out of thin air, they'd be the most successful company in the world.

There are many factors beyond demand which can affect this, though. Everything from how many they produce (if they produce fewer female toys which reach fewer stores so of course they won't sell as quickly) to the store layout itself. Remember, the toy sections of stores are extremely stratified and binary. If all of the Star Wars figures--both male and female--are getting placed in the "boy's" section, fewer girls are going to see them or be aware of their existence because the store layout is designed to make sure neither ever enters the other's "world."

I was lucky as a kid, the nearest store to me that had star wars or barbies was a hobby shop that had both star wars and barbie on the same isle. There was no " pink isle" and they were mixed together. I didn't find out star wars were " boys toys" until AFTER I started collecting them since when we moved and I went into toy stores that had girls sections and boys sections it was weird to have to go to the boys section, it feels kind of like having to go into the boys bathroom instead of the girls just to find the toys you want to play with. I don't think they should make kids feel self conscience just for wanting to play with toys, they need to get rid of the sections and just let kids be kids and like what they want.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Let boys be boys... they will have to deal with this liberal BS soon enough when they hit puberty. Stop forcing your political agendas down kids throats. Kids that have no fucking clue about it in the first place.

Yes, let boys be boys, let girls be girls, let people be people, let rapists be rapists, let Nazis be Nazis. Demand nothing of your fellow man, because that's just dumb liberal progressivism.

Fuck, the very foundation of raising children is to not just let children be children. That is tantamount to neglectful parenting. You must guide them to be more than what they currently are, even if it seems trivial, because what we see as trivial today may be seen as heartless in a more enlightened era.

Wow.. you really hit the strawman/slippery slope metre out of the park...

Going from boys to rapists to nazis... arent you the most intelectual honest person i have ever met?

Demanding from kids to understand highly complex topics when they just want to play with their favourite toy and have no clue why liberals like you are so pissed at them only playing with the male toys?

You have no idea what kids want, but have no problem forcing your own liberal BS agenda down their throats. If little timmy wants to play with han solo instead of princess leia then you have no right to tell him that he is a bad kid for favouring male over female characters.

Yet here you are... but instead of saying it out loud you attack the toy producer.. because attacks on kids arent getting you any liberal points i guess.

And no.. being kids means being kids.. they will have to face the harsh reality soon enough once they hit puberty. You are NOT suposed to force your political ideas on kids, no matter their age but especialy not on kids below the age of 10 who dont even understand the very concepts youre talking about.

All they know is that mommy and daddy get angry if they dont play with the female action figures too and will only do so because it pleases them.

You will make one hell of a parent.. no wonder the US of A have such problems.

Letting kids be kids also means letting boys play with barbie and girls play with hotwheels. My brother played with barbies, I collected star wars figures. When I was young, the only store that had barbies or star wars had them on the same isle and didn't have a "pink isle". No one ever told us what we had to like when we were young. It was extremely off putting when we moved to have to go to a boys or a girls section to shop. We do not need boys and girls sections to tell us what we like, it is perfectly normal if we like the same things. That isn't some " liberal agenda", it is going back to how things were before some idiot decided they wanted to create girls and boys isles in the first place. I grew up playing with legos, star wars, robots and erector sets, other girls should not feel weird about enjoying those things either. My brother liked the easy bake oven and dolls, and shouldn't feel bad about that either. Today, his wife loves that he is so good with children and a great cook. No guy should be made to feel bad about enjoying the toys in the " girls section" either.

I am not seeing this as a "liberal agenda" this is just setting things back right after someone screwed them up before. Boys and girls toys were not always separated as they currently are. Kids just like what they do and usually, more often than not, they like things from both the girls and boys sections. They do not need to be stigmatized for liking what they do, they should just mix them up together and let kids like what they want.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

There are several things going on here. Key among them is that boys and girls do tend to play differently and look for different toys. Starting around 6 or 7 and up to mid teens their play styles segregate. The whole Blue aisle vs pink aisle is simply toy companies brutally capitalizing on this normal pattern of development and play.

So as a result over in the blue side of town we see fewer female characters and smaller production runs of those we do get. And this happens in pink land too. Go look at Barbie. What do you think the packing rate is on the Ken dolls? How about Monster High? Ever notice how few male characters there are? And what shelf warmers?

And this becomes a self propagating effect. Those April O'Neil figures don't sell well at an equal run with the main Turtles. You end up with stacks at clearence at Wallmart. But the Marketing people look and see "the female characters don't sell well" rather than noting which specific character didn't. Thus next time you get law production numbers on The Black Widow because nobody wanted April O'Neil. Because Marketing is looking at past predictors, past behaviors in order to guess on the next results, and often sees the wrong patterns.

Part of the issue with how well the male toys sell in the pink isle and the female toys sell in the blue isle is due to the segregating of the isles themselves. For a boy to go into the girls section to buy a toy, it is like telling them they need to use the girls restroom. It is terribly off putting, and as a girl who started collecting star wars figures at age 7, I felt the same way walking into the boys section to find the toys I liked. It was like telling me to go to the boys restroom, and I did not feel like I was supposed to be in there. Get rid of the boys sections and girls sections and let kids like what they will, kids should not be stigmatized simply for liking specific toys. Just mix them up and let kids like what they will. It is normal for a boy to want a doll house and a girl to want legos, and currently they create a hostile environment for kids who do.

Putting all the cars together, put all action figures and dolls together, put science kits, baking kits and craft kits together.. allowing kids to decide what they like. and get rid of pink and blue isles all together. A kid shouldn't be made to feel bad if he wants to look at a cupcake making kit. Who the hell doesn't like cupcakes?

 

[Dogstile]

Yes people, a company is willingly choosing not to make money to spite you. Well done, you're all very smart.

This is dumb as hell.

 

[Saxnot]

This is an argument about a toy company not bringing out enough female toys.

take a moment to contemplate this.

Ok. Sure. More female toys. Whatever.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Ha ha, what a lot of text.

As ever the gender studies 101 class is getting hot under the collar because billion dollar companies won't kowtow to their bizarre attempts to claim their personal moral choices need to be in someway be reflected in the output of corporation and entertainment companies.

It's very simple, very few people actually care about or want female toys in the Star Wars range from Hasbro, it's a trivial matter: if Hasbro thought female toys would make money they'd make them and they don't.

If Markus Persson had listened to what "marketing data" had to say, we would not have Minecraft as well. Much of " marketing data" is just "data" about past trends, it doesn't actually tell you what would or would not be popular or wanted, and frequently ignores market expansion. The biggest sellers are ones they never expected to be. Not being aware of a demand does not mean it does not exist.