Six-Year-Old Upset By Lack of Female Friendly Avengers Toys

[Abomination]

Oh boo fucking hoo. This is getting droll pretty damn fast.

How dare a comic series aimed mostly at males for a good 60 years have mostly male characters in the primary roles!

But isn't that the whole point? Why does a comic series de facto have to be aimed 'mostly at males'? Are there not plenty of girls who might enjoy a comic book movie? And are boys incapable of enjoying a movie that features a female protagonist? What's wrong with challenging these things?

The whole point is to make money. You put your money on the sure bets and 6 year old girls are not the fucking sure bet.

Hawkeye and Black Widow are the least useful members of the team anyway - it's probably why they only got cameos and not actual movies. A Miss Marvel movie would probably have allowed her to be a member of The Avengers but studio execs can't even get a Wonder Woman film off the ground and she's far more recognized.

So boo-fucking-hoo. Yeah it could be better but it isn't going to happen any time soon. Gonna need more support than just a 6 year old girl to get the corporate clout to make some waves here.

That's the reality of the situation. Hope in one hand and shit in the other. Guess which one will fill up faster?

 

[Flatfrog]

Hawkeye and Black Widow are the least useful members of the team anyway - it's probably why they only got cameos and not actual movies. A Miss Marvel movie would probably have allowed her to be a member of The Avengers but studio execs can't even get a Wonder Woman film off the ground and she's far more recognized.

So boo-fucking-hoo. Yeah it could be better but it isn't going to happen any time soon. Gonna need more support than just a 6 year old girl to get the corporate clout to make some waves here.

So we should just accept that crappy situation and stop complaining? Isn't that a bit counterproductive? Surely the only thing that might persuade the corporate minds to put up the cash to try a more equal movie would be this kind of campaign and discussion, wouldn't it?

I understand that the Avengers haven't really got a lot of decent female characters to work with but it would have been nice to see them at least trying a single movie with a female lead in Phase 2. Wasp isn't much of a character in the comics, but then neither are any of them, frankly - a decent scriptwriter could make a fantastic movie for her. For that matter, couldn't we have had a Black Widow movie, now we've got the character set up? The only female-led comic book movies I can think of were Catwoman (ugh) and Elektra (actually pretty decent). The fact that we haven't had a Wonder Woman movie yet is frankly outrageous.

It's not all bad, of course - the X-Men movies have been pretty balanced in their gender mix and featured some great female characters.

 

[Lightknight]

Well I don't think anyone can blame for not know there was a Black Widow toy. I've never seen it advertised at all.

She brings up good points though. Black Widow isn't a side character and she's not exactly pushed to the back in the marketing for the movies yet she's not even put on the box. Doesn't even have to be on the front. there's lot of toys that put more characters on the back to advertise other figures.

And to the people who say "Avengers is a boy's thing!", 50% of the fanbase is female, I think we can all agree that your argument is invalid.

Huh? She isn't a side character? No,she definitely is. Her and hawkeye. I'm surprised that Captain America is able to play the role he did. But that's the problem of superheros that don't have super powers when they're placed along side other heroes or villains that do have super powers.

That being said, she is most certainly advertised as much as the others. She's on every poster and every add that is for the toys themselves. There isn't a mask for her or a weapon but that's because she doesn't have a mask or noteable weapon. When I saw her on shelves around the time the movie came out, she was right next to all the others.

There just isn't a high demand for her. Even girls might rather have Iron Man or the Hulk first.

 

[the December King]

Woo, right on sister! Death to the manfolk and all that. They can take our high paying jobs but they'll never have a monopoly on all the cool action figures! *burns bra*

For realsies, that Black Widow toy is kind of ugly looking. And I don't remember her using a four foot grappling hook in the film. Then again, I don't remember Iron Man having an electrified sawblade or Captain America using a bazooka that fire shields. What does Hulk get? Nothing but the shorts on his butt. If anyone should be pissed about inequality in toys it's the giant green rage monsters.

Your post made me smile, sincerely!

I would have thought the Black Widow was a popular figurine. She added that human element to the whole thing that was sorely needed (even though I thought she was poorly used during the end battle), while still being skilled and obviously tough.

Huh, captcha just asked me "ARE YOU A HUMAN?"

...

oddly, when I got that wrong, it told me I was 'other worldly'.

 

[Flatfrog]

MLP is a perfect example of this, actually. MLP is specifically marketed to little girls. However, a male demographic emerged that enjoyed the show, and as such, began buying the toys as a show of support to Hasbro. This surprised Hasbro to such a big degree that the show was already starting to pander to its new audience by the start of Season 2, and started pushing more types of MLP merchandise out there for fans to gobble up. This succeeded so well for Hasbro that MLP has singlehandedly kept them in the black for the last few years, despite falling sales in almost all of their other franchises.

All right, so why does the same not happen with superhero movies? That does have a significant number of female fans who might be more attracted to it if it had more elements aimed at them. Instead, they're told 'no, this is a boy's thing, get over it'. They can buy into the boys' stuff or fuck off.

The same COULD happen for superheroes, but only if the female demographic is willing and able to show their support for the products that are available. Right now, what this girl and her parents are doing is pretending that the toys don't exist (they do) and refusing to support the market until they do. So....the company is going to ignore her, as they should. Why would they take a risk on a market that hasn't given any indication that it really wants these toys?

No, that's just a crappy argument. (I haven't watched this particular video because it sounds stupid, so these are just points in general) You're saying that if girls hang in long enough, keep buying the boys' toys like good little consumers, eventually Marvel will deign to market to them? Is it not more likely to happen if they make a fuss and say 'we'd love to buy your merchandising if you provide us with something that doesn't exclude us?'

You really don't get a say in what a company sells (unless it's "scandalous" in some fashion) if you're not a customer of that company. Period.

Is that how marketing works? I thought the way it was supposed to work was that companies researched potential consumers, made products and marketed those to those consumers. Since when are we supposed to buy the products *first*?

You realize you just answered your own question of why companies don't invest more money in superheroines, right?

The only two recent movies with female superhero leads have been Catwoman and Elektra, two movies that were almost universally panned by critics and sold poorly at the box office.

Of course no one wants to pour money into female superheroes: they clearly don't do a very good job making movies for these people, and they don't sell very well either.

Oh, I'm quite aware that this is their logic, but that doesn't make it right (Although I don't know why Elektra was so badly received by critics; it was a much better film than Daredevil). The same logic was what kept studios from making comic book movies at all for years after a long string of flops. And I'll bet until Twilight everyone thought you couldn't market supernatural fantasy to girls either. One day someone will take the plunge, make a really good superhero movie with a female protagonist - probably a little-known one, since Wonder Woman seems destined to be in development hell forever and almost certainly will end up a mess. Only then will we be able to see whether the prevailing wisdom is actually correct.

 

[D-Class 198482]

...Are people really complaining that the female characters are 'attractive?'
There's a difference between sexualized and attractive. The most you get of sexualization with comic book characters most of the time is cleavage. Oh noes.
Otherwise, they are just pretty.
Are people suddenly clamoring to have heroines that look like Deadpool without his suit?

 

[Iron Criterion]

No one deserves to be treated like shit, but true equality means, everyone gets treated like shit. Equality means you no longer get special interest groups, or special rights, equality means no chivalry, equality means neither sex is subordinate, but that neither sex gets any sort of courtesy either.

And this is a bad thing because?

Go on, spin me a story; I challenge you.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

In fairness Black Widow is hardly one of the films "big guns". She was certainly a fun character but is nowhere near as iconic as Thor, Cpt. America or Iron Man, each of whom has had one or two movies just for themselves.

 

[s0p0g]

[sub]i think she wants to tell us that it's not fair[/sub]

good job, mommy, get your kid to deliver the message YOU want to get across - now that's what i call good parenting!
really, a toast to her for a job well done - Anita Sarkessian's heritage will live on.
...
......
oy.


seriously though, you don't market (or even produce) the less known characters (i got "who's this Black Widow?" quite often from my friends - nobody needed info on Iron Man or Captian Nationalism/Patriotism/ America or the Hulk, though - not only because of the movies each of them had, but because these are overall better known characters - and THAT'S what you can sell; at least easier than a product you have to raise awareness for beforehand)

 

[Abomination]

It is up to society at large to change its norms, NOT individual companies!

That's pretty much the end of it.

A company is not and should not be under any obligation to change societal norms. A company REACTS to them, it doesn't try to change them.

The very nature of supply and demand is that you supply the demand - you don't supply what might be a demand because someone states there "could" be one. The feminist agenda here wants the company to take a massive risk with the company's money for the feminist movement's benefit with no promise of returns.

They've tried catering to females, it didn't work. It might work but it'll require a lot of restructuring and shifting focus from its primary consumer base - something that seldom has positive results.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

1. I'm sure she thought that little tirade up by herself and was in no way encouraged.

2. Do I complain when Ken doesn't have any weapon accessories? No. These are marketed at boys. Yes, it is a stupid decision because girls would be more than happy to join in that market properly than be incidental to it. But that is the strategy that the toy manufacturers have chosen, whatever their reasons. But I don't think it says anything about gender issues.

-snip-

Then I'm not sure what you ARE trying to argue, because we've already established:

1) That the toys actually do exist and are easily purchased on Amazon or other such sites.
2) That since she didn't know the toys existed, that would suggest that she's either not an actual customer of the toy line or else is significantly ill-informed about products she allegedly buys.
3) That if she's not actually a customer of the toys in question, she really has no right to demand that companies cater to her.
4) That previous attempts to invest in female superheroes as a market have all met with considerable failure, suggesting that the demand simply isn't there.
5) That asking a company to invest millions into a market which (as point 3 states) isn't actually there to begin with is a considerable risk with a low probability of significant returns on that investment, thus making it an unreasonable demand to make in the first place.

So....what exactly do you have left to stand on?

The correct answer, of course, is nothing.

Can I just say...boom, headshot.

 

[Lightknight]

It is up to society at large to change its norms, NOT individual companies!

That's pretty much the end of it.

A company is not and should not be under any obligation to change societal norms. A company REACTS to them, it doesn't try to change them.

The very nature of supply and demand is that you supply the demand - you don't supply what might be a demand because someone states there "could" be one. The feminist agenda here wants the company to take a massive risk with the company's money for the feminist movement's benefit with no promise of returns.

They've tried catering to females, it didn't work. It might work but it'll require a lot of restructuring and shifting focus from its primary consumer base - something that seldom has positive results.

Right, it is good business to expand one's market but while it's easy to say, doing it is quite another problem. There are actual differences, socially and biologically, between men and women. Just offering something or even marketing it appropriately to a demographic does not mean that it'll be liked or accepted.

So while a company may try to broaden their market, and be unsuccessful at it, it is not their responsibility to do that. It isn't their job to waste millions on a project that may not work at all. The genders are evolutionarily wired differently and are socially programmed differently. That doesn't mean that the regular Joe can't think like a Jane or that the regular Jane can't like things a Joe likes. But it does mean that in aggregate we do see different trends in some products. Toys have historically been one of them. Though I suspect that the parents are the consumers there.

 

[ResonanceSD]

"Child wants toy she doesn't have, writers scramble to the headline-cave".


Seriously, it's a 6 year old wanting a toy.

 

[Angus]

(there is a <a href=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007XNTA12/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007XNTA12&linkCode=as2&tag=34haboreco34-20>Black Widow action figure), her complaints extend beyond her inability to find a particular toy. She also takes exception to the fact that Black Widow, hardly a minor character in the film, fails to appear on the bulk of the toy packaging. Unless you're buying the actual Black Widow action figure, the packaging doesn't acknowledge that there's a female member of the Avengers.

Permalink

I think the fact that there is a black widow action figure says TON- that its not put on the box itself is not that important, its still in the store with the same packaging.



No, this is more of a positive thing Id say.
That theyve actually started making femal action figures, thats good, and not being on the package is not that important seriously

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe a 6 year old shouldn't have an action figure of a woman who has sex with men and then kills them?

 

[Lightknight]

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe a 6 year old shouldn't have an action figure of a woman who has sex with men and then kills them?

Oh, the black widow? She's an excellent role model for how to get ahead in life in today's trying and difficult times... [/sarcasm]

 

[crazygameguy4ever]

Well there are quite a few Black Widow action figures, as well as a lot of female comicbook figures.. though the character itself in the film and comic is aimed at boys/men anyways. Why else would she wear a skin tight leather costume? I'm not saying it's a good thing that the character or any other female comic book characters dress like sluts,( I like female characters that know what clothing is) but it's just the way it is.. The little girl is better off with more appropriate toys till she's older.

 

[Lightknight]

Well there are quite a few Black Widow action figures, as well as a lot of female comicbook figures.. though the character itself in the film and comic is aimed at boys/men anyways. Why else would she wear a skin tight leather costume? I'm not saying it's a good thing that the character or any other female comic book characters dress like sluts,( I like female characters that know what clothing is) but it's just the way it is.. The little girl is better off with more appropriate toys till she's older.

I'm not sure if anyone notices this, but super heroes in general where skin tight material. It's just a little more noticeable in the avengers with the characters that generally wear armor in various forms.

But that's like saying the hulk was aimed at girls because why else would he be bare chested or why else would Bruce Banner be naked after going Hulk?

I'm not saying she wasn't dressed attractively. But you're talking about a character in a comic that looks like that. Not only that, but she's a spy that seduces men. Attractive is kind of a weapon in her arsenal just like for real spies. But please don't forget, compared to the way women regularly dress, she was over-dressed. I mean, she wasn't running into battle in juicy shorts that expose the bottom half of the buttocks and a skin tight tube top. She wasn't wearing just a sports bra and very tiny sports shorts. She was wearing a functional leather outfit. Let's look at the movie version, considered very sexy as played by Scarlet Johansson.

http://cdn.geeknation.com/Blogs/10_2012/black_widow1.jpg

I might even question the notion of this being as overtly sexual as her opening scene was or even skin tight. The comics are a lot more smooth/skin tight. But they can vary greatly to points where she doesn't even have that low cleavage V shape exposed. Look, girls want to look attractive. A girl looking attractive doesn't mean that the girl is dressed like a slut. You may think what you said there was white knighting the female cause but it took a turn at the slut comment when referenced to this character's clothing. Especially when regular women dress far more scampily on a regular basis, particularly when physical activity is about to be involved. The black widow, however, she's dressed like batman. She's dressed to get through areas stealthily by cover of the shadows.

You want to see a super hero targeted to guys? Look at the adult version of Starfire compared to the Teen Titan version in a similarly aged girl's response to it:

http://io9.com/5844355/a-7+year+old-girl-responds-to-dc-comics-sexed+up-reboot-of-starfire

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

So, the real problem with this is the talk. The bad talk that the father and mother has to have with their child.

Not that sex sells, Not that there are differences in the world... per se. But more you are valued by your marketability.

There would be no way to carry a Black Widow movie. Maybe an Agent Phil movie, but that's because he became such a dark horse that no one could have predicted it. But a Nick Fury or a Hawkeye movie? Hawkeye would be pushing it, and you'd probably have to completely bank Jeremy Renner much like Blade banked on Wesley Snipes star power (seriously, how many of you even knew who Blade was before Wesley Snipes made the movie).

I can think of few female comic book characters who are just characters. Not 'I AM A WOMAN AND I'M DEALING WITH THE SAME PROBLEMS AS REGULAR HEROES' set pieces that writers create. Much like the 'MY SKIN IS DIFFERENT, I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE AS STRONG AS THE BIG HITTERS, BUT SOMEONE WILL FIND VALUE IN ME' minority characters they make. It's tough to market that. It's tough to take all of that social activism and try to make people want to spend their hard earned money to see that. Blade did it because as far as I knew, him being black really didn't enter into the character as much (I don't know about the earlier stuff though). He just killed and looked good doing it.

Don't get me wrong, Black Widow does a good job of just doing her job. But she's not super enough to have her own movie. In terms of abilities that would keep people watching for an hour and a half. Blade punched the shit out of vampires, Captain America punched the shit out of Robo-Nazis ('MURICA!). Black Widow would... what? Seduce a bunch of people in one of Marvel's made up, safe countries to prevent... a bomb from being sold? Then shoot her way out of it? I'm down with the shooting the way out of it, but that's not the core of the character and you just can't stretch that out and still say it's the Black Widow. Because it's not her bag and you should have made a movie with a character that IS their bag.

The Falcon can't make it big. Shang-chi can't either. And I'm sorry, Black Widow won't ever have that clout.

I WOULD love, though, to see a Great Lakes Avengers movie. LOVE IT.

Or screw that. Someone get a Nextwave Movie up. Or a cartoon. It would be so good...

 

[captnb2thep]

I'm all for equal rights and representation, but even I feel like this child's parents are behind this. As stated before, Hawkeye isn't on the boxes either, but he is a white male, so for the sake of this conversation he is irrelevant. I ask this question:

Are black children upset that Nick Fury isn't commonly represented on the box art? I'm black by the way but I don't see much difference in complaining about the lack of representation in brown or minority characters than women. I havent heard anything about black children complaining, maybe it's because I just can't seem to figure out exactly what Nick Fury does in the first place haha.

I feel like it is a big step for these characters to even be included in the movie, portrayed by Colbie Smulders and Scarlett Johansen, at least it has the CHANCE to pass the Bechdel test, which I don't think it does, but with that movie I don't think there is a second minority character at ALL and I haven't heard a peep about it. My problem is more that women and minorities are underrepresented in the source material, in this case comic books (especially minorities, I can only think of 3 black or brown total off the top of my head in terms of the Marvel and DC universes), but nitpicking about the action figures when one in fact DOES exist shouldn't be a focus to me.

As far as toys in general go, I do believe there is some unfortunate correlations and marketing preferences, and the arguments stated earlier are very much legitimate. I have a very young nephew who's favorite color was pink, but various members of my family discouraged him from it by telling him it was "girly," now if you ask him what his favorite color is, it changes every day.

[/Ramblings]