[kylactus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflakian

Can't say I see a problem with them removing it from merchandise. It's still in the original movies, and the old merchandise is still in the aftermarket. Some of that merchandise is still clogging shelves as we speak and not selling.

The new merchandise of it doesn't sell that well anymore. The outfit is intentionally degrading and does not compare to Han being in carbonite, that's silly. It was literally Jabba's attempt to debase and demean her. It's literally what Jabba puts his 'playthings' in as we saw before Leia was captured with the other alien that he had on the chain before her. He calls her 'princess' to highlight this fact of debasement. Women who wear it out of choice as a costume are wearing it because they have found something about it that's empowering to themselves that they can relate to. And really, if you were listening to the #yesallwomen stories, is that any surprise? Being shackled to the whims of oppression was a universal theme they all had expressed experiencing. Wanting to strangle that with a chain is a wish anyone with any kind of heart has. Leia in the outfit isn't empowering. What Leia did to Jabba because of the outfit is empowering. There is a difference. The outfit itself was a means to debase her and is literally Jabba's attempt to show her that she's beneath him and must bow to his whims even if she is a princess. His calling her princess is more insult to injury than it is about proper titles.

Han in carbonite though is a different matter. He's fully clothed for one, and his state is literally that of hibernation in a cryo type fashion. While he may be an 'object' he's as much an object as say the soldiers and spartans in Halo that sit in cryo tubes. That's an entire different kind of story trope in relation to mob stories and debt collectors. Does not compare as to say a woman being forced to wear a skimpy outfit and be chained to a person's whims and assaults her with his tongue. This isn't a 'what if' possible scenario either. This is a 'what is'. The trope Leia was highlighting in those scenes is the mob/mafia trope of human trafficking. The sex slave trade. That's an entirely different trope than the debt collecting trope. There is some crossover in those tropes, but not in this instance. In this instance the only thing Leia has done was try to save her friend, and is being punished for being caught by being forcefully subjugated. That is in context to the movie.

I really don't see why this is an issue at all. If you wanted that figure or statue, you probably already have it. This is about going forward, and really if your only defense in this matter is that you want to see violence and debasement forced upon women in movies more and for that to be made into toys, why? Why is it that important for you to have a figure that's entire purpose is to re-enact what were mostly scenes of her subjugation by Jabba until she's finally given her moment to strangle him with the very chain he's shackled her by? That brief strangling point is the only redeeming factor out of that outfit's story.

Does the Slave Leia outfit have merit for discourse about the metaphors it entails? Hell yes it does. It should stay in the movies because of the metaphors and commentary it carries for such discourse as art that speaks about real world issues.

Does it have a place in children's toys that children play with? No it does not.
It is literally a figure of a time when the character was put into the sex slave trade because of trying to save a friend. That's not something you make a toy of for kids.

I don't blame this one on Disney either. Even back in the day it took Hasbro a long time to do those initial figures of it. Seeing it leave the merchandising world again when it was only dubiously accepted to begin with in that market, is fine by me. The figure was only made because of fan demand because it didn't exist, it has long since fallen out of demand and does not look as if it will ever return to being in demand nor probably should it.

This decision is based on context. It's not about SJWs making a scene or about over-righteous mothers. Those scenes in the movie itself are metaphors for the mob, sex trafficking, and other tropes on those orders but toned down enough to allow a larger audience appealing rating.

If I was the head of Disney, I would have made the same call based on content and context. It's had its time in the light, it's had its merchandise made, now it's time to retire it. It is no longer needed as a staple to star wars, and as such, using a staple remover on it for merchandise is prudent.

Would it make it easier to understand if the same person that talked Hasbro into making it as a figure(based on recognized fan demand that has long since largely switched to disgust) was the same person that talked Disney and Hasbro into removing it(based on context of the movie's usage of it)? What if it was a man that made that call without ever even looking at or considering the SJWs or 'over-righteous right wing mom brigade'? That they did this because they genuinely know what that outfit represents on screen? Cause that seems to be the part of this narrative everyone is missing and lacking understanding on.

And yes, Feminism is for men too. If it were a male being subjugated to that extreme, the real feminists would speak up. The humiliation and debasement those scenes are loaded with is tantamount to the same as the sex trade and rape. That's an issue feminism speaks about for both men and women. Yes, feminism at it's core does speak about men's issues too. It has a heavier focus on women because women are treated worse on a grander scale, but toxic masculinity and patriarchal standards do harm men too and that is a common discussion at the core of feminism that works to create equality. Feminism is not misandry, though menninism/meninists or whatever it's spelled is for misogyny outright and is not even about the protection of men. Feminism on the other hand is about the protection and freedom of all to live in a fair, just, and equal society.

The scene of the bacta tank with Luke is also different, and there are many scenes similar across all media that depict both men and women in that. Evangelion for one has similar. It does not compare to the slave Leia outfit or scenes for what that metaphor itself is. For one, it's an actual medical procedure and attempt to heal Luke. No one is crying foul on Milla Jovovich's similar scenes in Resident Evil. No one is complaining about her clone tanks in that movie series either. That compares to Luke in the bacta tank. Leia in her slave outfit does not.

awww are the poor first world girls offended by a 20 something year old movie that may imply subjection, when it's suppose to! there are people that are actual slaves in the world today ya know? I find it offensive that all the hyper libs are so damn quick to squash everyone else's rights to free speech and expression, while calling everyone else phobic and bigots. A chick in a bikini choking out an alien mob boss is one of the most definitive images in Sci-Fi! if she was dressed Amish, or a tasteful pants suit, or what ever kind of outfit wouldn't offend the delicate sensibilities of the hyper offended community and people that think there twisted views are new or revolutionary. the scene wouldn't even be that memorable. we get it, your not objects! but do you get upset when in every Marvel movie the main star has to show off his body? I've seen more Hugh Jackman ass than I'd ever want, but do I feel "offended" by it? no. Here's a quick question for anyone agreeing the costume should be banned, how would you feel if Katelin Jenner wore the Leah Bikini for Halloween? I'm just wondering who's offendedness trumps who's now? is Bruce being insensitive to alien spice slaves? or would you be transphobic for suggesting he was? I'm just not so use to everyone NEEDING something banned. if you don't like something, walk away! don't buy it. but quit trying to reshape the planet into your insane image!