[Lionheart]

Oh goodie! Long replies! I have lots of time...

Quote:

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.

So you completely recognise that what Jabba did is in keeping with the character? I believe - as I believed as a child - that the 'debasement' was more to do with royalty than gender - you believe otherwise. But she was the only royal on the team, so we'll never know for sure. I'd like to hear Lucas' thoughts.

You can keep saying things like 'it does not compare' but you and I both know if it was clothed Leia literally hanging on the wall and an unshirted Han - that would be an issue. We would be here right now arguing how it's wrong that Disney are no longer allowing carbonite Leia to be made and you'd be saying 'Slave Han is different...'. It's always 'different'.

Quote:

And really, if you were listening to the #yesallwomen stories, is that any surprise?

Sorry, I was too busy following #killallmen while drinking male tears and trying to #banbossy because of #masculinitysofragile.

Quote:

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.

It doesn't need to be empowering. All representations of women should not be created to conform to an arbitrary set of ideologically driven standards. All depictions of women all the time do not all need to be 'empowering'. Jabba was a slug - he debased a royal (woman) for his pleasure. It fits his character, and Leia's reaction to it fits her character. Han in carbonite isn't empowering - nor should it be.

Quote:

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.

It's about class. That's my point.

Quote:

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.

It wouldn't matter if he went in there in speedo's - nobody would care. And a clothed Leia hanging on the wall in carbonite *would* be used as an example of objectification - you know it and I know it.

Quote:

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.

Han on the wall is the 'head on a spike' trope. Sex trafficked or dead in a ditch - Jabba is a gangster, and it fits. Also, this is dealing with a royal woman - royalty is never pimped or trafficked - they're too valuable. They may be bought and sold - but they aren't there for the dirty peasants.

Quote:

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?

Don't ask 'why' when reacting to a statement *you* made which does not reflect either me or my words at all. You're straw-manning, and very badly at that. But don't worry - if you only want to watch movies with invincible untouchable Mary Sue's where the only people who can be harmed with impunity are men - have at it.

Quote:

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.

Because they want to remove it - and censorship bothers me. And because it's a depiction of the character within the film - that's why. It's actually my least favourite image of her, but that's neither here nor there.

Quote:

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.

Yup, that's what Star Wars movies from 30 years ago are for - to reflect 'real world' contemporary issues.

Quote:

Does it have a place in children's toys that children play with? No it does not.

So that young girls can't re-enact the scene in which the little weak Princess breaks free and kills the massive gangster who is oppressing her? My goodness - why would you object to girls living out this metaphor for their struggle against the patriarchy? Why do you want to stifle them? Why the misogyny?

Quote:

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.

Yet you can make a toy of someone turned into a wall hanger, and of someone who was to be executed for trying to save a friend... or someone who had their arm cut off... or a bounty hunter shot point blank in the chest... or a seven foot tall villain who throttles people to death... and so on.

Quote:

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.

It's the 'nor should it' part I take issue with. You're dictating what people should / shouldn't have access to.

Quote:

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.

Sex trafficking wasn't an issue when Jedi was made. It has become an issue as a bi-product of mass-migration. And by the way, almost half of all sex-trafficked people are young boys, and the majority of people that are people trafficked (non-sex) are men.

Quote:

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)

'Fan demand that has long-since switched to disgust'? Let's take a poll shall we...

Quote:

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.

Nobody is lacking understanding. The chance of the same person being responsible is slim to none since the first figures were 20 years ago. It doesn't make a difference - saying "We'll never make a figure of this woman wearing more than many women do on a sunny day, but we will carry on making the seven foot tall deformed murderer" just doesn't make sense... unless they think as you clearly do...

Quote:

And yes, Feminism is for men too.

If those men sit at the back and do as they're told. 'Sit down and shut up' was the last one I read from female feminists to male feminists.

Quote:

If it were a male being subjugated to that extreme, the real feminists would speak up.

They would say nothing at all.

Quote:

The humiliation and debasement those scenes are loaded with is tantamount to the same as the sex trade and rape.

Glad you got rape in there somewhere. I felt it was lacking. See my comment about boys above.

Quote:

Yes, feminism at it's core does speak about men's issues too.

Yup - male privilege and how men need to get rid of it. Toxic masculinity - and how men need to just stop being men. Patriarchy theory - how everything was built by men and then by default *only* serves men and not women. Rape culture - and how a woman claiming she was raped shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of a trial to prove it. Domestic violence - how it's wrong to even charge a woman for DV / spousal murder because she was probably victimised therefore right to do it. And so on.

Male suicide rate, homelessness, domestic abuse, child custody, job death rate, circumcision, gender sentencing disparities - yeah, feminism will get right on that...

Feminists are for men the way fundamentalist Christians are for gay people... they want to bring them into the fold, to help them, to help them recognise they're sick and broken and need to be fixed... if they'd just open their hearts and minds to the dogma of the religion they could help them stop being gay...

Quote:

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.

Any discussion that begins with the premise that 'toxic masculinity' and 'patriarchy theory' are just true - and then goes from there, it *not* going to help men at all. And it doesn't have a 'heavier focus on women' - that implies it's like 80% / 20% or something - it has a *total* focus on women - 99.99999999%.

And women are treated worse on a grander scale - in the west? They live longer, have more money spent on their healthcare, die less of almost all forms of disease, are less likely to be victims of violence, are less likely to be murdered, are less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be homeless, are more likely to graduate high-school, are more likely to go to college, have total reproductive rights, right to infant genital integrity, and so on. All of that doesn't even take into account abstract things like greater emotional support and greater mate selection preferences.

Quote:

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.

This is Star Wars. Star Wars is a fantasy movie for children, not a horror movie or a Japanese cartoon (which is a whole other cultural beast). If Leia was depicted in a bikini 'healing' in the Bacta Tank - people would find a way to make it about exploitation. They just would.

Quote:

This may all be true for someone who thinks about the outfit in context of the movie, but the watchdogs have no interest in doing that. If they see a product that depicts a woman in anything less than an empowering manner, they're going to blow the whistle and make sure all of the internet knows about what a terrible, terrible thing is happening. Somewhere in America, some little girl who's parents don't teach self esteem and personal values is loosing sleep over one action figure.

Your moral superiors know better than you. Listen and believe... listen and believe...

Quote:

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?

Careful... you might cause some heads to explode with that one...

Quote:

Maybe next Disney will get rid of Darth Vader because he's a bad father

Progressives are comfortable with that kind of depiction. It's evidence of toxic masculinity.

Quote:

There is no rationalizing this. It was a part of the movie and it happened. Jabba was trying to debase her. That's part of his character. Are we supposed to think that Jabba wouldn't do such a thing now? It literally makes no sense to me. I'm not dying for more Leia figures depicting this, but it's absolutely ridiculous to say, "never again!" It was part of the movies, deal with it.

They shouldn't have to, not when they can just ban it.

Quote:

I think Disney should ban the Little Mermaid as well, she offends me because she's not dressed. And they should close down their water parks too because it encourages skimpy swim wear and that offends me too. Its degrading to people to see them half dressed....It's only fair

The Little Mermaid was very cute... and Mermaids are usually sexualised... Yes. This is problematic. Young girls should be protected from this. Ban it.

Quote:

Disney isn't reacting to anything, they make decisions like this all the time, and have been making moves like this since long before you and the internet had SJW's and tumblr to blame for attacks on nerd culture.

Such as? Genuinely curious. The only one I can think of is 'Song of the South', and that was available right up until the 90's.

Quote:

True & it makes you wonder if moving forward they'll be afraid to make women in films too sexy or that they can't make those figures? Someone could take offense to almost anything these days. Maybe they should put all women in pantsuits so nobody takes offense.

Boxes will need to be ticked. Characters will become two dimensional mouthpieces for progressive attitudes. In the real world women are all the shades of positive / negative it's possible for humans to be, on the screen that will not be allowed.

Quote:

Genocide, like slavery, sex slavery and trafficking are real world problems that probably shouldn't be on our toy shelves to be played with, fictional character or not...

Murder is real. So is death. Ban Darth Vader or any character that is killed / kills in the movies.

Quote:

and child slavery is one of the greatest sins going on in the world today...period.

Word.

Quote:

Slave Leia is not about being sexy. It's about subjugation, humiliation, and degradation. That's not sexy, that's sexual assault. The entire premise of that outfit is it's without consent. It's about coercion. That's sexual assault. That's what makes her choking Jabba with the chain satisfying as the ending turn on the outfit's history.

'Slave Leia' doesn't exist - because she was a slave for all of a day. Anakin lived as a slave. I'll repeat myself here; If Leia was clothed and hanging on the wall and Han was in chains, you would be arguing right now, that *that* is sexual assault because it reduces a woman to an object used as a decoration without her consent.