[Lionheart]

Quote:

They were made to "empower" young girls to be strong in thoughts and actions.

Why not "empower" all children? Why does 'elevative' language always seem to be reserved for girls? I don't think I've ever heard of someone creating something specifically to "empower" boys.

Quote:

And to implement a female action figure without giant tits and in skimpy outfit.

I've been collecting action figures since the early 80's (as a child, and then as an adult collector) and I don't think I ever owned or saw a female action figure with giant tits in a skimpy outfit. The only ones I can even think of would be 'Daisy Duke' from 'The Dukes of Hazzard' where she was wearing what Daisy wore on the show, and 'Princess Ardalla' from 'Buck Rogers' where she wore something like she wore on the show - bodies weren't really that idealised on either figure. Not sure this was ever an issue. But 2 moms who knew nothing about toys created a narrative of victimhood and in rolled the money (and the positive press). Don't get me wrong - representation in action figures is far from equal, but then they've always been boy-oriented so you would expect it to be skewed significantly. If people really have an issue with this then they should also look at the doll sections in toy stores where the representation is equally skewed, but nobody cares about that. My issue is that they call themselves "girl targeted / boy inclusive". But we are now 2 waves and 16 figures in and there is not 1, not 1 male character. As long as I've been collecting I don't think there has ever been a action figure toyline targeted at boys that didn't have some kind of female representation. Simply being able to play with them does not make them "male inclusive", as Barbie is female targeted, and the fact that boys can play with the dolls does not make them "male inclusive".

Also... not all girls / women have small breasts or narrow hips. Where are the physical variants in these figures? They all have 'sporty' physiques, not much of a role model for a shorter, heavier girl to connect with.

I have no issue with the figures themselves, which look fine to me. But if I'm going to support the line, I would need to see 2 things happen:
1) There would have to be a significant number of male figures in the next line - encouraging girls to play with lines of figures that only feature girls is no less unhealthy than encouraging boys to play with action figure lines that only feature boys. They have stated that boys should play with them too, and if so - give them their 'token' males.
2) Vary the bodies of the figures - even just a little. Girls / women and boys / men come in all shapes and sizes, and if one of the major remits of this line is to 'empower' then that should have been a prime concern.

Quote:

A figure that could be a role model to help mould young minds...... there IS a lot to hate about their ethos Lionheart!!

I'm not even sure an action figure line should be trying to do that. Playing is time when children let their imaginations run free, and trying to maintain some kind of narrative control feels too... 'pushy' to me. It reminds me of the moms who would never buy their sons toys with guns when I was a child because they didn't like war.

None of this was an attack on you UKMU, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, but it's just how I feel about the line. Some good figures, but not enough living up to their ideological rhetoric for me.