This is everything wrong with this hobby in one photo.

[Lejuan]

Given the huge scope of interests that this hobby caters for, is it really possible that any individual - male or female - would have their passion for collecting figures or statues determined by the tastes and activities of other collectors?

It seems to me that people come to this hobby in pursuit of their own tastes and interests.. ie they're really into character 'X' and would love to have a physical 3D representation of that character on a shelf someplace. Their interests may broaden through their subsequent engagement with communities like this one, but the idea that someone would harbour a passing interest in collecting figures or statues and have their interest in pursuing the hobby prematurely extinguished through exposure to someone else's custom is... it's quite a reach.

If women eschew this hobby isn't it more reasonable to presume that they do so because they're simply not interested in the subject matter on which the mass-produced collectibles we are concerned with here are based? Or that their interest in the subject matter does not manifest in the desire to have miniature representations of its characters in their houses or apartments?

As Shell has said, many people - men and women - find this hobby quite bizarre. It takes a very particular type of person to see merit in laying down hundreds of dollars for these things. I am guessing - correctly I think - that women who do collect figures are more typically attracted to Barbie, Dolfie, Tonner etc than they are to Sideshow, Hot Toys, Bowen etc. I just can't see custom design trends as playing any real part in this disparity.

 

[Star Puffs]

Look at how popular women in action movies/video games are on this site. Alice from Resident Evil, Beckinsale as Selene in Underworld or in Van Helsing, Ripley in the Alien franchise, Zoe in Serenity, Buffy, Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2. Sure, many of their outfits were impractical for what they were doing...but these are strong women characters kicking *** who I would say are cheered and admired by most of the men on this board. Yes, there will be some who may prefer their women in an insubordinate role...and have figures/statues that reflect that...but you can find that anywhere and with just about everything. I've never felt that it was a big issue here.

I have addressed specific issues in the past, which explains my "fan club". Most recently the odd volume of dismissive attitudes towards Elizabeth Shaw, the hero in Prometheus, has concerned me. There again several male collectors have shared my concern as well.

Sure there may be times to be the "shrill harpy" to get your voice heard...but I'm not sure if that works well on this board. Just my opinion and observation. Many if not most of the men on this board are married, have daughters, sisters, etc... I would strike up a discussion that would appeal to that aspect of their lives when discussing women being objectified in movies or with figures and ask what their honest opinions are on it. There will be the jokesters...but I think many would give a thoughtful response.

But as you can see many of people took it as a personal attack, attack on all men, on all female images, etc. when my actual post was a critique of a single custom piece and the specific aesthetic it represents. Honestly I expected it would ignite more debate about East Asian versus Western attitudes, than any of the directions it went.

I even chopped the artist's name off the gif, because I did not want to focus on him personally, but rather the more general thought process behind such a piece.

I feel that if tried to appeal on a personal level as you suggest, it would have been even uglier based on what happened tonight.

I wrote something to Kamandi meant to encourage his daughters (whom he mentioned openly in his last post to me) to speak out, based on my personal experience as a woman in graduate school and the business world. This is what I wrote:

And maybe I just feel more comfortable expressing myself. I learned in grad school that [being] mousy gets you nowhere. Better to have a few people think you are a 'shrill harpy' than not speak up. Someone will ALWAYS have a problem with a woman speaking her mind. ALWAYS.

Google Anna Sarkeesian and the personal attacks she ignited my merely mentioning her intent to discuss misogynistic tropes in video games. That is the world your two girls face.

...But I admire your thoughtfulness vis-à-vis your daughters.

Please go look at the attacks on Anna Sarkeesian, everything from antisemitic comments to rape threats. Some clown even released a "game" called "Beat Up Anna Sarkeesian" where mouse clicks made it appear she had been physically assaulted. That ain't right.

Many women role models encourage speaking up and lots of academic studies have looked at the differing patterns and perception of women's speech. Yet even mentioning that otherwise uncontroversial reality is apparently "feckless victimhood" according to some:

Now you're telling Kamandi, and by implication other fathers of daughters, what kind of world our girls will be growing up in. My girls will know feckless victimhood when they see it, because neither of their parents will indulge it. They'll understand that "b-b-b-u-t I'm a poor widdle girl in this mean, howwible man's world" won't get them far.

So Jen, you cannot win with that sort of mentality. I wonder how LeJuan gets through the day with an uppity feminist Prime Minister at the helm of his country:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/julia-gillard-sexism-speech_n_1952231.html

So sure I could have toned down the sarcasm of my original post. Still the line about 'her not wanting to be friends' is the only one I could remove and feel my comments had not been bowlderised. But ultimately, the vast majority of the people fuming at me were people who already disliked me and my "feminist" views before last Friday evening.

 

[devilof76]

Sixmilliondollarmanguydudebudbro tells me to GTFO all the time.

And is there another 'Ayn Rand' type here besides me?

When it comes right down to it Victoria, I'm just hurt that you didn't like my ninja.

 

[Lejuan]

I wonder how LeJuan gets through the day with an uppity feminist Prime Minister at the helm of his country:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/julia-gillard-sexism-speech_n_1952231.html

Very easily, especially seeing as how I voted for her

And that was a brilliant speech. I hope you took the 15 minutes to watch it.

 

[Frank]

I just kinda find this whole thing fruitless. We're adults collecting toys. This hobby requires a sense of humor to start with and to suddenly start getting outraged at one of its more playful aspects is such a waste of time. Then you make assumptions as to the intent of the project. Would it be out of character for Natasha to get a little flirty in Stark's armor? Did he just want to see how believable he could make the armor fit a female buck? Aside from the man hands, I think he succeeded. It is neat from that aspect.

But no. It's always about men suppressing women. You're trained to see it everywhere like a tootsie roll commercial. Snap out of it!

 

[crows]

I have addressed specific issues in the past, which explains my "fan club". Most recently the odd volume of dismissive attitudes towards Elizabeth Shaw, the hero in Prometheus, has concerned me. There again several male collectors have shared my concern as well.
n

get over yourself.
Prometheus sucked anyways. The dumbest characters were two men, Elizabeth Shaw was the best thing of the movie...

 

[CelticPredator]

Get over yourself.

 

[crows]

so you don't say anything for 37 pages except that? I think I'm flattered.

 

[CelticPredator]

You shouldn't be.

I had no interest until now. I actually wrote up a reason why David and the Space Jockies are more interesting then Shaw as an image. But I accidentally hit the back button.

So I took it out on a cliched post that's been done far more times, then that movie has flaws.

 

[crows]

You shouldn't be.

I had no interest until now. I actually wrote up a reason why David and the Space Jockies are more interesting then Shaw as an image. But I accidentally hit the back button.

So I took it out on a cliched post that's been done far more times, then that movie has flaws.

I'm not really even talking about the movie, but Star Puffs martyr complex.

Elizabeth Shaw was for me the best thing about the movie, but she wants to even bring that in. I thought this was about a sexist statue but apparently not. I don't mean to talk about Prometheus though.

If you did post what you were going to post she would just say you are a woman hater so

 

[jstep13]

Sixmilliondollarmanguydudebudbro tells me to GTFO all the time.

And is there another 'Ayn Rand' type here besides me?

When it comes right down to it Victoria, I'm just hurt that you didn't like my ninja.

LMAO!!

 

[Blackthornone]

I think that if these sexy statues or figures is objectionable, that the making of these things isn't the real issue. The want of these dolls is really actually symptomatic of a deeper problem that getting rid of, or even restricting or censoring these statues is not going to do anything whatsoever to solve.

Star Puffs, you act as if these dolls are made out of disrespect, malice, and the desire to subjugate women, whereas the fact is that in the overwhelming majority of cases it it simply done because looking at the female form makes people happy.

The shape of a healthy woman's body is appealing to look at, for everyone, if they would just admit that, since it is one of the most magnificent creations on the planet.

The existence of sexy comic statues does not necessarily, indicate a conspiracy to subjugate or marginalize women at all.

I don't believe it indicates the subjugation of women at all in the case of Sideshow's stuff.
I think it exists in Japanese anime animal/human hybrids characters, though, but that is a direct reflection of the Japanese culture in particular, and NOT the genre of comic book/fantasy statues in general.

Even if a character is completely naked, it does not necessarily indicate a sexual motive, and it definitely does not necessarily indicate the subjugation of that character either.

When you are naked for the shower or bath, is your nudity necessarily sexual in nature? Does it mean you are in a position of being oppressed by men or anyone else? I wouldn't think so, to either question.
By the same token, just because an action figure or a statue is of a nude or scantily clad person does not necessarily mean that it's about exploitation of the gender depicted. If it always is, then that is in your HEAD, not in reality.

If you want to reduce people's happiness, or eliminate one more source of their happiness by crusading against the existence of nude or sexy female action figures or statues, then I would certainly hope that you are at least saintly in all of your pursuits of happiness, just to be somewhat consistent.

It isn't fair to project ideas or agendas about subjugating women because they like sexy action figures, statues, or any other form of art, and then to chastise them for it when those people don't value those ideas in the first place.
It is extremely unfair, and just a bit insulting, too.
Did that ever occur to you, at all?

You speak of the insult to women expressed by sexy art of women, by painting with such en exceedingly broad brush, but did you ever think of how insulting it is to other people to say that that they believe in oppressing women because they own sexy female action figures, when it isn't true at all????

Don't you think that making these unfounded accusations on other people for wanting to exploit and oppress women for liking sexy female art is just a bit oppressive or marginalizing, downright insulting and unfair?

You wonder why people here have acted so strongly to what you have said about these figures, and it is because you have insulted them with these unfair allegations,if not directly, then certainly by implication.

 

[occulum]

I wonder if she owns any clothing that displays cleavage??? ...

 

[CelticPredator]

I'll post a shorter version.

Most people remember two distinct images from Prometheus. The image of David. And the Space Jockey. Both of them come to mind almost immediately.

Shaw is a good character. But she isn't an iconic image.

Ripley, was an iconic image. Shaw is not.

So therefore, David and The Space Jockey should've been made over Shaw first. Nothing wrong with Shaw, they needed to make her. But they picked a character that isn't visually interesting

 

[crows]

I'll post a shorter version.

Most people remember two distinct images from Prometheus. The image of David. And the Space Jockey. Both of them come to mind almost immediately.

Shaw is a good character. But she isn't an iconic image.

Ripley, was an iconic image. Shaw is not.

So therefore, David and The Space Jockey should've been made over Shaw first. Nothing wrong with Shaw, they needed to make her. But they picked a character that isn't visually interesting

Well Neither David or the Engineers are humans, so I guess from the human characters Shaw was the least horrible, I mean from all the characters in the movie she was one of the least awful.

 

[hoodonit00]

I think that if these sexy statues or figures is objectionable, that the making of these things isn't the real issue. The want of these dolls is really actually symptomatic of a deeper problem that getting rid of, or even restricting or censoring these statues is not going to do anything whatsoever to solve.

Star Puffs, you act as if these dolls are made out of disrespect, malice, and the desire to subjugate women, whereas the fact is that in the overwhelming majority of cases it it simply done because looking at the female form makes people happy.

The shape of a healthy woman's body is appealing to look at, for everyone, if they would just admit that, since it is one of the most magnificent creations on the planet.

The existence of sexy comic statues does not necessarily, indicate a conspiracy to subjugate or marginalize women at all.

I don't believe it indicates the subjugation of women at all in the case of Sideshow's stuff.
I think it exists in Japanese anime animal/human hybrids characters, though, but that is a direct reflection of the Japanese culture in particular, and NOT the genre of comic book/fantasy statues in general.

Even if a character is completely naked, it does not necessarily indicate a sexual motive, and it definitely does not necessarily indicate the subjugation of that character either.

When you are naked for the shower or bath, is your nudity necessarily sexual in nature? Does it mean you are in a position of being oppressed by men or anyone else? I wouldn't think so, to either question.
By the same token, just because an action figure or a statue is of a nude or scantily clad person does not necessarily mean that it's about exploitation of the gender depicted. If it always is, then that is in your HEAD, not in reality.

If you want to reduce people's happiness, or eliminate one more source of their happiness by crusading against the existence of nude or sexy female action figures or statues, then I would certainly hope that you are at least saintly in all of your pursuits of happiness, just to be somewhat consistent.

It isn't fair to project ideas or agendas about subjugating women because they like sexy action figures, statues, or any other form of art, and then to chastise them for it when those people don't value those ideas in the first place.
It is extremely unfair, and just a bit insulting, too.
Did that ever occur to you, at all?

You speak of the insult to women expressed by sexy art of women, by painting with such en exceedingly broad brush, but did you ever think of how insulting it is to other people to say that that they believe in oppressing women because they own sexy female action figures, when it isn't true at all????

Don't you think that making these unfounded accusations on other people for wanting to exploit and oppress women for liking sexy female art is just a bit oppressive or marginalizing, downright insulting and unfair?

You wonder why people here have acted so strongly to what you have said about these figures, and it is because you have insulted them with these unfair allegations,if not directly, then certainly by implication.

Agreed with everything you said except your second sentence. I don't neccesarily think that there is some deeper problem that need fixed. In one of my responses I posted that I treat women with respect. I was responded to that I must be lying about that because I didn't stick up for her.

 

[hoodonit00]

I wonder if she owns any clothing that displays cleavage??? ...

My guess is that as long as she bought it it would be fine. If a boyfriend or husband bought it he would be a misogynist.

 

[Blackthornone]

Agreed with everything you said except your second sentence. I don't neccesarily think that there is some deeper problem that need fixed. In one of my responses I posted that I treat women with respect. I was responded to that I must be lying about that because I didn't stick up for her.

You are correct. I did not word that second sentence correctly. What I should have said that if these statues really are a problem, then the motivation to make them is the problem, and not the statues themselves.
As it happens, i don't think these statues are a problem.
The real problem is the motivations that some people have that Star Puffs is CLAIMING that people who make these statues have.
If there really was an issue with the statues themselves, it is the psychological issues like lack of happiness that needs to be compensated for, which the making of these statues is trying to ameliorate, and so the real issue would be trying to find a way for people to be naturally happy without any art in their lives.

This would be difficult for a lot of people, and calls for a perfect utopia which simply does not exist.

I like art forms as a way to inspire people and make them feel happier in spite of whatever problems they might have to deal with, and the notion that some types of art should be rallied against because of perceived but not actual injustice is unjust and unfair, because the people rallying against said art forms probably have other unethical habits or attitudes, either in combination or individually, that are just as bad as they claim these statues to be, except that they choose not to see how bad their own habits are.

Unless your habits are free of the more causative problems in the world, it is hypocritical to chastise others for theirs.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Wow.

If some of you put this much effort into solving everyday problems that actually affect society then we might be living in a wonderful world today.

Instead it's wasted here over a silly custom made dolly.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

I think that if these sexy statues or figures is objectionable, that the making of these things isn't the real issue. The want of these dolls is really actually symptomatic of a deeper problem that getting rid of, or even restricting or censoring these statues is not going to do anything whatsoever to solve.

What's the "deeper problem"?

Star Puffs, you act as if these dolls are made out of disrespect, malice, and the desire to subjugate women, whereas the fact is that in the overwhelming majority of cases it it simply done because looking at the female form makes people happy.

The shape of a healthy woman's body is appealing to look at, for everyone, if they would just admit that, since it is one of the most magnificent creations on the planet.

[...]

Even if a character is completely naked, it does not necessarily indicate a sexual motive, and it definitely does not necessarily indicate the subjugation of that character either.

When you are naked for the shower or bath, is your nudity necessarily sexual in nature? Does it mean you are in a position of being oppressed by men or anyone else? I wouldn't think so, to either question.
By the same token, just because an action figure or a statue is of a nude or scantily clad person does not necessarily mean that it's about exploitation of the gender depicted. If it always is, then that is in your HEAD, not in reality.

I actually disagree with this part, particularly in Western cultures ... where wearing clothing is SOP. I think it is a bit utopian to expect a red-blooded man to 'appreciate' a naked, or sexily clad, woman absent any sexual overtones.

There is a political movement trying to legalize public female toplessness that shares this utopian view. As if they're just going to prance down the street with their ****s out ... and men aren't going to notice. Reminds me of the shower scene in Starship Troopers. Fat chance.

With a few exceptions, nudity -- even run-of-the-mill nudity like showers or changing clothes -- when done in front of an audience of the opposite gender is inherently sexual. It isn't necessarily sexual when a woman is showering by herself ... but, a wife showering in view of her husband is, even if there's nothing explicitly sexual about it. Changing clothes by yourself isn't necessarily sexual ... changing clothes in front each other is functionally no different from flashing one another. It may not go anywhere ... but it isn't asexual.

I think the same can be said of conspicuously 'sexy' statues. I can't imagine how it would go anywhere ... but the male apprecation of the female form is rarely, if ever, asexual.

I do agree that it isn't "subjugation" though. People with a persecution complex will have no trouble finding persecution everywhere.

SnakeDoc