Lego's Stance on Moral Issues

[LRDark]

"There are many misconceptions over what a geisha truly is because of the tumultuous past of artisans, prostitutes, and pleasure quarters in Japan. “The world of the geisha, the "flower and willow" world, are very separate societies that are shrouded in mystery. The myths that have been created by outsiders about the environment and the lifestyle of the geisha world have, for the most part, been able to grow unchecked. And because it is a very private, elite world, most people would be uncomfortable speaking about it”.

Prostitution was legal in Japan until 1958, which is another reason that people may be misinformed about geishas not offering sex to customers.[18] The two became especially confused after many of the professional prostitutes who catered to the occupying soldiers after World War II styled themselves as "geisha"; at a time when few true geisha were able to work, the counterfeit geisha usurped the meaning of the word in the eyes of many foreigners."

You've been usurped.

-Omi

Yes, because the points I made didn't actually happen, according to Wikipedia. Discount that. Please. Humour me.

[Omicron]

Yes, because the points I made didn't actually happen, according to Wikipedia. Discount that. Please. Humour me.

Well you won't be able to know, since geisha cannot talk about their society.

Hence foreigners bring out the misconceptions.

And I find it interesting how you are insisting that geisha are prostitutes. You are pretty much crapping all over Japanese culture.

-Omi

Edited May 9, 2012 by Omicron

[LRDark]

Well you won't be able to know, since geisha cannot talk about their society.

Hence foreigners bring out the misconceptions.

-Omi

Wow, what a lovely argument. The fact is, Wikipedia states that in the past, some geisha engaged in acts of prostitution.

[Omicron]

Wow, what a lovely argument. The fact is, Wikipedia states that in the past, some geisha engaged in acts of prostitution.

No actual proof of that, and it isn't part of their society.

And besides, everyone has sex.

-Omi

[LRDark]

No actual proof of that, and it isn't part of their society.

And besides, everyone has sex.

-Omi

Then there's no actual proof that the Series 4 Kimono Girl is a geisha. It is possibly just your misconception.

The article clearly states that it happened when geisha were first coming around. They used to engage in prostitution. Whether or not their current culture doesn't accept that makes no difference regarding the past.

I am going for the time being, but I shall be back later.

[Nagyzee]

I really don't appreciate you stating that my opinion is "dumb." As I said- don't agree with me if you wish, but frankly, saying that everyone assumes someone in a kimono is a geisha, or a prostitute, is rather racist. Is everyone in a kiffeyah a terrorist? You're the one insinuating something naughty with a traditional Japanese garb.

My mistake; you didn't call anything inappropriate, but it seems like you feel that the kimono girl is inappropriate in the terms of Lego standards, when it's clearly not.

I didn't call your opinion dumb. I said that you are playing dumb. And by that I mean that for the sake of your argument you deliberately and rather forcedly try to ignore that most everyone will associate the figure with a geisha and that TLG surely have taken that into account. They are not that ridiculously shortsighted to have missed that. So apparently they were okay with releasing a figure that to the average public looks like a geisha. It's simple logic really. (And my guess is that naming it Kimono Girl was not an attempt at making it a NON-geisha but stems simply from TLG favouring as generic names for their collectible minifigures as possible. See Grandma Visitor and Ocean King as recent examples.)

And it's not racist. It's stereotypical. When you have only seen kimonos and white makeup on geishas in popular films (/books, etc.) then you'll associate that look with a geisha when you see it.

[Omicron]

Then there's no actual proof that the Series 4 Kimono Girl is a geisha. It is possibly just your misconception.

The article clearly states that it happened when geisha were first coming around. They used to engage in prostitution. Whether or not their current culture doesn't accept that makes no difference regarding the past.

I'm not saying she is, but she may have been inspired by one.

And if you wanna talk about the past, then what about the other themes Lego has made which is known for its bad reputation? Like Vikings? The Western theme with the cowboys and indians? Pirates?

Pretty sure they are known for all the bad things.

-Omi

[LRDark]

I didn't call your opinion dumb. I said that you are playing dumb.

How is this not the same thing? I'm not playing anything; I'm giving you my honest opinions, and frankly, I find your notion quite rude.

And by that I mean that for the sake of your argument you deliberately and rather forcedly try to ignore that most everyone will associate the figure with a geisha and that TLG surely have taken that into account. They are not that ridiculously shortsighted to have missed that. So apparently they were okay with releasing a figure that to the average public looks like a geisha.

Your only arguments that I can recall are because it is viewed by others as a geisha. The point of me creating this thread is so that I can provide evidence for the stance that TLG is not hypocritical with these decisions. There is nothing about prostitution or geisha in this figure. You're adding that spin to that minifigure; don't blame TLG for your interpretations. It really doesn't affect their boundaries. You can provide any spin you'd like to any minifigure; you can see it in any way you'd like, be it habitual or forced interpretation. TLG wouldn't have anything left to produce given enough spin.

(And my guess is that naming it Kimono Girl was not an attempt at making it a NON-geisha but stems simply from TLG favouring as generic names for their collectible minifigures as possible. See Grandma Visitor and Ocean King as recent examples.)

Let's take a look, shall we, at these minifigures, and their names.

1. Tribal Hunter, Cheerleader, Circus Clown, Caveman, Zombie, Skater, Robot, Demolition Dummy, Magician, Super Wrestler, Nurse, Ninja, Spaceman, Forestman, Deep Sea Diver, Spaceman
   
2. Spartan Warrior, Lifeguard, Witch, Pop Star, Weight Lifter, Ring Master, Explorer, Karate Master, Surfer, Pharaoh, Vampire, Traffic Cop, Mime, Skier, Disco Dude, Maraca Man
   
3. Hula Dancer, Tribal Chief, Samurai Warrior, Tennis Player, Sumo Wrestler, Baseball Player, Fisherman, Elf, Rapper, Space Alien, Gorilla Suit Guy, Race Car Driver, Mummy, Snowboarder, Space Villain, Pilot
   
4. Artist, Crazy Scientist, Hazmat Guy, Hockey Player, Ice Skater, Kimono Girl, Lawn Gnome, The Monster, Musketeer, Punk Rocker, Sailor, Street Skater, Soccer Player, Surfer Girl, Viking, Werewolf
   
5. Boxer, Cavewoman, Detective, Egyptian Queen, Evil Dwarf, Fitness Instructor, Gangster, Gladiator, Graduate, Lizard Man, Lumberjack, Ice Fisherman, Royal Guard, Small Clown, Snowboarder Guy, Zookeeper
   
6. Bandit, Butcher, Classic Alien, Clockwork Robot, Genie, Flamenco Dancer, Highland Battler, Intergalactic Girl, Lady Liberty, Leprechaun, Mechanic, Minotaur, Roman Soldier, Skater Girl, Sleepyhead, Surgeon
   
7. Aztec Warrior, Bagpiper, Bride, Bunny Suit Guy, Computer Programmer, Daredevil, Evil Knight, Galaxy Patrol, Grandma Visitor, Hippie, Jungle Boy, Ocean King, Rocker Girl, Swimming Champion, Tennis Ace, Viking Woman
   

Now, let's see all of the ones that don't list a state of being, profession or hobby:

1. N/A
   
2. N/A
   
3. N/A
   
4. Kimono Girl
   
5. N/A
   
6. Sleepyhead
   
7. Bride, Grandma Visitor, Hippie
   

As you see, we're not let with much. Lego frequently used "races," if you don't mind a stretched term for this list, such as Elf, Caveman, Demolition Dummy, and Alien (19 altogether). Also removed were hobbies, like Tennis Ace and Maraca Man, in addition to professions (88 between Hobby and Profession).

Why is it that Lego used the term "Kimono Girl," rather than geisha, if roughly 78.6% of all the Collectable Minifigures are named strictly for their profession/hobby. Every other name is completely clear regarding what the Minifigure is. The ones left in the list above have nothing else to go by in terms of other labels. What does the Sleepyhead do for a living? What sport does the Hippie play? The Kimono Girl certainly falls into the category of these for me. There is nothing else remarkable about her. She's not on a skateboard. She's not wielding a sword. She's showing no signs of a profession or hobby, other than what it states in her official biography. She's wearing a Kimono, hence her name. With all of the other professions explicitly mentioned, she could've easily been labeled "Geisha," but she isn't.

And it's not racist. It's stereotypical. When you have only seen kimonos and white makeup on geishas in popular films (/books, etc.) then you'll associate that look with a geisha when you see it.

Might I suggest that you look up traditional Japanese women? Various cultures have traditional dress, and, in this case, it is shared with, but not limited to, geisha.

I'm not saying she is, but she may have been inspired by one.

And if you wanna talk about the past, then what about the other themes Lego has made which is known for its bad reputation? Like Vikings? The Western theme with the cowboys and indians? Pirates?

Pretty sure they are known for all the bad things.

-Omi

I've never said that she couldn't have been inspired by one. In fact, I believe in one of my earlier posts I recognized that it could very well have been the case. This does not mean that it was the case. The only evidence we have to go by has already been listed. She wears a kimono and has a white face; that's not anything to go by, as it was traditional garb.

Now, on to the subject of the past. Here's what TLG has to say that it won't accept that will matter with this argument:

• Death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture
  
• Warfare or war vehicles in any situation post-WWII to present
  

I don't believe Vikings, Western, or Pirates falls into any of these categories. None of them are present warfare, as I feel there are aspects of armies in these lines, like the Cavalry and the Redcoats. Also, there is no actual death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture involved in these original themes. There are no hangmen, there are no gallows, there are no corpses aside from skeletons. There are prisons in all three of the lines you mentioned to house the bad guys. The Western sets didn't even feature the cavalry in any Native sets; they were simply focusing on the culture of the Natives, and the laws of the land without ever crossing the two. The only violence really featured in these lines that I can see any real issue with lies within the sets of the Vikings. Here we have: Fafnir, Nidhogg, Jormungund, Fenris, and other such creatures, attacking and being attacked by our vikings. I feel that this is a quite safe line, as these are historical (in terms of Lego) encounters against fantastical creatures. The child understands that Fafnir won't swoop down in the middle of the night to steal his riches.

Edited May 10, 2012 by LRDark

[Nagyzee]

Your only arguments that I can recall are because it is viewed by others as a geisha. The point of me creating this thread is so that I can provide evidence for the stance that TLG is not hypocritical with these decisions. There is nothing about prostitution or geisha in this figure. You're adding that spin to that minifigure; don't blame TLG for your interpretations. It really doesn't affect their boundaries. You can provide any spin you'd like to any minifigure; you can see it in any way you'd like, be it habitual or forced interpretation. TLG wouldn't have anything left to produce given enough spin.

I know it's a bit low to resort to this but I'll have to pull an argumentum ad Hitlerum on you to most clearly show the weak point in your reasoning. By the same logic TLG could create a Hitler-lookalike minifigure and name it Onkel Horst and then it would be your fault for interpreting it as Hitler. I used the most ridiculous example on purpose so that maybe you realize the flaw in your argument but I could have used milder ones, too. You can't get around common perception/interpretation by "we named and intended it to be something else, silly you that you can't get your head around this". Companies have to and do take into account common perception that's probably one of the reasons why TLG judges its hugely popular licenses with a lighter hand than for example Firefly.

Might I suggest that you look up traditional Japanese women? Various cultures have traditional dress, and, in this case, it is shared with, but not limited to, geisha.

Oh, I had a good enough education, I'm not an idiot. Still first I'd associate this figure with a geisha upon first look, and all the other interpretations would come afterwards. (They would, but they wouldn't be my first thought.)

Now, on to the subject of the past. Here's what TLG has to say that it won't accept that will matter with this argument:

Death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture

Warfare or war vehicles in any situation post-WWII to present

I don't believe Vikings, Western, or Pirates falls into any of these categories. None of them are present warfare, as I feel there are aspects of armies in these lines, like the Cavalry and the Redcoats. Also, there is no actual death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture involved in these original themes.

The non-acceptance of 'death, killing, blood...' is not linked to present warfare. And in their licensed lines they have already made several scenes into sets in which people are killed, seriously injured and deformed and so on. Just sayin'.

Anyhow I'm out of this debate since we are going around in circles and to me your walls of text are a bit over the top / too pushy / whatever. Apologies.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Nagyzee

[Lyichir]

Wow, what a lovely argument. The fact is, Wikipedia states that in the past, some geisha engaged in acts of prostitution.

Bolded for emphasis. Perhaps some geisha engaged in acts of prostitution. Well, so do some college students. And some businesswomen. If the Kimono Girl is meant to be a geisha (and I do believe she is), that in no way suggests that there is anything about the fig that goes against LEGO's guidelines. I reckon the reason LEGO used the term Kimono Girl was probably to avoid controversy like the debate going on here: Geisha are misunderstood in the west, and the western understanding of the term is often very different than its actual traditional meanings.

I'm surprised by what a fuss people here are making over LEGO's purported "double-standard". On the other LEGO fansite I participate regularly on, BZPower, fans are much more understanding of the reasoning behind LEGO's decisions. It may be because members there skew closer to the target age range LEGO describes. As such, they're often more in touch with both modern kids and modern parents (Yes, I know that many AFOLs here are parents, but having a parent who shares your LEGO interest is the exception rather than the norm).

Personally, I can understand LEGO's justification for both projects which have failed review, and think it's no stretch to take their explanations at face value. And I'm glad they've put these guidelines out for the sake of future Cuusoo proposals. This is one of the many steps which will help to bring Cuusoo out of its beta stages and make it into a fully-developed service.

[natesroom]

Bolded for emphasis. Perhaps some geisha engaged in acts of prostitution. Well, so do some college students. And some businesswomen. If the Kimono Girl is meant to be a geisha (and I do believe she is), that in no way suggests that there is anything about the fig that goes against LEGO's guidelines. I reckon the reason LEGO used the term Kimono Girl was probably to avoid controversy like the debate going on here: Geisha are misunderstood in the west, and the western understanding of the term is often very different than its actual traditional meanings.

I'm surprised by what a fuss people here are making over LEGO's purported "double-standard". On the other LEGO fansite I participate regularly on, BZPower, fans are much more understanding of the reasoning behind LEGO's decisions. It may be because members there skew closer to the target age range LEGO describes. As such, they're often more in touch with both modern kids and modern parents (Yes, I know that many AFOLs here are parents, but having a parent who shares your LEGO interest is the exception rather than the norm).

Personally, I can understand LEGO's justification for both projects which have failed review, and think it's no stretch to take their explanations at face value. And I'm glad they've put these guidelines out for the sake of future Cuusoo proposals. This is one of the many steps which will help to bring Cuusoo out of its beta stages and make it into a fully-developed service.

yeah i would rather the discussion be moved back on topic as opposed to theis offshoot while having some merita has added 2 whole pages of text which i've read and agree after all those points with your interpretation now.

Moral Stance is a good discussionary topic which i think goes back to the ultimate question:

By what standards are they defining their "Moral Stance"? If its american worldly standards by 2020 Lego will be building a Lego city set with a family house for Jack and John and their children.

[LRDark]

I know it's a bit low to resort to this but I'll have to pull an argumentum ad Hitlerum on you to most clearly show the weak point in your reasoning. By the same logic TLG could create a Hitler-lookalike minifigure and name it Onkel Horst and then it would be your fault for interpreting it as Hitler. I used the most ridiculous example on purpose so that maybe you realize the flaw in your argument but I could have used milder ones, too. You can't get around common perception/interpretation by "we named and intended it to be something else, silly you that you can't get your head around this". Companies have to and do take into account common perception that's probably one of the reasons why TLG judges its hugely popular licenses with a lighter hand than for example Firefly.

Hitler is by no means what the German peoples looked like. When I think of Germany, I don't think of Hitler; when I think of Japan, I think of kimonos. The common perception of Japan is the way they dress- the traditional garb is the kimono. Lego took this opportunity to provide a traditional Japanese woman. They took into account what the Japanese wear.

Oh, I had a good enough education, I'm not an idiot. Still first I'd associate this figure with a geisha upon first look, and all the other interpretations would come afterwards. (They would, but they wouldn't be my first thought.)

Again, that is your interpretation. You're putting a profession on a traditional garb.

The non-acceptance of 'death, killing, blood...' is not linked to present warfare. And in their licensed lines they have already made several scenes into sets in which people are killed, seriously injured and deformed and so on. Just sayin'.

And yet they have never, ever done it in a real environment like Shaun of the Dead would be. It has always had a fantastical or historical context, and they never have the actual act of death or blood. No gallows. No executioner. No fresh corpses.

Anyhow I'm out of this debate since we are going around in circles and to me your walls of text are a bit over the top / too pushy / whatever. Apologies.

How am I being pushy? I'm simply explaining myself in the way I know how. I'm giving you my reasonings instead of saying things like "you're playing dumb." You can't discount your view isn't everyone's view; as I've said, I'm just giving reasonings why TLG could've made their decisions. I'm tired or reading all of the "well they're definitely lying and they're definitely hypocrites." I'm here to do nothing more.

yeah i would rather the discussion be moved back on topic as opposed to theis offshoot while having some merita has added 2 whole pages of text which i've read and agree after all those points with your interpretation now.

Moral Stance is a good discussionary topic which i think goes back to the ultimate question:

By what standards are they defining their "Moral Stance"? If its american worldly standards by 2020 Lego will be building a Lego city set with a family house for Jack and John and their children.

I am really tired of this as well; I was really hoping for a serious discussion of their actual posted standards

I am interested in hearing thoughts about this is well! It seems to be things to keep the general public content. I can understand just about any reason as to why they've gone against most of their standards, not that I agree with them, but it seems like those give them the most options with offending the least amount of people. More "bang for your buck," as it were. As someone said (in another thread, I think?), the White House and Lady Liberty could offend someone who sees it as Lego supporting America an its government; the Ark of the Covenant in the Indiana Jones line is an obvious religious artifact; most of the films they've licensed had swearing, smoking, and/or sexual undertones; there was definite killing in those same films; PETA wouldn't even want to see the animals in the regular sets, at least as pets Those all have their supporters of why that's against their standards. That doesn't mean that those supporters are necessarily correct, in terms of Lego's point of view.

I'm sure that that, in time, Lego will adopt new standards, even if it's only upping the "Warfare" policy from WWII to Korean. I don't think they're going to back themselves into any "unnecessary" additions such as modern robbers with guns, however. A crowbar works just fine

[LEGOman273]

By the same logic TLG could create a Hitler-lookalike minifigure and name it Onkel Horst and then it would be your fault for interpreting it as Hitler.

They did.

[natesroom]

Haha Heil...very funny!

[LRDark]

They did.

I was thinking of that face as well.

[Hrw-Amen]

I have to admit that I found the Pharohs Quest sets a little off putting. When I heard of them I was just getting interested in LEGO again and the thought of getting some good representations of those old gods and religious buildings in LEGO was quite interesting.

However I soon discovered that the potential of these sets were ruined by the fact that the gods were being attacked by evil human adventurers / grave robbers. All quite offensive. I mean would they make a set where people were attacking a church / mosque or digging up a christian graveyard and destroying religious icons? Just to say it is historical is no excuse as that can be said for most religions around today. The thing is they could have made some really interesting sets with some historical conflict which would have been better but instead they choose to cheapen it.

[LRDark]

I have to admit that I found the Pharohs Quest sets a little off putting. When I heard of them I was just getting interested in LEGO again and the thought of getting some good representations of those old gods and religious buildings in LEGO was quite interesting.

However I soon discovered that the potential of these sets were ruined by the fact that the gods were being attacked by evil human adventurers / grave robbers. All quite offensive. I mean would they make a set where people were attacking a church / mosque or digging up a christian graveyard and destroying religious icons? Just to say it is historical is no excuse as that can be said for most religions around today. The thing is they could have made some really interesting sets with some historical conflict which would have been better but instead they choose to cheapen it.

I can definitely see the arguments here, as with the Vikings line (though the Vikings weren't robbing the creatures). I think the difference, in the eyes of Lego, is that these are "old world" religions where as a mosque or church are still for the beliefs of "modern" people. They're not doing anything to promote the "old" gods, although I can't argue against the grave robbing. I think, had they done a Christian or Islamic line, people would be furious over the representation of their ideas, whereas with Vikings, and the Norse faith, those that decide to believe in Jormungund are generally knowledgeable to see the difference. Not to say all, of course, but a good portion of persons that follow the "Old" religions came about it in their own way instead of being raised with such teachings. I don't want this to lead into a discussion about religion, though, in terms of right/wrong I agree, it's a little off-putting for me as well, but I understand where Lego might be coming from I would really love to see a historical theme on some of these lines that are accurate to the T (with maybe accurate mythology/theology thrown in), but I can understand why that doesn't appeal to the children

[Nagyzee]

Hitler is by no means what the German peoples looked like. When I think of Germany, I don't think of Hitler; when I think of Japan, I think of kimonos. The common perception of Japan is the way they dress- the traditional garb is the kimono. Lego took this opportunity to provide a traditional Japanese woman. They took into account what the Japanese wear.

Again, that is your interpretation. You're putting a profession on a traditional garb.

I really didn't want to answer but this got me worked up a bit. It's not my interpretation. Have you ever bothered to do a Google search for 'Lego geisha'? I rest my case.

[LRDark]

I really didn't want to answer but this got me worked up a bit. It's not my interpretation. Have you ever bothered to do a Google search for 'Lego geisha'? I rest my case.

It is your interpretation, along with a whole lot of other peoples interpretations. Lego supplies a figure in a kimono.

[Nagyzee]

It is your interpretation, along with a whole lot of other peoples interpretations. Lego supplies a figure in a kimono.

*smashes head into the wall*

Okay, I'll go and have a chat with Zuzu Petals instead.

[LRDark]

*smashes head into the wall*

Okay, I'll go and have a chat with Zuzu Petals instead.

What about this is frustrating you? This thread is about Lego's standards. Someone brought up a point about there being a "Geisha" minifigure; something that people associate with prostitution. In no way, shape, or form has Lego ever backed this up. She is the "Kimono Girl." She wears a kimono. She has a white face. Both of those are incredibly common traditional features. She has a biography relating to writing haiku poetry. Nothing about this is going against what Lego identifies as their standards. They shouldn't be barred from making traditional garb because some people view it as the garb of a prostitute. There is nothing wrong or hypocritical about having the Kimono Girl in Series 4.

[lightningtiger]

They did.

Hey everyone it's Mel Brooks !

Now this talk about one minifig has thrown the topic right off track, has anyone considered that the female character in question could be the Samurai Warrior's wife ?

Lego's thinking is that kids with take all these minifigs and build their own period buildings, or what ever to go with them.

So take the samurai, the kimono girl(should be woman) then take a stack of Ninjago parts and build a period house with gardens - then presto a period Japanese scene.

Sometimes as adults take a toy too seriously, Lego is balancing their principals with what children want....or be that marketing people thinking what children want (sometimes a huge fail).

[Omicron]

Now, on to the subject of the past. Here's what TLG has to say that it won't accept that will matter with this argument:

• Death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture
  
• Warfare or war vehicles in any situation post-WWII to present
  

I don't believe Vikings, Western, or Pirates falls into any of these categories.

I'm talking sex, drugs, alcohol, and killing.

-Omi

[LRDark]

I'm talking sex, drugs, alcohol, and killing.

-Omi

In terms of Pirates, Western, and Vikings? If so: all historical, so we can toss alcohol out (for shame). No sex or drugs are advertised in any of the sets from these lines in any way. Again, there is no killing in any of these lines either. The military is allowed (Cavalry/Redcoats), and they use prisons. There is no death shown of any kind.

Edited May 10, 2012 by LRDark

[Omicron]

In terms of Pirates, Western, and Vikings? If so: all historical, so we can toss alcohol out (for shame). No sex or drugs are advertised in any of the sets from these lines in any way. Again, there is no killing in any of these lines either. The military is allowed (Cavalry/Redcoats), and they use prisons. There is no death shown of any kind.

You're not getting the correlation here.

You're saying they didn't name Kimono Girl as Geisha because of the geisha's "associotion" with the prostitution, which occured in the past.

I'm saying that is bull, because they made sets based on eras in which prostitution, slavery, drug/alcohol trafficking, and even killing occured. Vikings are widely known for their "raping and pillaging", even though that barbaric notion is a misconception (just like geisha being prostitutes is a misconception), but it's still there and they made those sets.

-Omi