Sexism in Lego

[coronaking]

I recently noticed something on my female Lego minifigures and need a place to vent. If this topic already exists, I apologize (but I used the search and couldn't find anything similar).

It seems that for a while now female figures have a different kind of waist compared to the male (or neutral) ones. As you can see in the picture, all the figures have an unicoloured space at the edge that implies wider hips and smaller waistlines. Even figures that are modeled after licensed characters that aren't even supposed to be "sexy" - like Rey from Star Wars or the Scary Goth Girl from CMF series 12.

I'm sure the devoted Lego fans here already noticed, but I was really taken aback when I saw it a while ago. Can someone tell since when this is going on? Isn't the community bothered by this? I think it's quite sad that even little brick women are designed to have an hourglass shape that's not necessary at all for this kind of toy. There are more than enough toys that promote unhealthy body images.

I hope someone agrees.

(Not to mention the lack of female representation and the focus on the colour pink and stereotypical "girly" topics in some sets. But that can also get discussed here, of course!)

[Robert8]

I think it's made that way so we can tell apart male from female torsos. 

And not everyone female minifigure have the "curves"

---

I think it started around the same time they introduced the fleshies

There are even some fleshies without them

 

 

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all. I like them 

Edited November 5, 2016 by Robert8

[Eggyslav]

Come on dude, all grown up women have wider hips and smaller waistlines (not to mention the *cough* bigger breasts) than guys do, and that's not sexism, that's just biology, that's like complaining about reddish-brown skin on minifigs representing people of Afro-american descent, and calling it racist. Also, female minifigs have been this curvacious, since late 80's and 90's (mainly in Castle and Pirate themes), here are some examples:

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by Eggyslav

[Robert8]

Oh I forgot Willa the Witch

It's way older than the introduction of the fleshies then

[Peppermint_M]

NO. Nope no.

It isn't sexist to point out that women are a different shape to men. It is sexist to say a woman can't fight fires, or crime or do science or engineer or pilot planes/spaceships/giant robots.

Now, so far this year I have been able to purchase a female knight with a whacking great mace. A female ninja with a motorcycle. A woman in a smart business suit. A woman with boxing kit, an Ice Queen, a thief. I have a geologist/volcanologist, a firefighter and a police officer. There is an evil pirate woman, a bigfig who is a female character and two lava monsters.

So, that looks like women get to do plenty. 

Not meaning to rant, but as an lifelong FOL who is also female I get really fed up of this kind of thing. From media outlets, blogs and other fans... 

[AmperZand]

Excluding some national archetypes and licensed characters, I don't think there are any clean-shaven long-haired male minifigures, and not too many with moobs either. Is that sexist towards men? No, it isn't. It just helps differentiate the sexes. 

2014's Research Institute has three scientists, all of them female. The 2017 Police (City) sets have roughly equal numbers of male and female good guys (cops) but many more male bad guys (robbers). Those are just two of a myriad of examples proving that LEGO isn't sexist. In fact, LEGO is pretty politically 'correct'.

 

 

 

[Eggyslav]

Also, It's hilarious to me that you use Minifig version of Rey, REY, the most empowered, strong and independent female character in Star Wars saga  since Princess Leia (Padme doesn't count, at least the whiny, nagging housewife she was reduced to in The Revenge of the Sith), to prove you point, quote: 

1 hour ago, coronaking said:

lack of female representation and the focus on the colour pink and stereotypical "girly" topics in some sets.

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by Eggyslav

[coronaking]

Well, if I just get corrected - so be it. I didn't know that that also happened in the past. I couldn't find such waist printings on any of my older figures.

That doesn't make it a good or welcome detail in my eyes, though. Male (and neutral) figures are just angular blocks and females get needlessly slimmed to a stereotypical "feminine" shape. I still think this is really unnecessary. Especially when you want to highlight their talents, careers and other achievements and not their looks.

 

9 minutes ago, Eggyslav said:

Also, It's hilarious to me that you use Minifig Rey [...]

I just used her to show that waistline detail. Thought that was clear. Of course she (like other female hero minifigs) is not an example for "underrepresented strong women".

Also, AmperZand - wasn't the Research Institute a Lego Ideas build by a woman that was proposed because of the lack of female professionals in past sets? I'm glad that it got made, but it rather shows what was lacking in Lego than what they did on their own in terms of female empowerment.

Edited November 5, 2016 by coronaking

[Tariq j]

But that's not sexism - that's just the way the female body is. Lego aren't trying to slim female mini figures, they're not trying to make them look ridiculously thin either. 

[Eggyslav]

That's right, as I said earlier, the feminine shapes on a minifigure are a result of natural sexual dimorphism, and the curves aren't that pronounced, like for example in Barbie dolls, This is not a stereotype, this is just how an adult healthy woman looks like, no sexism here, just biology. Or, to put it more bluntely, If your mother didn't have wider hips, and was an angular block, as you put it, she would have a really, really hard time giving birth to you. Please, don't take this personal, I'm not trying to insult you, or your mother, i'm just stating a cold, hard fact, and you don't need a PHD in Anthropology or Medicine to know it...

Anyways, why don't just use Male torsos for your female minifigs, if some subtle feminine shapes bother you that much?

Edited November 5, 2016 by Eggyslav

[Boxerlego]

Lego Is Lego, Where do you get this Idea that Lego Is sexist?

[Karalora]

There is a slightly sexist ramification of the hourglass figure printing, in that it effectively designates the "standard" LEGO torso as male. Before the advent of this printing trick, any LEGO body could be equally considered male or female, and if anything it was hairstyle that marked the difference. Now female torsos are designated with a particular image, but male ones remain the standard trapezoid. It's an example of "male as default," which gets up the hackles of feminists such as myself (and presumably the OP).

It's not that the cinched-in look for minifigs exists, it's that all female minifigs are given the cinched-in look, even if the print otherwise suggests bulky clothing or a unisex uniform that would not accent a woman's figure. At the same time, it reduces the versatility of torsos--I remember people being annoyed that the Zookeeper CMF was given a noticeable waistline because they liked the design of her uniform but felt weird re-using it for male minifigs. And she is actually a fairly subtle example.

So yeah...in my perfect world, unless a female minifig was wearing skintight or very tailored clothing, she would get the same trapezoid as the guys. In the world we live in, it's only a minor annoyance, but I can see where the OP is coming from.

[Karalora]

6 minutes ago, Nathan734 said:

It seems like a visual cliché to use the hips negative space on female minifigures. I don't understand why that would be called sexist, though.

It's sexism in that it's treating the sexes differently when it's not necessarily warranted. Not all sexism is as severe as "get back in the kitchen" rhetoric.

[coronaking]

20 minutes ago, Karalora said:

In the world we live in, it's only a minor annoyance, but I can see where the OP is coming from.

Thank you very much, your posting sums the problem up very good!  (Maybe better than I can, but English is not my first language, so it's a bit hard to get my point across.)

I'm not saying "All Lego is sexist" or "Ban the waistline printing", that would be absurd. Such a highlighted form makes sense for characters that are supposed to be seductive or overly feminine - like Batman's Poison Ivy for example. It's just sad that is seems to be the default nowadays, for representations of licensed heroes and villains, scientists, office workers and everyday women alike. (And characters that aren't even supposed to be slim like Abby Yates from the new Ghostbusters.)

2 hours ago, Eggyslav said:

Anyways, why don't just use Male torsos for your female minifigs, if some subtle feminine shapes bother you that much?

Because it's not about my own collection. It's about how Lego decides to represent women.

Edited November 5, 2016 by coronaking

[dr_spock]

Sounds like "Does LEGO make female minifigures too sexy?" should be the topic.

You can use Brasso to remove the printing or make your own custom figs if LEGO's representation doesn't suit your needs or personal values.

 

 

 

[obsidianheart]

There's a lot of places that female figures show up without the waistline printing (construction, fire, police, etc.). Waistline printing, while it has been around for quite some time, has probably proliferated  to differentiate female characters as a result of the complaints that there wasn't enough female representation in LEGO sets. It's kind of one of those situations where someone will be offended no matter what action you take, even if you take no action. From observation here, it appears that LEGO finds itself in that position often

[Fuppylodders]

If I want a minifig to represent Darth Vader, then I expect him to LOOK like him in many aspects. If I want a minifig to represent a female, then I expect it to LOOK like it in many aspects. I don't want a 'generic' looking fig that you really have to squint at just to tell what it is supposed to be. 
Why are you not complaining how it is sexist that all the female hair styles are 'stereotypically' female? Or that they wear make up or have accentuated eye lashes? Not all females wear make up. Some men now wear make up. Lots of women have short hair similar style to a mans. Why are you not complaining of these things?
The accentuated waist is just *another* method to detail it as being a female as believe it or not, females do often have *curvier* waists than males do.
Karalora, it is NOT sexism at all. It IS warranted as it helps to identify the minifigs *clearly* as females. Take either one of the things away that I just mentioned that helps define a female minifig and you start to have a gender neutral fig. I and many others don't want gender neutral figs, but female figs that look female. If I want a 'butchy' looking female minifig, or a larger bodied female, Ill swap parts around to suit. That's the great thing with Lego, you can swap what you like around to achieve what you want.
So what about all the larger bodied people? Are they being discriminated against because they aren't being fairly represented in numbers of figs representing them?

Where does all this 'sexism/discrimination' ever end? Why can't people just get over it and let it be what it is. TLG are pretty good at catering to every thing, we now have disabled people too. Tey aren't intentionally doing it, and I'm pretty sure with all its female employees, are up to speed on the current status of discrimination...

Edited November 5, 2016 by Fuppylodders

[BrickJagger]

2 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

If I want a minifig to represent Darth Vader, then I expect him to LOOK like him in many aspects. If I want a minifig to represent a female, then I expect it to LOOK like it in many aspects. I don't want a 'generic' looking fig that you really have to squint at just to tell what it is supposed to be. 
Why are you not complaining how it is sexist that all the female hair styles are 'stereotypically' female? Or that they wear make up or have accentuated eye lashes? Not all females wear make up. Some men now wear make up. Lots of women have short hair similar style to a mans. Why are you not complaining of these things?
The accentuated waist is just *another* method to detail it as being a female as believe it or not, females do often have *curvier* waists than males do.
Karalora, it is NOT sexism at all. It IS warranted as it helps to identify the minifigs *clearly* as females. Take either one of the things away that I just mentioned that helps define a female minifig and you start to have a gender neutral fig. I and many others don't want gender neutral figs, but female figs that look female. If I want a 'butchy' looking female minifig, or a larger bodied female, Ill swap parts around to suit. That's the great thing with Lego, you can swap what you like around to achieve what you want.
So what about all the larger bodied people? Are they being discriminated against because they aren't being fairly represented in numbers of figs representing them?

Where does all this 'sexism/discrimination' ever end? Why can't people just get over it and let it be what it is. TLG are pretty good at catering to every thing, we now have disabled people too. Tey aren't intentionally doing it, and I'm pretty sure with all its female employees, are up to speed on the current status of discrimination...

Exactly this. This thread is ridiculous. 

[coronaking]

Wow, sorry if I hit a nerve here. As I said I used the search engine to see if that issue has been discussed before. I didn't find anything, so I thought I could start a discussion about female representation (maybe with a title that sounded too extreme - as mentioned, English isn't my first language).

If you all have been through this a hundred times, by all means, show me the old threads. But after one person describing the issue and only one other person agreeing, statements like "Where does it end?" and "Why can't people get over it?" seem disproportionate and don't make sense to me. And of course printed waistlines aren't the only issue, it was just a thing I noticed as part of a bigger problem. Pointing out that there might be other issues doesn't make the current one disappear, though.

[koalayummies]

What about Lego making different special sets for girls. Lego standard mini figures have made great strides in combatting the sexism claims in their regular sets, female construction workers, police officers, pilots, boxers etc, they're no longer relegated to the kitchen or shopping. But Paradisa, Belville and Friends lines still fuel the Lego gender issue fire.

http://thinkingbrickly.blogspot.com/2012/01/lego-gender-gap.html

Edited November 5, 2016 by koalayummies

[zoth33]

I don't understand why people keep bringing this up as an issue.  Barbie was the same size for years until someone felt offended by it.  It seems nowadays anything people do or say offends someone in some capacity.  Lego is a company that makes toys for girls,boys,and even adults.  I think we need to remember that Lego is a toy and a creative one at that. Use your imagination like when you were a kid and have fun people.  Toys are meant to be fun like these forums are.

[Dazz]

Well, I don't see the issue here as the average woman has a body shape different from the average man. I'm sure most people into LEGO like having the choice between body parts (heads, torsos, hair pieces) representing different sexes. If minifigures representing women weren't recognizable as women people would demand that LEGO offers female figures. So you can't please everyone I guess.

At least no one's noticing that LEGO obviously promotes unhealthy body images as all their minifigures are clearly obese.

[Mr Meleca]

2 hours ago, BrickJagger said:

Exactly this. This thread is ridiculous. 

2

[npgcole]

I'm not going to argue either way, but what if LEGO made something like this? It would save the trouble of printing the curves everytime.

http://www.firestartoys.com/Shop/Minifigure-Parts/Arealight-Curved-Torsos/7444-Arealight-Mini-Figure-Torso-~-Plain-~-Sand-Green.html

What do you think? Good idea or not?

[Jacob_9821]

I don't see what's sexist exactly.

Guys are pretty rectangular. 

Girls are pretty curvy.

Physically, men and women aren't equal. Typically, most women have breasts while men do not. I don't see why there needs to be bowlderization, or sensorship, of a simple biological fact for children's toys. Trying to make them equal (either making them all the same, no boobs, no hips, or giving all minifigs boobs and hips) just confuses children and is an irresponsible, inaccurate way to represent these characters. Wonder Woman has a pretty good reason to be physically fit, which includes having a small waist, because she fights crime like a badass. I don't see why having a way to differentiate between the two genders in a bad thing, I personally don't see a reason for a Slave Leia version of Darth Vader or a shirtless, muscular Leia.

On the sets like Friends, etc., Lego had tried to use minifigs in sets targeted towards girls for years. When they did, such as Paradisa, the sets were essentially a flop and have become collector items. Why? Girls didn't buy them. Now that Lego had appealed to girls, with lines like Friends, sales soared back in January. I also don't see how this is sexist, with Friends promoting Science, Math, Astronomy, emergency relief workers, etc. This isn't just done by Friends, but also Elves. However that line is complete fantasy, which has typically been associated with fat neckbeards playing Dungeons and Dragons. With Elves, Lego put out a product line that was atypical of who liked fantasy, and it turned out to be a success. In my opinion, we should congradulate this success rather than complaining women have boobs.

Overall, I find that Lego has done nothing more than have a basic, simple system for allowing kids to see the differences between if its a boy, or if its a girl. Lego has also been progressive by supporting young girls in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) fields where men dominate the field, as well as marketing traditionally male genres, like fantasy, as a female one.