Sexism in Lego

[Peppermint_M]

Here, here, here three threads that have already brought up issues that are then stretched out into every issue one can come up with in regards to gender and LEGO.

I too consider myself a feminist, but I must be on a less shirty spot in the spectrum as I am absolutely loving all the current minifigures that allow females to do what they want and look like women while they do it, instead of gender neutral blocks. I grew up wishing for a way to make more girl figures so that they could populate my MOCs. Now I have more than I'd ever dreamed!

As mentioned in an earlier post, LEGO are damned if they do and damned if they don't. "Not enough women in sets!" turns into "Why do these figures look like women? I am angry!"

If figures had remained utterly neutral then they would be criticised for being old fashioned or ignoring diversity. 

-*-

I'd like to post as a note also: I displayed at Comic/Geek Cons recently. Many of my MOCs had female figures, in fact, if you don't count the empty Batsuits in the Batcave, I had more women than men on the table. Boy and Girls, Men and Women, Fathers, Mothers, Daughters, Sons were all equally enchanted. They were just as likely to get excited by the Batcave as they were the stone circle with a Disney Princesses Merida figure in. Not one boy told me that an adventurer car should have a man driving not a woman. Not one girl said it either. In fact, no one seemed too concerned that I, a woman, had built everything. They commented more on the potential size of my LEGO collection, the length of time I had been collecting and building, transporting the builds to the event and the details I had included. It was a refreshing experience to see what people on the street and not the rather "involved" fans think.

[Gnac]

1 hour ago, Jacob_9821 said:

Guys are pretty rectangular

I'm built like a tall egg with limbs, so I'm pretty happy about mah shape being represented in the Angry Birds sets

[Bricknblue]

This reminds me of a pin I have.

'Just because you are offended, doesn't make you right.'

Sexism is when LEGO used to not include any female cops, construction workers, scientists, all of which I think have no waist printing.

 

[Karalora]

3 hours ago, Jacob_9821 said:

Guys are pretty rectangular. 

Girls are pretty curvy.

Physically, men and women aren't equal.

Neither one, however, is trapezoidal. If that shape suffices for one it should suffice for the other.

Let me try a different tack. How would you guys feel if, after years of the "neutral" appearance, every male minifig started to be depicted with noticeable pecs/sixpack, maybe a little chest hair peeking out of the collar area? Maybe you assume you'd be fine with it. And maybe you would--it's unlikely that this would ever be put to the test, since male is treated as the default, and female as the oddity that needs a special marking. But it might be worth keeping in mind that we women do not see ourselves as an oddity, and the fact that the makers of media and toys nearly always feel the need to highlight the femaleness of female characters sometimes makes us feel like we can't just be people.

And honestly? The defensiveness of most of the commenters in this thread is a bit eyebrow-raising. From where I sit, coronaking and I have been nothing but reasonable, and folks are acting like we accused TLG of writing policy for the Taliban. Why the freakout, guys?

[Fuppylodders]

6 hours ago, coronaking said:

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.

Its not just referring to Lego specifically (although I have seen a similar argument about the Friends line separating target audiences by gender when Lego should be a gender neutral toy where society as a majority discern it to be not...

I'm just a bit like 'why do people have to find something to be offended about that is so miniscule, actually irrelevant to discrimination purely because biologically as a matter of fact, not opinion, women DO have  curvier waists than guys in general. Men don't have 'birthing hips', women do.  TLG  clearly chose this clearly biological difference as a reference for people to be able to differentiate female figs from male figs.

 

So you tell me what would make the perfect female fig, because I can guarantee right now I will 100% be able to pick it to pieces as being sexism purely using your style of opinion on it. 

And that right there is the problem. Nowadays it's too easy to claim sexism when it's actually just not there. 

37 minutes ago, Karalora said:

Neither one, however, is trapezoidal. If that shape suffices for one it should suffice for the other.

.

And honestly? The defensiveness of most of the commenters in this thread is a bit eyebrow-raising. From where I sit, coronaking and I have been nothing but reasonable, and folks are acting like we accused TLG of writing policy for the Taliban. Why the freakout, guys?

Eyebrow raising? Acting like TLG have been writing policy for the Taliban?  

Exaggerating much?

It's not a freakout, it's because as a whole, people are fed up of others picking holes and claiming sexism on every corner of opportunity.  

As I said, you tell me how you would differentiate a female fig (and, let's throw in a male fig, just to balance the 'sexism and default sex' issue) and I'll point out how it's sexism using your style of view, resulting in it being impossible to create 2 opposite gendered figs without apparent sexism being evident.

[moschino]

13 hours ago, coronaking said:

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

 

You said this is an unnecessarily representation. If I agree with that, then the mustache, the beard, the hair and many others are unnecessarily too.

I think this solves the solution. Here is no sexism at all and no racism. No blue or brown eyes. No blonde or red hair.

In this set there's nothing sexist.

 

Some years ago, there was a petition to introduce these torsos to Lego and TLG refused it arguing there's too much detail and because Lego is for kids, they don't want to represent women like that. Kids shouldn't associate women with humans with such large breasts and that would be sexism. Somehow they said this will never happen and breasts are not something to represent the women in toys for kids. However, you are upset for Lego representing a basic shape which is just something real and somehow you're upset the female body is not the same with the man body. Otherwise I see no reason to be upset for that printing which represent the female waist.

Edited November 6, 2016 by moschino

[Karalora]

1 hour ago, Fuppylodders said:

As I said, you tell me how you would differentiate a female fig (and, let's throw in a male fig, just to balance the 'sexism and default sex' issue) and I'll point out how it's sexism using your style of view, resulting in it being impossible to create 2 opposite gendered figs without apparent sexism being evident.

Well, if you'll review my posts, you'll notice that I said I have no issue whatsoever with the cinched-in look on female minifigs who are depicted wearing tight or well-tailored clothing, Those are the sorts of outfits where the female figure is noticeable in real life, so it makes sense on minifigs as well. Where it gets odd is cases like this torso, which represents bulky Arctic survival gear but nonetheless has a visible waistline.

As for differentiating female minifigs without an hourglass figure print, there's always the, you know, face. Adult female minifigs tend to have visible lips and eyelashes, even if their hair is short or obscured. I am completely okay with that; a glance at an adult's face is usually enough to tell whether they are presenting as male or female, and although the differences are subtler than obvious makeup, on something as simplified as a minifig they have to be more defined.

Pick away, if you like.

[Jacob_9821]

1 hour ago, Karalora said:

Neither one, however, is trapezoidal. If that shape suffices for one it should suffice for the other.

Let me try a different tack. How would you guys feel if, after years of the "neutral" appearance, every male minifig started to be depicted with noticeable pecs/sixpack, maybe a little chest hair peeking out of the collar area? Maybe you assume you'd be fine with it. And maybe you would--it's unlikely that this would ever be put to the test, since male is treated as the default, and female as the oddity that needs a special marking. But it might be worth keeping in mind that we women do not see ourselves as an oddity, and the fact that the makers of media and toys nearly always feel the need to highlight the femaleness of female characters sometimes makes us feel like we can't just be people.

And honestly? The defensiveness of most of the commenters in this thread is a bit eyebrow-raising. From where I sit, coronaking and I have been nothing but reasonable, and folks are acting like we accused TLG of writing policy for the Taliban. Why the freakout, guys?

It's a pretty petty point to complain about a simple analogy, which you seem to have missed the point of. The point simply was, there are physical differences between the two genders. 

When did I ever say that men were the standard? You act as if the people depicted as minifigures are done entirely wrong because there's a an especially fit minifigure for a fit character. Why do you act like men are the one standard? There will be marketing directly for girls, there will be marketing for guys and there will be marketing for both. Men don't buy tampons and women don't buy viagra. Obviously this will lead to commercials for just women about tampons and commercials for just men about viagra. Point is, there are differences and there is no "standard."

Men aren't going to have a six pack normally, that's something you work towards. But you seem to be missing a simple biological fact; women have breasts regardless of weight (Or effort to stay thin), while men only develop breasts or "man boobs" through obesity. 

There's no reason why a company shouldn't use biological features to make their toys look a certain gender depending on the character. If Han Solo is a man his minifigure should be identifiable as a man without prior knowledge to him being a guy. Same thing for Leia, she should be identifiable as a woman right out of the gate.

You're acting as if this is some issue about objectification, which in some cases would be true; but not the important ones anyway. Every woman has breasts, every man (at least they shouldn't) doesn't. Minifigures are not given extreme features in most cases, such as extremely large breasts or muscles, unless the figure calls for it. In this case, that's only been done with shirtless buff dudes from the Indian Jones line (could be more, it's the only example I can recall). But there's no real issue with that because the actor was buff and it was an accurate representation. As accurate as a caracature of a person could be in toy form anyway. 

I'm also confused as to what you would want the Lego group to do to make women "more realistic" but also allowing children to tell males and females a part from each other. Simple fact is, some people have boobs and others don't. I do not see an issue with that difference being depicted, but extreme exaggerations are pretty bad. 

 

[danth]

15 hours ago, Karalora said:

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).

I think all the people who think there's no problem need to read the above. Then read it again. And again. It makes a lot of sense once it sinks in. 

[Karalora]

1 hour ago, Jacob_9821 said:

It's a pretty petty point to complain about a simple analogy, which you seem to have missed the point of. The point simply was, there are physical differences between the two genders.

And there are even greater physical differences between a human and a trapezoid, but we're all okay with plain trapezoids representing one half of humanity, but not the other half. Why is that?

 

Quote

When did I ever say that men were the standard?

You didn't say that. You didn't have to--it's a society-wide assumption.

Quote

You act as if the people depicted as minifigures are done entirely wrong because there's a an especially fit minifigure for a fit character.

Point out where I said that, please?

Quote

There will be marketing directly for girls, there will be marketing for guys and there will be marketing for both. Men don't buy tampons and women don't buy viagra. Obviously this will lead to commercials for just women about tampons and commercials for just men about viagra.

What does this have to do with the design of minifigs?

Quote

But you seem to be missing a simple biological fact; women have breasts regardless of weight.

Not always very noticeable ones, especially when wearing clothes that tend to obscure them.

Quote

There's no reason why a company shouldn't use biological features to make their toys look a certain gender depending on the character.

If you like. But then why not be more even-handed about it? Most women have visible boobs and waistlines. Most men have shoulders noticeably broader than their waists and hips. Let's start seeing some negative space on male minifigs to reflect that!

If that strikes you as ridiculous, you might do well to ask yourself why.

Quote

You're acting as if this is some issue about objectification

Fella, if I want to talk about objectification, I will dang well use the word "objectification."

Quote

Every woman has breasts,

I know some cancer survivors who would beg to differ. Extreme example, maybe, and probably one LEGO has no intentions of addressing, but let's watch the absolutist statements, hm?

And just because a woman has breasts and a narrow waist doesn't mean they will always be noticeable. Here's a great example:

Spoiler

You could Photoshop a dude's head in place of hers, and most people would believe it was a skinny guy. Because what she's wearing does not accentuate the shape of her body at all. All I'm saying is that minifigs in similarly baggy or obscuring clothing be handled similarly.

Quote

I'm also confused as to what you would want the Lego group to do to make women "more realistic" but also allowing children to tell males and females a part from each other.

Then you're not reading my entire posts. I addressed this in the last one.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Karalora

[Artanis I]

2 hours ago, danth said:

I think all the people who think there's no problem need to read the above. Then read it again. And again. It makes a lot of sense once it sinks in. 

Agreed. Is the male human torso shape the default standard? Are females some kind of mutant? Is that what having male minifigs with a trapezoid torso yet females with slim waist printing is saying to us? I'm sure it isn't intentional though.

[Actor Builder]

"Most men have shoulders noticeably broader than their waists and hips. Let's start seeing some negative space on male minifigs to reflect that!

If that strikes you as ridiculous, you might do well to ask yourself why."

 

That's ridiculous. Because LEGO shoulders are inherently more narrow than LEGO waists.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by Actor Builder
It was being weird so I had to quote the old fashioned way.

[Dazz]

7 hours ago, Karalora said:

Well, if you'll review my posts, you'll notice that I said I have no issue whatsoever with the cinched-in look on female minifigs who are depicted wearing tight or well-tailored clothing, Those are the sorts of outfits where the female figure is noticeable in real life, so it makes sense on minifigs as well. Where it gets odd is cases like this torso, which represents bulky Arctic survival gear but nonetheless has a visible waistline.

As for differentiating female minifigs without an hourglass figure print, there's always the, you know, face. Adult female minifigs tend to have visible lips and eyelashes, even if their hair is short or obscured. I am completely okay with that; a glance at an adult's face is usually enough to tell whether they are presenting as male or female, and although the differences are subtler than obvious makeup, on something as simplified as a minifig they have to be more defined.

Pick away, if you like.

The waist of that torso is accentuated due to the use of a belt. So it makes sense. Are there any female torsos using bulky clothing and no belt where the waist is highlighted?

[The Architect]

Personally I dont find it sexist. Also some female minifigs have the curves, some dont.

[Fuppylodders]

9 hours ago, Karalora said:

 

As for differentiating female minifigs without an hourglass figure print, there's always the, you know, face. Adult female minifigs tend to have visible lips and eyelashes, even if their hair is short or obscured. I am completely okay with that; a glance at an adult's face is usually enough to tell whether they are presenting as male or female, and although the differences are subtler than obvious makeup, on something as simplified as a minifig they have to be more defined.

Pick away, if you like.

And if you review my post, you'll see I said that using facial features to differentiate can also be claimed as sexism. As I said, why be offended about the visible waist but not eyelashes or lips? Nowadays I've seen men with visibly longer lashes than some women, and  naturally, lips that look more defined than women's. Why is it OK to differentiate women with visible lips and eyelashes when not every woman wears make up? That's sexism just as much as the waist line is. Don't claim they are separate issues, they aren't. 

Ok, so why does the trapezoidal shape have to be defined as male by default?

Because one of them has to be, to help show gender differentiation. It just so happened that back when it first occurred, it was probably the first solution that came to their minds (first, not easiest).

If they chose it to be the woman as the default shape, then you would be happy and fine with it?

Which then would give me justification to cry sexism? It's petty.

Don't just cherry pick. If you are going to be offended about one part of something, then do it properly and call in every aspect of it. Don't just pick what suits you and brush off everything else that falls under the same category as acceptable when it falls under the same category of image. Otherwise you lose all credibility straight from the start in your argument. 

 

And I've just thought... You choose to be offended about TLG showing a visible curvy waist which in women is  factually natural biologically, but are ok with them using superficially enhanced lips and eyelashes which women apply to appear more feminine and use to look 'prettier' because of social pressures and possible insecurities which is a much larger part of sexism and society?

You amaze me.

[Peppermint_M]

Right. Done.