LEGO Collectable Minifigures Series 19 Rumors, Speculation and Discussion

[Gorilla94]

3 hours ago, TheNerdyOne_ said:

Yes it absolutely does.  Representation is vitally important.

Also, I've seen plenty of discussion regarding the more City-like figures.

Ironic? 

[leafan]

44 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

Recently (alas, too recently) women have freed themselves from the burden of always looking "feminine" or "what the white caucasic male want them to look like". 

What?

[K_Tiger]

This one's going off the rails. Bear Suit has been confirmed male by Brother From Another Brick's review.

[Anonknee Muss]

 

I brought enough popcorn for everyone!!

55 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

Recently (alas, too recently) women have freed themselves from the burden of always looking "feminine" or "what the white caucasic male want them to look like". 

Don’t tell me you’re playing the white male card

[Digger of Bricks]

13 hours ago, Robert8 said:

There are already 7 confirmed females: BMX Biker, Firefighter, Retiree, Mummy Lady, Fox Suit Girl, Programmer Woman and Dog Sitter.

With the Bounty Hunter there would be 8 overall. That would be a 50/50 gender ratio

I feel the Bounty might be female cause we already had a Blacktron villain dude in the Series 3 Space Villain. And they love these gender swaps

Regarding the Blacktron-themed CMF, that's also kinda what I'm figuring. Plus, looking closely, the archetype might be wearing a skin-tight suit that seems to show feminine curves, making me all the more curious as to what sorta head print the figure will have underneath that helmet. 

[Itaria No Shintaku]

11 minutes ago, J4ck said:

Don’t tell me you’re playing the white male card

I'm just being ironic. 

I'm just pointing out the paradox.

The ones complaining about how few female minifigure are in them, are doing this for feminism reasons (more girl power and these stuff).
But, in the same time, are judging a minifigure to be "female" based on the fact "she" has eyelashes or lipstick.
Which, using their standards, should be a very wrong and sexist way to depict a "female" (since females are not forced to wear lipstick).

On the other hand if they allow "female" characters to be whatever they want to, so not forced to have a "feminine" face, they cannot complain about the "female" ratio among the minifigures, because whatever minifigure can be, in fact, a female, as much as earlier 1978-1988 minifigures had just a plain head so you couldn't make any difference.

Hence, the paradox. 

Or, as someone said, don't caring at all about what is what because, well, it's LEGO and you can easily swap heads, is the right thing to do.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Itaria No Shintaku

[Anonknee Muss]

14 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

I'm just being ironic. 

I'm just pointing out the paradox.

The ones complaining about how few female minifigure are in them, are doing this for feminism reasons (more girl power and these stuff).
But, in the same time, are judging a minifigure to be "female" based on the fact "she" has eyelashes or lipstick.
Which, using their standards, should be a very wrong and sexist way to depict a "female" (since females are not forced to wear lipstick).

On the other hand if they allow "female" characters to be whatever they want to, so not forced to have a "feminine" face, they cannot complain about the "female" ratio among the minifigures, because whatever minifigure can be, in fact, a female, as much as earlier 1978-1988 minifigures had just a plain head so you couldn't make any difference.

Hence, the paradox. 

Or, as someone said, don't caring at all about what is what because, well, it's LEGO and you can easily swap heads, is the right thing to do.

Ahhh I see! Thanks for the clarification! Yeah I mentioned you can swap heads if it really bothers people that much. I honestly think feminism is toxic hence why I wasn’t sure whether you were playing the white male card and I enquired about it.

Again, thanks for clarification.

[MAB]

I was pleasantly surprised at the contents of the recent fun fair minifigure pack. Take a look at these figures ...

All of the torsos work well for both male and female, except for the pink top and the leather jacket. I think this sort of distribution is perfect (along with infrequent male-only torsos when necessary). Does the face painter or ice cream seller lose anything by not having the traditional stereotypical female minifigure indicators on the torso? To me, they look fine.  You want the rocker to be a female, or the ice cream seller to be a male, it's easy. Swap the heads and hair around in the set. You want the purple "mall walker" to be male and the red one a younger female? Easy, swap heads and hair. A female stilt walker or a female in the blue jacket? Easy. Of course, not all torsos should be like this - ones like the pink ones should definitely exist, as should ones in dresses and so on, as this adds variety. But where it is possible I prefer the gender neutral ones.

It would be even better if not all the adult females had lipstick or curly eyelashes. For example, the man in the blue jacket. Remove his hair and is the face male or female? Is it definitely a man as there is no lipstick or curly eyelashes? Or just maybe it could be either, with an appropriate hairstyle if required. Of course, we should have definitely male (beards, etc) faces and definitely female (make-up, etc) faces, but having some that can be either should not be a problem. Same with hair and hats - in this case it does happen, as there are hair pieces that are used for both male and female, with context often given by other parts of the minifigure.

 

[Karalora]

No one seems to have addressed this:

4 hours ago, MAB said:

Plus the Monkey - why is this necessarily male?

Because the Monkey King is a literary/folkloric character who is consistently identified as male within the source material. How do we know that the S5 Detective is a man and not a woman with an unusual hairstyle? Because he's instantly recognizable as Sherlock Holmes.

That said, I agree more with the position that we need more definitively female minifigures than with the position that "they can be whatever you want them to be, so it doesn't matter." The sad fact is that in our culture, male is treated as the default and specific indicators are needed for a character to read as female, especially in the ultra-simplified style of minifigs. A face with no lipstick or eyelashes and no facial hair could be either, but in practice most people will assume it's male--including most of the little girls who could really benefit from increased representation in building toys.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

10 minutes ago, Karalora said:

That said, I agree more with the position that we need more definitively female minifigures than with the position that "they can be whatever you want them to be, so it doesn't matter." The sad fact is that in our culture, male is treated as the default and specific indicators are needed for a character to read as female, especially in the ultra-simplified style of minifigs. A face with no lipstick or eyelashes and no facial hair could be either, but in practice most people will assume it's male--including most of the little girls who could really benefit from increased representation in building toys.

Actually girls have a theme completely dedicated to them (and already had more).
Paradisa, DC Super Heroes girls, Elves, Friends, Scala, Belville are clearly girliesh themes.
There is not any boyish theme. 
The ratio of masculine minidolls is ridicously low.
Way lower than the ratio of female minifigures.

But I don't see guys complaining about this fact.
Or, you have a nice "Lady" tag. And you belong to a group called "Eurobricks ladies".
There is no "Gentlemen" tag, no "Eurobricks gentlemen" group.

And I don't see guys complaining about this fact.
Or, I can always tell that there are a lot of "clumsy" or "goofy" male characters while the female characters are always "smart".
Male scientists are "mad doctors" (From studios, Series 4, Series 14, Ninjago movie) while female scientists (as per S11 scientist, Women of Nasa, or Research Lab) are smart scientists.

The ratio of minifigures being "evil" among male minifigures is absurdely higher than the females, as if EVIL is a characteristic of the male gender. 
Even in the minidolls, one of the very few male minidoll is one of the biggest villains in the Elves' theme.

Ninjago villains are mainly men, so they were in Nexo Knights (notable exception of Ruina).

In the LEGO movies, villains are: 
TLM - President Business, a male.
TLM2 - Rex, a male.
NINJAGO MOVIE - Garmadon, a male.
BATMAN MOVIE - Joker, a male.

Also, in these movies, the main male character looks stupid, clumsy, while the main female character (Being Lucy or Batgirl) looks terribly cool and smart.

I would surely exchange the depicting of the male gender stereotype in minifigures, sets and movie that LEGO is making with a lower distribution of male minifigures.

But times we live in are these, and after all after thousand years of male dominance, even if the males born in these years aren't guilty for their fathers' sins, is quite legit.
 

[MAB]

47 minutes ago, Karalora said:

That said, I agree more with the position that we need more definitively female minifigures than with the position that "they can be whatever you want them to be, so it doesn't matter." The sad fact is that in our culture, male is treated as the default and specific indicators are needed for a character to read as female, especially in the ultra-simplified style of minifigs. A face with no lipstick or eyelashes and no facial hair could be either, but in practice most people will assume it's male--including most of the little girls who could really benefit from increased representation in building toys.

So instead you should continue to push stereotypes onto them to say that all adult females should have lipstick and curly eyelashes? And if someone doesn't have that look then they default to being a man.

That is why I think the opposite to you. Having female characters that are not wearing lipstick may help to change opinions that someone has to have lipstick to be an adult female otherwise they default to being male. If not, you are just perpetuating the idea that women must wear make-up to look like a woman as if they default to male.

It is interesting to note that most if not all children's heads and torsos are gender neutral. Minifigure girls tend not have lipstick or curly eyelashes (or curvy waists and cleavage), whereas the women do.  So having gender neutral parts it is not a problem for representing girls as minifigures. Yet put longer legs on those girl minifigures, and they look more male?

To bring it back to the CMF, take the Care Bear style character. If we are told it is male, then people complain it is male and there are too many males in the series when it should be closer to 50:50. Whereas if we become used to some female characters not wearing lipstick, then that character already could be female. We wouldn't know unless we read the backstory. But even if the backstory says it is male, does it matter? In this case, it is what you want it to be. There is nothing in the figure to say it must be a male. There is nothing to say it must be a female. Why does that then have to default to being male, with the result that there must be another minifigure in the series that is stereotypically female or people will complain about gender balance? I find the same with robots and mechs. Even back in Series 1, people complained about gender balance.

Is this minifigure really male? Most robots have no gender. Same with Series 6:

Is it really male? I guess the answer is yes, because we all know females must be pink, they must have lipstick and eyelashes and rosy cheeks. They must have girly hearts on them. They must have cleavage. Even the robots!

For me that figure is gender stereotyping at its worst. Every part of it except the key and the neck bracket.

 

This robot, is it male or female. Or maybe it is just genderless. Would it need to be pink or have eyelashes drawn on it to make it female? If it was in a CMF series, would it count as a male and need balancing by an obviously female character?

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by MAB

[williejm]

Just ... wow. 

[Robert8]

Ok this is going down fast 

People are discussing gender issues and social stereotypes and Im just here checking to see if the series was officially revealed

I really am a 29-years old child 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Robert8

[williejm]

I’m still always shocked when ‘feminism’ gets used as some sort of eye-roll or ‘quotation marks’ word in a negative way in this forum. It’s almost like 51% of the world’s population don’t matter and should just be grateful. 

[Itaria No Shintaku]

9 minutes ago, williejm said:

I’m still always shocked when ‘feminism’ gets used as some sort of eye-roll or ‘quotation marks’ word in a negative way in this forum. It’s almost like 51% of the world’s population don’t matter and should just be grateful. 

We have the expression gender equality which is far more accurate.

[williejm]

Just now, Itaria No Shintaku said:

We have the expression gender equality which is far more accurate.

And yet such a long long way to go...

[Itaria No Shintaku]

2 minutes ago, williejm said:

And yet such a long long way to go...

Very much needs to be done but given the premises we did an excellent job.

[gedren_y]

Societal gender expectations vary from place to place, and era to era, as well as the issue of gender representation.  I don't wish to divert into a major debate on these issues. That is better left to another forum.

The minifigure design does not lend itself well to gender differentiation. For this reason we should reserve commentary on gender disparity until LEGO reveals their gender intent on the more ambiguous characters.

That does not mean you have to follow the gender intent once the figure is yours. This site would be very boring if we stuck within the bounds of LEGO's set design and themes, so it seems only fitting that we free ourselves from their minifigure gender intent as well.

I have uses for all of these figs, but none of them include keeping them as is. For that reason I make no complaints on theme representation.

[Aanchir]

9 hours ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

However to me

Firefighter

Robot Programmer 

Fox

Biker

Old lady

Mummy

Dog Walker

Make 7 and not 6. Plus the ghost face may be either masculine or feminine so it's 7 1/2 vs 8 1/2.

Nuff said

Good catch! I miscounted, then. That said, I think the fact that this series IS showing a shift towards greater gender parity is just as noteworthy or perhaps even more so than if it hadn't! I suppose either way I'm just surprised I didn't see anybody else bring it up before I did.

Hoping this becomes a trend going forward! Obviously I don't expect EVERY series to have a perfect male/female split, especially with some characters who might have nonbinary genders or no gender at all (like the Series 9 Battle Mech, Series 11, Evil Mech, Series 13 Alien Trooper and Series 14 Plant Monster, which use non-gendered pronouns like "they/them" or "it" in their official LEGO.com descriptions).

But I would like the overall trend to shift towards some kind of equilibrium, where certain series might have more male than female characters or vice versa, but there's no general trend or tendency one way or the other. So breaking free of the current trend in which all blind bag series except the non-Minifigures-branded Unikitty blind bags are majority-male is the first step to reaching that outcome.

3 hours ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

I'm just being ironic. 

I'm just pointing out the paradox.

The ones complaining about how few female minifigure are in them, are doing this for feminism reasons (more girl power and these stuff).
But, in the same time, are judging a minifigure to be "female" based on the fact "she" has eyelashes or lipstick.
Which, using their standards, should be a very wrong and sexist way to depict a "female" (since females are not forced to wear lipstick).

On the other hand if they allow "female" characters to be whatever they want to, so not forced to have a "feminine" face, they cannot complain about the "female" ratio among the minifigures, because whatever minifigure can be, in fact, a female, as much as earlier 1978-1988 minifigures had just a plain head so you couldn't make any difference.

Yeah, no.  I'm not at all just assuming women in real life OR LEGO have to have lipstick or eyelashes or printed curves. I have no trouble acknowledging that minifigures like  But I am making common-sense inferences about which figures were designed to be seen as male or female. If I find out later that I interpreted the characters' gender wrongly, I correct my thinking accordingly.

It's no trouble for me to acknowledge that the Heavy Metal, Samurai X, Cruz Ramirez, and Miss Fritter figures are female characters, nor that the Lightning McQueen, Fangtom, Chewbacca, and Ice Cream Cone figures are male characters, despite no obvious visual coding (mustaches, lipstick, etc) hinting at their gender identity. Because in those cases we have other hints or indicators like what pronouns are used for them in supporting media that let us know how they are intended to be perceived. Gender does not somehow stop existing because it can't be inferred with 100% accuracy from a visual assessment.

And many people, even people with progressive views about gender, DO use still use traditional gender signifiers like lipstick, eye shadow, beards, mustaches, or clothing and hairstyles traditionally considered masculine or feminine to express their gender identity and what it means to them. Symbols like that do not stop having meaning just because their meaning is flexible depending on how they are used and by whom.

It annoys me to no end how people always default to the "minifigs are whatever you want them to be!" cliche as if that makes the intent of the designs wholly insignificant on any level. What's more, I know you're not serious about the idea that figures' intended gender doesn't matter, because on MULTIPLE occasions on this very forum you've objected to the idea of introducing, wanting, or even caring about female knight minifigures in official sets on the basis of "historical accuracy".

If you really believed that the intended gender of a minifigure was entirely insignificant, then introducing "female" knight minifigures shouldn't make a lick of difference. Am I to believe the designers' intent only matters to you when it makes it easier to mock people who care about diversity/representation in toys and media? Just spare me the obvious concern trolling.

58 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

We have the expression gender equality which is far more accurate.

Achieving gender equality is the entire point of feminism, contrary to your persistent straw man arguments that feminism today is simply about female supremacy, manufactured outrage, or hating men masculinity. That's the same nonsense that opponents of feminist movements have spouted for as long as those movements have existed. I do not intend to debate something as basic as this, so please don't waste your time.

1 hour ago, williejm said:

I’m still always shocked when ‘feminism’ gets used as some sort of eye-roll or ‘quotation marks’ word in a negative way in this forum. It’s almost like 51% of the world’s population don’t matter and should just be grateful. 

Big mood… even worse that I can barely even MENTION things like gender or race or sexuality on Eurobricks (or for that matter, in most online LEGO communities) without the conversation devolving into anti-"political correctness" screeds mocking people for even caring about stuff like that.

I made one comment about wishing for gender parity in the collectible minifigures here, and all of a sudden everyone and their brother is coming out of the woodwork to say that thinking LEGO minifigures can even have specific genders makes me the REAL sexist.

36 minutes ago, gedren_y said:

That does not mean you have to follow the gender intent once the figure is yours. This site would be very boring if we stuck within the bounds of LEGO's set design and themes, so it seems only fitting that we free ourselves from their minifigure gender intent as well.

Agreed. It is possible to both acknowledge fans' limitless potential to use LEGO figures, sets, and parts however they see fit, AND to acknowledge that the intent behind the designs DOES matter in terms of ensuring the full range of LEGO figures, sets, and parts can appeal as much as possible to as many buyers as possible.

If the unlimited power of imagination outweighed all else, then there would have never been any need to design any non-basic parts or parts with any sort of specific printing. But needless to say the existence of sets, themes, figures, and parts that we relate to on some level — whether it's because they connect to our interests, our favorite colors/animals/foods, our genders, our races, our sexualities, our nationalities, our life experiences, or other aspects of our identities — has had a big role in shaping most of our interests in LEGO as a brand, hobby, and experience.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Aanchir

[Itaria No Shintaku]

Quote

Yeah, no.  I'm not at all just assuming women in real life OR LEGO have to have lipstick or eyelashes or printed curves. I have no trouble acknowledging that minifigures like  But I am making common-sense inferences about which figures were designed to be seen as male or female. If I find out later that I interpreted the characters' gender wrongly, I correct my thinking accordingly.

This being a paradox.

Quote

It annoys me to no end how people always default to the "minifigs are whatever you want them to be!" cliche as if that makes the intent of the designs wholly insignificant on any level. What's more, I know you're not serious about the idea that figures' intended gender doesn't matter, because on MULTIPLE occasions on this very forum you've objected to the idea of introducing, wanting, or even caring about female knight minifigures in official sets on the basis of "historical accuracy".

Well, it annoys me to no end people who want a certain minifigure to be female or male not for the use they're gonna or not gonna making out of it, but just for the sole concept of it.
Like: LEGO has to make this male/female [put whatever minifig here] even if I'd never buy it.

My objections on minifigures female knights is that if they come as an extra, that's no problem to me. If they steal a spot that could be of a new interesting male knight, which is historically more accurate, I'm quite disappointed. Moreover if they make it just because "people pressed them to make a female minifigure knight they aren't even going to buy".
 

Quote

If you really believed that the intended gender of a minifigure was entirely insignificant, then introducing "female" knight minifigures shouldn't make a lick of difference. Am I to believe the designers' intent only matters to you when it makes it easier to mock people who care about diversity/representation in toys and media?  Just spare me the obvious concern trolling.

I will do spare you since you're a girl and I have been taught to be nice to girls. Not to boys. To girls expecially. 
Like keeping doors open for them, not hitting them even if they are menacing me, or the like.

Quote

 

  58 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

We have the expression gender equality which is far more accurate.

Achieving gender equality is the entire point of feminism, contrary to your persistent straw man arguments that feminism today is simply about female supremacy, manufactured outrage, or hating men masculinity. That's the same nonsense that opponents of feminist movements have spouted for as long as those movements have existed. I do not intend to debate something as basic as this, so please don't waste your time.

 

I have multiple examples in my life, numerous experiences that say the entire opposite of what you're saying.
So stick with your own opinions, I'll stick with mine.
And I'll always prefere "gender equality" to "feminism" because representing less male evil characters is a concern of gender equality, not of feminism, for example.

However since I've been reported to slow down/stop this, I'll do. This is leading nowhere. You have your point of view, I have mine, ours do not intersect in anything, so if you want you can pm me and keep debating about things that probably are of interest just of the two of us. I'd welcome that.
But littering the topic is quite to no use.

[williejm]

4 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

This being a paradox.

Well, it annoys me to no end people who want a certain minifigure to be female or male not for the use they're gonna or not gonna making out of it, but just for the sole concept of it.
Like: LEGO has to make this male/female [put whatever minifig here] even if I'd never buy it.

My objections on minifigures female knights is that if they come as an extra, that's no problem to me. If they steal a spot that could be of a new interesting male knight, which is historically more accurate, I'm quite disappointed. Moreover if they make it just because "people pressed them to make a female minifigure knight they aren't even going to buy".
 

I will do spare you since you're a girl and I have been taught to be nice to girls. Not to boys. To girls expecially. 
Like keeping doors open for them, not hitting them even if they are menacing me, or the like.

I have multiple examples in my life, numerous experiences that say the entire opposite of what you're saying.
So stick with your own opinions, I'll stick with mine.
And I'll always prefere "gender equality" to "feminism" because representing less male evil characters is a concern of gender equality, not of feminism, for example.

However since I've been reported to slow down/stop this, I'll do. This is leading nowhere. You have your point of view, I have mine, ours do not intersect in anything, so if you want you can pm me and keep debating about things that probably are of interest just of the two of us. I'd welcome that.
But littering the topic is quite to no use.

Wow. So much of this NOT OKAY... maybe know when to put the keyboard down. 

[obsidianheart]

Well, this is just dumb. Got no need to follow this thread anymore.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

2 minutes ago, williejm said:

Wow. So much of this NOT OKAY... maybe know when to put the keyboard down. 

Interesting people judging other people's opinion or experiences.
I've never said to anybody in this forum when / how to put the keyboard down just because i don't feel entitled to.
I think everybody has right to express their opinions until they do not offend anybody.
And I weren't offensive in any part of my post.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Aanchir said:

Hoping this becomes a trend going forward! Obviously I don't expect EVERY series to have a perfect male/female split, especially with some characters who might have nonbinary genders or no gender at all (like the Series 9 Battle Mech, Series 11, Evil Mech, Series 13 Alien Trooper and Series 14 Plant Monster, which use non-gendered pronouns like "they/them" or "it" in their official LEGO.com descriptions).

I wish they did this more often, on the human figures too. So for example, the pizza one, why do we need to be told a gender here? Why not bios like "The Pizza Seller loves eating pizza all day long, but eats so much that they have trouble fitting through doorways" instead of "The Pizza Seller loves eating pizza all day long, but eats so much that he has trouble fitting through doorways". That way, everyone can be happy with what they get. Is it a man, is it a woman? Who cares? Same with the Care Bear and fox suit. Ones that are obviously male or obviously female are fine but even better if they can be switched.

So looking at the list again:

Gamer - male but easy to make female.

Showerman - clearly male from the torso and so not really changeable. Unlikely that LEGO would ever do a topless female (especially a human female). It will be interesting to see what is under the towel. White hips or yellow?

Knight - either.

Monkey - either. And non-human anyway.

Programmer -female.  I cannot tell, but I hope the torso is useful for male and female. Shame about the yellow skin on the torso.

Mummy - looks like it is a female torso and head only.

Johnny Thunder look-a-like - obviously male, but could possibly be used for a female body.

Firewoman - obviously female, but torso looks like it could be made male. Not very interesting anyway given how many are in City.

Pooper scooper  - female, but looks easy to change to male.

Pizza - could be either.

Blacktron - could be either - not human anyway.

Gardener - female, and fine as it is.

Rugby - male, but could be made female.

Fox - either.

Bear - either.

Biker - clearly female, and cannot be made male. I'd have preferred a more general neutral top for something like this, but fine if most others are more neutral.

If the gamer had a female or neutral head and I was told it was female in the bio but it was otherwise presented in exactly the same way, and also told the knight was female, monkey was female, programmer was female, pooper scooper was female, pizza was female, blacktron was female, gardener was female, rugby was female, fox and bear were female,  etc. it would be fine for me. There could possibly be 14 females, with 2 males (shower guy, Johnny Thunder). I would be perfectly happy with that. Clearly it is very skewed and not ideal for public complaints, but If the only thing identifying gender was a head or hairstyle, or better still just the bio, it means the figures are much more flexible.  But by doing it that way, not only is  gender occurence likely to be more balanced, if someone wants more males or more females, then a simple head or hair switch is possible with what we have been given. Rather than 8 male plus 8 female, let's say 4 male and 4 female plus 8 that could be either. That balance is much more attractive to me than obviously male only characters and obviously female only characters.

Of course there will still be things to argue about. Why don't the yellow ducks on the towel match the green one? Why does he have a brush when he doesn't have any hair? Why is he / isn't he naked under the towel? 

[gedren_y]

16 minutes ago, MAB said:

Showerman - clearly male from the torso and so not really changeable. Unlikely that LEGO would ever do a topless female (especially a human female). It will be interesting to see what is under the towel. White hips or yellow?

The back of the character sheet shows us what is under the towel. White hips with yellow legs, white boxers-like printing on the front.

Edited July 30, 2019 by gedren_y