williejm

Female minifigures - do we need the hourglass torso and make up?

Recommended Posts

This is the problem that I have with hourglass torsos:

tlm042.jpg

A Fabuland sweater! What a great throwback to the golden age of LEGO! I know that a lot of the Eurobricks mods here are fans of Fabuland, so they'll probably want to use that torso on their own custom minifigures.

Unless, of course, you don't want your custom figure to look like they have huge hips and no waistline. Look, the only thing that I'm complaining about here is the overall quality and look of the figures. This "Fabu-Fan", as she's called, doesn't even look skinny; just really squeezed in the middle. All that I'm saying is that hourglass torsos should be reserved for minifigures who they actually look right on; Wonder Woman being a prime example.

Note: I got the picture of the Fabu-Fan from Brickset. I don't know if it's copyrighted, but if it is, the mods can just delete this post.

It can go both ways, what if I wanted my female minifig to be wearing a Fabuland babydoll tee? Many females wear form fitting clothing. Hell, many males wear form fitting clothing now. Why shouldn't this be represented? Why should all tees and sweaters in Legoland be loose and boxy?

Also, they're not supposed to look skinny, fat, or whatever. Lego minifigs have one skin color: yellow (non-licensed anyway), and one body type: average. It's a stylised toy, not an exact representation of the human form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can live with the make up but not the curved torsos. There's been many a delightful, could of been a perfectly good for a male also, torso destroyed by curved prints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put a non Lego spin on this. My best friend is one of the few female professional Fire Captains in the US. She is the only female ranking officer in her state to my knowledge. She has been a firefighter for 20 years. Plus an ICU/CCU/ ER head nurse. She has twice the qualifications, certifications and education of her peers. She is an instructor at the State Fire Academy and she and her husband manage and teach the EMT and Paramedic programs at the State University. ( as you might guess she is a hyperactive little bunny who rarely stops or sleeps.)

And with all of this, last month for the third time she had to file a formal legal complaint against the city and the department. Because for the third time they awarded the city uniform contract to a company that does not offer women's uniforms or sizes. It infuriates her and the female police officers stuck in the same situation. They don't want to look or dress like the men. They want properly fitting uniforms. Tailored to reflect or at least acknowledge that there is a difference between their hips and waist. To them "unisex" uniforms simply continue to tell them that they do not belong doing the jobs they do quite well. (Funny how the unisex outfits always seem well tailored to the men.)

This whole controversy reminds me of her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.. Is the waistline worse than back in the days were the female torsoes from Paradisa - no waistline, but necklaces, pink tops, strapless top?

These must be just as hard to use for a male figure, that isn't a transsuxual.

Unisex in clothing means = fittet for men

and it's the same for minifigtorsoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading and trying to digest this thread, all I come away with is that some people have a different opinion from others.

On the topic of female mini figs... I thought LEGO was in some ways supposed to represent the world we live in, fantasy or otherwise and the last time I looked there were two genders... Male and female and I say "viva la difference".

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

Edited by Andy D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always liked female minifigures with hourglass figures, but I'm certainly a bit biased since I'm a guy and have never had to use female minifigure torsos to depict myself. Hourglass printing is definitely not necessary for every type of outfit, of course, and the LEGO Group doesn't use it for all figs — firefighters and some other figs with loose-fitting clothes often tend to have unisex torsos. But for certain outfits I think it's a good way to give a sense that clothing on a female minifigure is form-fitting, the same way that printed abs and pecs or a printed belly would show the same thing on a male figure.

As for makeup, it can be a little bit frustrating sometimes, especially when it's bright red. I'm not so bothered by lips printed in Nougat or Medium Nougat like the cheekbones, abs, and other lines on many male figure. This adds definition to the lips and makes them look more feminine, but doesn't necessarily give the impression that they're wearing heavy makeup. This, this, and this are good examples of heads with lips printed in a lighter color. It's closer to the minifigure's native skin color so it's not so jarring.

Overall, I don't think either of these things are all that sexist. They are just meant as visual shorthand for female minifigures, not as a template for what all real-life women should look like. However, it would be good if the LEGO Group could come up with some more female minifigure faces that didn't need any makeup to be recognizably feminine, for variety's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to compare this situation with Pirates. With other themes, all heads were your basic, yellow, innocent looking two-eyes-and-a-smile generic face, and torsos and legs were standard. Different accessories made each fig a knight, or a space(wo)man, or a firefighter, but the minifig itself remained the same.

But when they first made Pirate minifigs, they just didn't look Pirate-y enough. Too cute, too clean. So they had to put in some visual cues that said, "Hey! We're pirates! Yarrrg!" So they took those things that are most associated with pirates--peglegs, eyepatches, hookhands--and added those to the figs.

Remember that for TLG torso assemblies and leg assemblies are one piece, so changing a hand into a hook or a leg into a peg or painting an eyepatch wasn't just adding an accessory; it was a change in the very essence of the minifigure.

Did all pirates in real life have these things? Of course not. And not all pirate minifigs have those either. But by adding them, TLG was able to ensure that when a person (particularly: a child) looks at a minifig with one or more of those fundamental features, they can't help but think of that figurine as a pirate.

Ok. Now go back and reread this argument, but alter it to focus on female minifigs instead. TLG discovered that girls didn't think the female minifigs looked enough like girls, so they made some fundamental changes to the minifig design (which also led to Belville, Scala, and now Friends) in order to better reflect that. These changes involved adding extra details to the traditional minifig, such as lipstick, long eyelashes, curved figures, etc.

Do all women have these in real life? No. And not all female minifigs have them either. But by adding them, TLG was able to ensure that when a person (particularly: a child) looks at a minifig with one or more of those fundamental features, they can't help but think of that figurine as female.

Remember that when it all comes down to it, Lego is a toy, and that TLG is a toy company. I'm not saying that because of that this doesn't matter, but we should all keep in mind that playability is the key focus here. In this case, kids being able to tell at a glance what a character is supposed to be (pirate, woman, pirate woman, etc) is essential. TLG has done an incredible job of creating female minifigs and including them in sets, while intentionally staying far away from anything resembling hypersexualization. Additionally, with the release of the Research Institute, they have shown that they are listening to their audience, and are trying to do what they can to correct things when there is a perceived imbalance.

As far as customizing, that is frankly none of TLG's business; sure, Lego is by nature customizable, but it is not their job to make your custom figs for you. It is merely a matter of convenience to you, not an actual problem with TLG promoting unhealthy gender stereotypes, etc. Is It frustrating? Of course. So is the scarcity of Comic-Con exclusives, the lack of articulated Technic figs that aren't somewhat creepy, and the outrageous price of official chrome parts in the aftermarket. But the problem that you personally are unable to make the perfect minifig you have always wanted is exactly that: your problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Query...are we only referring to city figures or across all lines of LEGO? If you direct this question at some of the other lines such as pirates, castle, ninja or Ninjago and Chima, how does one distinguish between male and female without feminine features like the hip shading or lipstick and eye lashes? Customizing becomes very simple, but now there are no female minifigs in those lines. The hips, boobs and make up, help to fully represent a female character. I welcome the added features and think this is the best way to give us female characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Query...are we only referring to city figures or across all lines of LEGO? If you direct this question at some of the other lines such as pirates, castle, ninja or Ninjago and Chima, how does one distinguish between male and female without feminine features like the hip shading or lipstick and eye lashes? Customizing becomes very simple, but now there are no female minifigs in those lines. The hips, boobs and make up, help to fully represent a female character. I welcome the added features and think this is the best way to give us female characters.

Of courese we don't have to apply the one rule to all themes. In Chima's case, most male warriors have obvious muscles while females have waistlines (well even though ladies could have muscles too). Their gender is more obscure than human so those prints help sometimes, The action theme backstories could also tell us which of them are guys (Ewald, for example) so we don't have to rely on prints all the time.

The truth is, make-ups don't belong to women biologically. this should actually depend on how the designs work. For example, Fabu-fan's face doesn't look feminine though she has waistlines, while the police women have makeups but no waistlines. That wouldn't make them recognized as guys.

Nobody says we can't have feminine prints, but the problem might be that we do lack prints that look "less feminine" for girls. In guys' part, we have many male faces and we can classify them as "muscline" or "non-muscline" (example: Metalbeard versus Emmet). But in girls' part, "non-feminine" designs like Fabu-fan seem to be very rare.

I personally think hairpieces should be strong enough to represent the genders and make up for those figs who don't have pretty faces or waistlines, though some may argue why guys can't have long hairstyles. :sceptic:

Edited by Dorayaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess some audiences will never be fully satisfied :wink:

If you don't like the torso, just switch it: that's the beauty of LEGO, one can use one's creativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think hairpieces should be strong enough to represent the genders and make up for those figs who don't have pretty faces or waistlines, though some may argue why guys can't have long hairstyles. :sceptic:

Also, why can't females have short hairstyles? If you take a minifig with no gender cues, and put a short hairstyle on them, it's going to look male 99% of the time. However, add one of the "curvy" torsos with that short hair, instant female. Another reason why these torsos add customizability, and does not take away from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, why can't females have short hairstyles? If you take a minifig with no gender cues, and put a short hairstyle on them, it's going to look male 99% of the time. However, add one of the "curvy" torsos with that short hair, instant female. Another reason why these torsos add customizability, and does not take away from it.

So far Dastan and Luke's haircuts are both currently used by generic female and male, but since most LEGO City ladies still use make-ups, waistlines are not that important IMO. I'd agree it's dissapointing to see some shorter female hairstyles discontinued or rare in new sets, such as the classic pigtails or Dolores. Unless the this is the "short hair style" you're talknig about..... :look:

par048.jpg?0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the person most guilty of this is customiser Christo. I think all of his female designs have ludicrously thin waists. Look at this!

P5LmBHe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate differentiated faces, as they make the gender of the figure plain if it has a unisex torso or headgear – in fact this would be my preferred method of minifig gender differentiation, with the torsos being as unisex as possible (yes, by reading this discussion I guess that means male by default). I dont necessarily see female lip/eyelash printing as make-up, but as naturally fuller lips (like others noted above) and longer eyelashes – just like facial hair for males. (Funny thing is, not every guy has facial hair, and yet we (or I, at least) dont hear people complaining like they do about female heads and makeup.) Its easier if the lips are (medium) nougat, as Aachir mentioned, but not necessary for me – I never thought of the classic islander woman as wearing lipstick. At the time, I would have preferred a plain torso for her, which could also be used for male warriors, with the head defining her as female. And that is one torso that cant be used for males, not even for those with manboobs. Today, Im fine with boob or muscle or fat-belly printing, but the negative space still bugs me. Especially on sweaters and overcoats. Its much more likely for females to wear loose and even frumpy clothes than males to wear form-hugging clothes (that show him having an hourglass figure, at that). And if the faces are differentiated, negative-space torso printing isnt even necessary in these cases of overcoats and sweaters.

But I admit its good for those wanting females in form-fitting clothing, for whatever reason – I myself cant understand why minifigs cant simply be blocky. Its not like real-life male torsos are (all)trapezoidal with the bottom base being longer – why not print negative space for athletic males with broader shoulders than waist? (to TLG: this is not a dare. Please dont do that.) But its true someone might call me out on face differentiation for the very same reasons Im not fond of torso differentiation.

I guess there will never be an agreement on this, as everyone has a different vision _. Some want minifigs as generic as possible for MOCing or TLGs inclusiveness message or tradition, others want them as detailed as possible for the sake of realism or diversity. Many, like me, want something in between. In this way, its like the yellow vs fleshie debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate differentiated faces, as they make the gender of the figure plain if it has a unisex torso or headgear – in fact this would be my preferred method of minifig gender differentiation, with the torsos being as unisex as possible (yes, by reading this discussion I guess that means male by default). I dont necessarily see female lip/eyelash printing as make-up, but as naturally fuller lips (like others noted above) and longer eyelashes – just like facial hair for males. (Funny thing is, not every guy has facial hair, and yet we (or I, at least) dont hear people complaining like they do about female heads and makeup.) Its easier if the lips are (medium) nougat, as Aachir mentioned, but not necessary for me – I never thought of the classic islander woman as wearing lipstick. At the time, I would have preferred a plain torso for her, which could also be used for male warriors, with the head defining her as female. And that is one torso that cant be used for males, not even for those with manboobs. Today, Im fine with boob or muscle or fat-belly printing, but the negative space still bugs me. Especially on sweaters and overcoats. Its much more likely for females to wear loose and even frumpy clothes than males to wear form-hugging clothes (that show him having an hourglass figure, at that). And if the faces are differentiated, negative-space torso printing isnt even necessary in these cases of overcoats and sweaters.

But I admit its good for those wanting females in form-fitting clothing, for whatever reason – I myself cant understand why minifigs cant simply be blocky. Its not like real-life male torsos are (all)trapezoidal with the bottom base being longer – why not print negative space for athletic males with broader shoulders than waist? (to TLG: this is not a dare. Please dont do that.) But its true someone might call me out on face differentiation for the very same reasons Im not fond of torso differentiation.

I guess there will never be an agreement on this, as everyone has a different vision _. Some want minifigs as generic as possible for MOCing or TLGs inclusiveness message or tradition, others want them as detailed as possible for the sake of realism or diversity. Many, like me, want something in between. In this way, its like the yellow vs fleshie debate.

That basically sums up the entire argument right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifically to the basketball being printed on a square... In the real world that does not work, but we are talking about Lego. We have square tiles printed as scrolls. Not practical in the real world, but fun when printed as a toy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate differentiated faces, as they make the gender of the figure plain if it has a unisex torso or headgear – in fact this would be my preferred method of minifig gender differentiation, with the torsos being as unisex as possible (yes, by reading this discussion I guess that means male by default). I dont necessarily see female lip/eyelash printing as make-up, but as naturally fuller lips (like others noted above) and longer eyelashes – just like facial hair for males. (Funny thing is, not every guy has facial hair, and yet we (or I, at least) dont hear people complaining like they do about female heads and makeup.) Its easier if the lips are (medium) nougat, as Aachir mentioned, but not necessary for me – I never thought of the classic islander woman as wearing lipstick. At the time, I would have preferred a plain torso for her, which could also be used for male warriors, with the head defining her as female. And that is one torso that cant be used for males, not even for those with manboobs. Today, Im fine with boob or muscle or fat-belly printing, but the negative space still bugs me. Especially on sweaters and overcoats. Its much more likely for females to wear loose and even frumpy clothes than males to wear form-hugging clothes (that show him having an hourglass figure, at that). And if the faces are differentiated, negative-space torso printing isnt even necessary in these cases of overcoats and sweaters.

But I admit its good for those wanting females in form-fitting clothing, for whatever reason – I myself cant understand why minifigs cant simply be blocky. Its not like real-life male torsos are (all)trapezoidal with the bottom base being longer – why not print negative space for athletic males with broader shoulders than waist? (to TLG: this is not a dare. Please dont do that.) But its true someone might call me out on face differentiation for the very same reasons Im not fond of torso differentiation.

I guess there will never be an agreement on this, as everyone has a different vision _. Some want minifigs as generic as possible for MOCing or TLGs inclusiveness message or tradition, others want them as detailed as possible for the sake of realism or diversity. Many, like me, want something in between. In this way, its like the yellow vs fleshie debate.

I understand what you are saying about the negative space. But the alternative honestly always seems much worse. Have you ever looked at the Paradisa female torso's? They are distinctively female print torso a but without the negative space waists and the printed breasts or cleavage. And the eye perceives them almost universally as prepubescent girls. Not matter what scene or setting all of your female Minifigs seem to be 8 years old. It doesn't matter which legs you use. Short, normal, extra long toy story. It's honestly kind of creepy. About the only customized use for the things I can figure is to slap some bearded heads on them and call it a Monty Python MOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also a customiser that prefers gender neutral torsos (or male torsos as they are normally referred to, since if it hasn't got curves, then it normally isn't female officially).

There is also another benefit of gender neutral torsos - and that is possibly more females in a set. If we got away from males have straight torsos and all women have curved ones, then lego could introduce a two sided face. One side with make up, one side without. Then the child / AFOL could decide on the sex of each character, where appropriate. So a set might have 1 obviously male character, 1 obviously female and 2 down to choice by turning a head around. If they are hat-less, then it might cost lego an extra hairpiece or two. That set is then either as high as 75% male, or as low as 25% male depending on how the person playing with it wants it to be. I'm not suggesting doing away with all curved torsos, far from it. Use them where it makes sense. So a buxom pirate woman, or a woman in a dress would keep them, but a police officer or scientist wearing a lab coat wouldn't need them.

It's quite rare to find a printed female torso in which curves are not present in modern sets, but lego did let one slip through. Strangely enough, it is a scientist in a lab coat too.

uagt017.jpg?1

Is she still identifiable as a woman despite not having the "necessary" curves? I'd say yes.

Edited by MAB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the person most guilty of this is customiser Christo. I think all of his female designs have ludicrously thin waists. Look at this!

P5LmBHe.png

Well you have to admit that Super Heroes in general are known for hourglass torsos and over sized breasts so in Christo's case he's just going for accuracy. So it's not totally Christos fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you have to admit that female Super Heroes in general are known for hourglass torsos and over sized breasts so in Christo's case he's just going for accuracy. So it's not totally Christos fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you have to admit that Super Heroes in general are known for hourglass torsos and over sized breasts so in Christo's case he's just going for accuracy. So it's not totally Christos fault.

But the hips usually continue to the far side of the torso at least. The amount of negative space Christo uses is weird looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can go both ways, what if I wanted my female minifig to be wearing a Fabuland babydoll tee? Many females wear form fitting clothing. Hell, many males wear form fitting clothing now. Why shouldn't this be represented? Why should all tees and sweaters in Legoland be loose and boxy?

Also, they're not supposed to look skinny, fat, or whatever. Lego minifigs have one skin color: yellow (non-licensed anyway), and one body type: average. It's a stylised toy, not an exact representation of the human form.

Not entirely sure what this comment was trying to say, but the important thing is this debate is about minifigures and NOTHING about a minifigure is accurate to human anatomy. So the shape of the torso of a minifigure is not an hour glass it's a trapezoid. That is a minifigures body shape, there is no need what so ever to change that with printing. As shown by the female scientist nobody made a big fuzz about: Professor Christina Hydron, as seen in this pretty great comment:

I am also a customiser that prefers gender neutral torsos (or male torsos as they are normally referred to, since if it hasn't got curves, then it normally isn't female officially).

There is also another benefit of gender neutral torsos - and that is possibly more females in a set. If we got away from males have straight torsos and all women have curved ones, then lego could introduce a two sided face. One side with make up, one side without. Then the child / AFOL could decide on the sex of each character, where appropriate. So a set might have 1 obviously male character, 1 obviously female and 2 down to choice by turning a head around. If they are hat-less, then it might cost lego an extra hairpiece or two. That set is then either as high as 75% male, or as low as 25% male depending on how the person playing with it wants it to be. I'm not suggesting doing away with all curved torsos, far from it. Use them where it makes sense. So a buxom pirate woman, or a woman in a dress would keep them, but a police officer or scientist wearing a lab coat wouldn't need them.

It's quite rare to find a printed female torso in which curves are not present in modern sets, but lego did let one slip through. Strangely enough, it is a scientist in a lab coat too.

uagt017.jpg?1

Is she still identifiable as a woman despite not having the "necessary" curves? I'd say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.