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

[klinton]

No, no apologies needed, the levity was fine. I didn't find it an offensive comparison, rather I thought it got at the central point - not everything demands the same moral consideration, and a focus on one element doesn't preclude or require a focus on another.

I'm at a loss as to what the 'moral' cosideration is to be at this point.

The complaints that Lego had become too skewed towards masculine play seems to me a valid 'moral' concern.

The Lego Group has addressed this by pointedly including more female characters. Everything from executives to actresses to soccer moms can be found on shelves today. And that's just in the core Lego lines (I'm unsure what to make of 'Friends', outside of being a source of some fun pieces). Problem solved.

That some people don't like that the concerted effort to aggressively include female character play has led to female specific minifig pieces isn't a 'moral' concern. It's personal preference.

That the prints don't meet your aesthetic desires isn't a 'moral' concern. It is still simply personal preference.

There isn't enough substance here to suggest any sort of 'moral' debate. There are simply people with a desire for more versatile, gender neutral parts. It's a valid desire, but it can't lay claim to any sort of 'moral' high ground. That's just window dressing to try and shore up thier personal tastes.

[MAB]

There isn't enough substance here to suggest any sort of 'moral' debate. There are simply people with a desire for more versatile, gender neutral parts. It's a valid desire, but it can't lay claim to any sort of 'moral' high ground. That's just window dressing to try and shore up thier personal tastes.

My preference is for more gender neutral parts. Not because I don't want female torsos, I do.

I want a decent selection of male only torsos, a decent selection of female only torsos and where appropriate a selection of torsos that could be used for either. So for example, a pirate torso for a man with his shirt unbuttoned, will be for a man. A woman in a dress will be a woman. But a train guard or a lab-coat wearing scientist, why not use a neutral torso? Especially where we are likely to only ever get one of a torso, it helps customisers if that torso is gender neutral if at all possible.

It also has the bigger effect of helping to increase the number of female characters in sets, without putting off boys by including more / too many female minifigs in sets. If a character can be either sex by a simple change of a head (and possibly hair, depending on headgear), then sets could contain for example:

1 male figure

1 female figure

2 of choice of the user.

So the ratios there are as low as 25% female, or as high as 75% female, depending on the choice of the user.

It's nothing to do with morals, or not liking big breasted minifigs, it is down to wanting better gender balance in sets without wanting to put off the main target group, and wider choices of generic rather than specific parts.

Part of this is down to when I grew up, lego was much less specific than it is now. Fewer specialised parts meant more need for imagination. Minifig printing has followed the same pathway as parts, we have highly specialised parts that can be used for one thing and little else, the same is starting to be true of minifigs too. With increased detail, we loose flexibility.

One other subtle thing to note in this particular case, and one that may drive customizes nuts regardless of negative space usage to generate a waist and hips. Look carefully at that scientist. Trying to use that torso as generic will not work. The eye will always perceive it as female. Because of the shirt collar. It is a subtle detail that our eyes pick up even if we don't realize it. Men's and Women's shirts button the opposite way, going back centuries. Go back and look at that Female Forrest Police figure compared to the male. There is more going on there than just boobs and hips. And there are more details that differentiate men and women than can adequately be covered in generic torsos. Attempting to do so just means we once again get no real women represented.

I would still use that as a male torso. The buttons cannot even be seen (although I'd still use it if they were seen) and so the detail is only down to what way the collar overlaps. We give enough leeway to the design due to the minifig shape, that for me, minor details are not so important. It wouldn't bother me if for example, in Lego City, men had clothes that button up either way. After all, due to their body shape, buildings are all the wrong shape (wide and stumpy), cars are often single seated with the driver in the centre, and so on.

Older torsos managed it - they had buttons down the middle, without representing the button holes.

[klinton]

My preference is for more gender neutral parts. Not because I don't want female torsos, I do.

I want a decent selection of male only torsos, a decent selection of female only torsos and where appropriate a selection of torsos that could be used for either. So for example, a pirate torso for a man with his shirt unbuttoned, will be for a man. A woman in a dress will be a woman. But a train guard or a lab-coat wearing scientist, why not use a neutral torso? Especially where we are likely to only ever get one of a torso, it helps customisers if that torso is gender neutral if at all possible.

It also has the bigger effect of helping to increase the number of female characters in sets, without putting off boys by including more / too many female minifigs in sets. If a character can be either sex by a simple change of a head (and possibly hair, depending on headgear), then sets could contain for example:

1 male figure

1 female figure

2 of choice of the user.

So the ratios there are as low as 25% female, or as high as 75% female, depending on the choice of the user.

It's nothing to do with morals, or not liking big breasted minifigs, it is down to wanting better gender balance in sets without wanting to put off the main target group, and wider choices of generic rather than specific parts.

Part of this is down to when I grew up, lego was much less specific than it is now. Fewer specialised parts meant more need for imagination. Minifig printing has followed the same pathway as parts, we have highly specialised parts that can be used for one thing and little else, the same is starting to be true of minifigs too. With increased detail, we loose flexibility.

I've tried to say that I understand your desire. I'm of the inverse persuasion where I'm all for specialized prints and pieces. I love how minifigs have such personality these days! There are thousands of options out of the billions (litterally) of minifigs produced by the Lego Group that fit the 'gender neutral' critera. So, I'm full game for more specialized pieces now.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your desires, nor that I'm right. We're just interested in different things. :D

[ummester]

More gender neutral is a solution to stop people passing criticism, one way or the other.

I do think that there is too much emphasis on the minifg overall, that LEGO has become too humanised because of this. There was a totally non biased purity to the singular smiley face that was available originally - allowing the child to imagine the plastic representation of a human as whatever character they preferred.

I used to imagine that some of my CS astronauts were men and some were women, depending on what Sci film, TV series, or book I was enjoying at the time. I feel the modern minifig does subtract from this allowance for versatility.

Edited August 12, 2014 by ummester

[klinton]

More gender neutral is a solution to stop people passing criticism, one way or the other.

I do think that there is too much emphasis on the minifg overall, that LEGO has become too humanised because of this. There was a totally non biased purity to the singular smiley face that was available originally - allowing the child to imagine the plastic representation of a human as whatever character they preferred.

I used to imagine that some of my CS astronauts were men and some were women, depending on what Sci film, TV series, or book I was enjoying at the time. I feel the modern minifig does subtract from this allowance for versatility.

Oh, for sure. I'm not at the 'create random Lego construct' stage yet though (having only just rediscovered Lego very recently with the introduction of Super heroes and now the Lego Movie). Perhaps in a couple years when I've tired of the sets I've amassed and find myself with a mountain of bricks I'll get to that point (I've already started packing up some of them, as they're taking up far too much realestate in my collections room). ;)

I see Lego as a brilliant little world building system, who's core is the little brick people who live there, so I'm inclined to appreciate the minifig centric Lego. It's always been about the minifigs though. I think as a kid I had only one or two sets (with those utterly useless red and white doors too small for ANYTHING, hahaha) before I started getting minifig sized pieces. I never looked back.

So I've more interest in, say, an 'Executive Ellen' minifig (my current favorite, btw!), than a generic minifig whom I could put a female hairpiece on. I like the idea of specific figures who stand out from everyone else, with just enough personality to make them special, but without any 'set in stone' play pattern or persona (she's a closet lush, btw, who will be living in the apartment over the Parisian restraunt, hahaha).

I get that you can infuse whatever you want into generic minifigs, but I'm personally drawn to the modern prints. I guess Ellen would still look good with a simple striped jacket print, but her sinched waist adds an extra level of personality to her, imho.

There are still the Creator sets offering simpler prints, no?

[ummester]

Definitely - the classic smiley and blank torsos are still available.

Depending on the build, I also like to include specialised minifgs - look at my avatar:) He's currently my favourite minifig assembly because I just find he has character - he's the confident clown from a large piratical MOC, a combination of bits from Raiders of the Lost Ark, Prince of Persia and Pirates of the Caribbean.

The crux of this whole conversation, I thought, was about finding the best way to remove gender bias from creative play for our children. I find the solution to that is supremely simple - remove gender bias from play elements, don't try to represent either - it's just too hard to keep everyone happy all of the time.

Of course, LEGO found it was losing the female audience with that approach but I think the answer to this is supremely simple also - girls don't have the same biological predisposition to construction as boys. Yes, it's a generalisation - girls can make great builders and all women are entitled to the same employment opportunity as men - I'm just saying that, on average, there are biological differences that prevail and perhaps LEGO is a toy concept that will always appeal more to boys than girls, no matter what is changed, because it is based on construction.

Edited August 12, 2014 by ummester

[klinton]

Definitely - the classic smiley and blank torsos are still available.

I think I have a slight aversion to the classic smiley face now. I don't hate it, but I'm niether here nor there with it. I might be the only person in the world who was kinda dissapointed that Benny's alternate face was the classic smiley and not his super excited 'spaceship' face, hahaha.

They make for fine 'background' people and civilians, but thier blandness doesn't endear me to any one of them. I feel compelled to hit up the Lego Store and get those poor people a proper face, every time. :p

I can't stand the blank torsos anymore though. At all. Those guys get dumped in the 'extra bits' tub as soon as I get them.

[ummester]

By your own points raised above klinton - which I thought were very good, BTW, this comes down entirely to personal preference.

Of course, as a generic face, the smiley can not cater for humanised characterisation - only human representation.

Ultimately, as was raised in another thread, I guess it is TLGs purpose to make sales and more the parents purpose to define how their children play. If humanised minifgs sell, it's in LEGOs best interest to produce them and, if a parent wants gender neutral play for their children, they should supply the children only with smileys and blank torsos, rather than campaign for specific minifg design.

Edited August 12, 2014 by ummester

[rodiziorobs]

I do think that there is too much emphasis on the minifig overall

That is because TLG's patents expired on their bricks, and the minifigure came to represent their trademark. Other brick companies copy the brick and knob design all they want, but they cannot (legitimately) copy the minifig design. Sure, Chinese knockoff brands still try(-ish: their figs look atrocious) but MegaBloks, Kre-o, and back in the day Tyco had to develop their own style of mini-person.

With that in mind (and to return to the topic at hand), it is no small wonder why TLG has invested so much into designing and detailing minifigs. As stated in my earlier post about TLG using shaded curves to make gender easily recognizable, I believe that TLG also uses this method as it further establishes their own brand--not only is it easy to spot that the minifigure in question is female, it is easy to spot that it is specifically a LEGO female.

[ummester]

That's interesting rodiziorobs - I didn't know that and now it all makes perfect sense to me why and how the minifg became the flagship of LEGO elements. Of course LEGO bricks still feel nicer, build better and clutch with more power than the others :D

And I agree that the LEGO female should be a thing onto itself and not so subjected to the scrutiny of real people.

[BrickG]

I do not like the idea of gender neutral parts for the most part.

Life isn't often gender neutral. It's usually recognizable by gender. Even the manliest woman often looks like a woman. The girliest man like a man. Within a certain range of course :P as there are people who could be described as gender neutral. But really for the most part, again, things just aren't. And I think making too many parts that are gender neutral is akin to "colorblindness" or not seeing race. It's not good to be colorblind which is something Lego does with the Yellow, until they have to make a minifigure that is black ;p. I'm looking at you Lando and Virtuvious! In the same way we can't make the common differences between genders go away by simply ignoring them.

Yes, the hourglass shape kind of gives that "size zero" culture expectation a bit. Yeah, not all women have boobs that big. You're right, not all women have lipstick and makeup on. Right, women often have the "girl hair" in Lego. But for an art style so simple it would be hard to convey gender in other ways.

The most obvious identifiers are boobs IMO. Not all women have boobs and you can't stick those behemoths on children without feeling weird. So you cannot simply rely on that. A lot of women wear makeup. Just use makeup if it makes sense for the character. You don't have to all the time but really, at this point at least around me the majority of women wear makeup. Hair is often different too. I cannot really fault using any of these as gender identifiers. As long as it's in character it's fine to me (easy with franchises). As long as they don't make ALL women have all of these features it's fine (I couldn't quote the ratio of women minifigures without makeup or boobs or generalized female hair).

I think the only one that is iffy is the hourglass. It's based on a kind of stereotype and cultural expectation that usually ISN'T true. And even if it isn't that doesn't mean anything negative (as we often hear of some people calling perfectly skinny, but non-size 0 people fat, which is ridiculous). I don't think much harm would be done if they got rid of the hourglass ;p. But at the same time when it comes to characterization of franchise characters it can often be argued as accurate. Idunno this is the only one I think is kind of controversial in my eyes.

[Dorayaki]

I think it's okay to have some neutral prints, but we don't have to increase the amounts by purpose. I'd say that there are many neutral faces fitting in female figs but rarely used in that way.

Makeups are common in real life, so we don't need to reject female figs to have makeups. My concern is that most generic female figs are just trying to be pretty and smile all the time. Some newer face designs do try to get rid of that problem (ex, the TLM female citizens have more vivid expressions), but for now the diversity of generic face prints (for City and Creator sets) is not balanced between guys and girls.

As for curves, in the same theory, guys can be categorized into muscline and non-muscline. I think it shouldn't be a problem for us to see some females who don't have that curvy bodies.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Dorayaki

[autorazr]

Meh... I still agree with Meatman.

Couldn't agree more. Sorry for the so-called "customizers," variety is the spice of life... the more figures, and the more they vary, the better, IMO. You want plain torsos, then order plain torsos from S@H or bricklink.

None of us are arguing that all female figures need large breasts or curvy hips, but that they exist doesn't prove anything negative. That they are not the only way TLG represents women, as mccoyed actually proved, shows that there is more to the side that argues there's nothing wrong here... a nice varied representation.

omg I used the word customizer and its like the only thing I've said anyone wants to talk about. You and Hive need to get a clue and actually pay attention to what I and others are saying before you decide to shoot off. Any kids toy featuring a woman with an itty bitty waste and giant boobs is not ok. That pirate torso might be indicative of a larger woman with larger natural breasts, if it werent for that waist. All I'm saying is remove the confusion, get rid of that hourglass figure and make them square like they always have been, there will still be soooooo many gender identifiers...as if that matters in a world where homosexuality and trans sexuality are becoming more acceptable and gender identifiers are becoming less necessary. Yes men and women are different, but the lines are being blurred and most people are being tolerant of that, why must toys remain stuck in 1950s?

[obsidianheart]

Yes men and women are different, but the lines are being blurred and most people are being tolerant of that, why must toys remain stuck in 1950s?

Where I'm from, most people aren't all that tolerant. And the ones who aren't spend a lot of money.

Maybe take a breath, there. You seem to be pretty upset that people are fixating on one part of your statement.

[ummester]

If a young girl is going to get unrealistic expectations for female body shape, wouldn't there be so many other potential sources - magazines, video clips, Disney princesses, TV shows like I Carly or Hi 5 which only feature thin and attractive women - than the female minifg? Isn't either not being pretty or thin enough a bigger concern for developing female minds than not having a waist?

[autorazr]

This pretty much underlines this entire 'debate' quite accurately. I know it was intended as a reply to a specific poster, but it's all I can think when I see people up in arms about feminine detailing.

These are Lego people. No one, in the history of sanity has ever looked at a Lego minifig and decided it was 'sexy'. Ever.

Decidedly female shapes and designs are simply to distinctly point out that "this figure IS a female". It litterally cannot convey 'sex' nor 'sell sex to children'. It's a blocky little cartoon figure.

I can almost understand the hardcore custom builders who want to swap out bodies on the fly and decide 'this cop body is a woman/man in this build'. I get that desire. I think the trade off of having more visible women in the lines vs having to hunt a little harder for the perfect torso for your MOC tends to fall heavier on the side of pro-female specific prints. It just seems more in the interests of a larger feminist ideal to me.

This entire debate is odd to me though. The sheer variety of unique minifig designs and options available these days is amazing! I seriously had no idea how far they'd come until I fell in love with the Lego Movie and started actively collecting Lego.

With so many options on the table, with the perfect face/hair/body out there somewhere...more specialized pieces are completely welcome, imho. :D

presumptuous and wrong, with all the things that exist these days, I promise you there is a member of this very community, who has found a lego minifigure sexy.

Do LEGO leaves look exactly like every possible combination of real leaves that occur in nature? Do LEGO tyres accurately represent real life tyres? What about the LEGO animals? Is every animal represented and are those that are represented accurate?

A curved torso with breast shadows is a closer approximation of a human female torso then what the LEGO rat is to a rat - the LEGO rat looks like a possum and is the relative size of a cat or small dog to a minifigure. If we can be ok with an oversized deformed rat, why can't we be ok with female minifigs the way they are?

well, leaves and rats dont deal with gender inequality and objectification, sooooo, nice moot point.

More gender neutral is a solution to stop people passing criticism, one way or the other.

I do think that there is too much emphasis on the minifg overall, that LEGO has become too humanised because of this. There was a totally non biased purity to the singular smiley face that was available originally - allowing the child to imagine the plastic representation of a human as whatever character they preferred.

I used to imagine that some of my CS astronauts were men and some were women, depending on what Sci film, TV series, or book I was enjoying at the time. I feel the modern minifig does subtract from this allowance for versatility.

I'm sorry I reacted to your leaves and rats comment the way I did, given that this comment is right on point.

Where I'm from, most people aren't all that tolerant. And the ones who aren't spend a lot of money.

Maybe take a breath, there. You seem to be pretty upset that people are fixating on one part of your statement.

maybe dont tell me when I'm upset, I am not, I am simply engaging in this discussion. Ya'll are so quick to call everyone complainers or accuse them of anger. I am a very reasonable guy and I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion that is all. However, I am american, and I am socially liberal. If your country aint cool with alternative lifestyles, I aint cool with your country, thats not anger, thats just me speaking my mind.

[obsidianheart]

maybe dont tell me when I'm upset, I am not, I am simply engaging in this discussion. Ya'll are so quick to call everyone complainers or accuse them of anger. I am a very reasonable guy and I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion that is all. However, I am american, and I am socially liberal. If your country aint cool with alternative lifestyles, I aint cool with your country, thats not anger, thats just me speaking my mind.

Hey cool.

I'm from Oklahoma.

In America.

Also, getting all "you people" on me is kind of unreasonable.

Edited August 14, 2014 by obsidianheart

[autorazr]

Hey cool.

I'm from Oklahoma.

In America.

Also, getting all "you people" on me is kind of unreasonable.

bro, telling me how I feel, is unquestionably unreasonable. I am from New York, so Oklahoma is basically another country to me, and probably should be given that most new yorkers are tolerant of alternative lifestyles and probably shouldnt be governed in the same way that your people are, I guess I'm liberal and libertarian.

[obsidianheart]

bro, telling me how I feel, is unquestionably unreasonable. I am from New York, so Oklahoma is basically another country to me, and probably should be given that most new yorkers are tolerant of alternative lifestyles and probably shouldnt be governed in the same way that your people are, I guess I'm liberal and libertarian.

I am those things also. I also never told you how you feel. I expressed how you appeared, how it seemed. And you're still doing the "you people" thing. Which is the opposite of tolerance. And you're treading into an uncomfortably offensive territory with your remarks about how we shouldn't be governed the same.

[autorazr]

I am those things also. I also never told you how you feel. I expressed how you appeared, how it seemed. And you're still doing the "you people" thing. Which is the opposite of tolerance. And you're treading into an uncomfortably offensive territory with your remarks about how we shouldn't be governed the same.

Its not offensive, its a legitimate political stance. I'm not suggesting Oklahomans are bad people, just that they are very different from I and the struggles in their daily lives are not really mine, it was you who suggested they are intolerant. This is a "you people" thing it is "you people" who put words into others mouths or make assumptions about them, I dont mind referring to those people are "those people" being that the traits I am classifying you under, can be helped or learned, unlike say referencing a certain racial group as "you people."

[obsidianheart]

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the alternative lifestyle discrimination that takes place in your own country before suggesting that the practices of a foreign country are not okay. Also, despite what you may think, the struggles of a United States citizen are pretty similar no matter where they are from. Lastly, I will reiterate that I never told you how you felt, I merely pointed out that you seemed upset due to the flippant and rude comments about people needing to "get a clue".

This is going nowhere. I will no longer participate in this discussion.

[ummester]

I think, autorazr, that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.

My comments in this discussion have mostly been an attempt to broaden it from the singular aspect of female minifig waists being somehow offensive to modern sensibilities. There are many viewpoints to any discussion. The waist can be considered a throwback to the 50s, or it can be considered a simple artistic representation of the feminine for a toy - all depending on your point of view.

[WhiteFang]

Dear all,

Please keep the discussion within the boundaries of the above intended objective of this discussion. Do not venture into content which is totally not relevant to this discussion.

Thank you for your attention.

WhiteFang

[klinton]

presumptuous and wrong, with all the things that exist these days, I promise you there is a member of this very community, who has found a lego minifigure sexy.

I'd included a qualifier in that statment: sanity.

I've no doubt that there are people out there capable of objectifying minifigs. There are people in the world who lust after my little pony.

I just don't think that that sort of, um, fetishization need have any bearing on a discussion of little block people. Printed breast lines are just paying tribute to the fact that women do in fact have breasts, and nothing more. It's not 'selling sex' to kids, as had been implied.

If you're looking at a minifig and seeing 'sex'...that's on you. /shrug.

[Hive]

That pirate torso might be indicative of a larger woman with larger natural breasts, if it werent for that waist.

Ever heard of corsets? They were widely used in the time period and gave even "larger" women that hourglass figure.