Women of NASA - Can of Worms

catwrangler

@SithLord196 Neither of them had the PR gold of being easy to tie in with a successful film. There's been so much buzz about Hidden Figures, and the specificity of the set being women in NASA (not women scientists in general, or even NASA luminaries in general) is a gift, timing-wise.

Science Adventures is indeed more like Research Institute in that you get three characters, each with a vignette showing them in action in their own scientific field. And it's really cool and I would've loved to own that set, but marketing-wise it doesn't get the bounce of being the first time Lego's done a set of women scientists. I'm not so sure we'd be seeing this set if not for the combination of the Hidden Figures phenomenon, and the release of the Saturn V.

The reason to reject the National Parks set is obvious - it's a very country-specific set, designed for the centennial of the US National Parks Service. NASA might be the North American Space Agency, but the average person outside America is going to have much more knowledge of/ability to relate to it than to the US National Parks Service. Ditto the movie/TV/Beatles sets that get approved - they're based on properties that are widely known and loved internationally. 

stlux

@Paperballpark Valentina Tereshkova spent 3 days orbiting earth in 1963.

Bumblepants

I expect to see a dramatic rise in special interest groups of all sorts putting up mediocre projects and stuffing the ballot box for them. By the weekend there will be dozens of similar projects and some will probably hit 10K quickly. Could be some really ridiculous review groups in the coming months.

CCC

catwrangler said:

@SithLord196 Neither of them had the PR gold of being easy to tie in with a successful film. There's been so much buzz about Hidden Figures, and the specificity of the set being women in NASA (not women scientists in general, or even NASA luminaries in general) is a gift, timing-wise.

Science Adventures is indeed more like Research Institute in that you get three characters, each with a vignette showing them in action in their own scientific field. And it's really cool and I would've loved to own that set, but marketing-wise it doesn't get the bounce of being the first time Lego's done a set of women scientists. I'm not so sure we'd be seeing this set if not for the combination of the Hidden Figures phenomenon, and the release of the Saturn V.

The reason to reject the National Parks set is obvious - it's a very country-specific set, designed for the centennial of the US National Parks Service. NASA might be the North American Space Agency, but the average person outside America is going to have much more knowledge of/ability to relate to it than to the US National Parks Service. Ditto the movie/TV/Beatles sets that get approved - they're based on properties that are widely known and loved internationally. 

Hidden Figures will be long gone by the time this is out.

Paperballpark

stlux said:

@Paperballpark Valentina Tereshkova spent 3 days orbiting earth in 1963.

Ah yes, that famous NASA astronaut...

catwrangler

And was that a problem after Research Institute? 

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA

You're also factually wrong in claiming that 'Women have been going into space as astronauts ALMOST as long as men have'. Unless you class 'almost as long' as being 22 years difference. Alan Shepard was the first American man in space, in 1961. Sally Ride was the first American woman in space, in 1983. That is not 'almost as long'.

Actually @MattPetersen its you who are factually wrong. The first woman in space was Valentina Tereshkova in '63. And THATS assuming that Maria  Gromova WASN'T lost in late 58/59 (which the more I read seems more probable than not).
Paperballpark actually mentioned Tereshkova by name in the same post which you quoted!
Devils advocate and all that...

Bumblepants

catwrangler said:

And was that a problem after Research Institute? 

If you are saying that in response to me, I would say research institute had some interesting builds and unique designs. Good idea, good set.

 Five minifigs on a baseplate is super boring as a set. Maybe (hopefully) they jazz it up in the design process but this set comes across as both being made and chosen around the subject matter and not the Lego build. To my mind a worthy Lego Idea needs a good build to go with the subject matter.

I was just saying that when people see the picture of what was selected a number will probably think "hey we can do five figures about our thing!" Or on the Lego side "I can make a winning project if I just pick the right special interest to tap into!"

Personally I don't have strong opinions for or against this set. Was just thinking about the way it could shape Ideas in the future.

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA

Bumblepants said:

I expect to see a dramatic rise in special interest groups of all sorts putting up mediocre projects and stuffing the ballot box for them. By the weekend there will be dozens of similar projects and some will probably hit 10K quickly. Could be some really ridiculous review groups in the coming months.

THIS - EXACTLY!  (and please correct me if I'm wrong) The designer of Women of NASA actually had a couple of 'Women of' type submissions if I'm not mistaken?

CCC

There have been loads of women of ... ideas,  after The Female Minifigure Set (or whatever it was then called) was approved.

Odeinoichus

Having seen what's up next, I wish folks on Ideas would stop submitting ideas for already licensed Properties, none of the Marvel, DC, Star Wars or what-have-you that have been put up have ever gotten selected because if LEGO was going to make those types of sets they'd make them already.

I feel Red Dwarf might make a surprise victory based purely on the fact that it was an Easter Egg included in LEGO Dimensions, however I could be wrong about that.

As far as this set is concerned, I think I'd prefer a small area over the vignettes, like a full baseplate based set with key areas for the ladies to be working in, at least it might be more interesting of a build if that is the case.

tmgm528

Bumblepants said:

I expect to see a dramatic rise in special interest groups of all sorts putting up mediocre projects and stuffing the ballot box for them. By the weekend there will be dozens of similar projects and some will probably hit 10K quickly. Could be some really ridiculous review groups in the coming months.

Is that really true though? I think it takes more than one time of something like this getting through/picked to constitute a prediction of special interest groups getting all over this. 

Mind you nearly all Ideas sets have been licensed properties/original ideas. 

Claiming this is the start of special interests is a lot like saying Bird Enthusiast projects would skyrocket after birds passed. Let's just wait and see.

MattPetersen

Paperballpark said:

MattPetersen said:

Paperballpark said:

MattPetersen said:

I don't think it's about equality in so much as it's about recognition.
Let's be honest (and this is coming from a teacher), we know who Neil Armstrong, John Glenn, Alan Shepard, Buzz Aldrin, Chris Hadfield, and Story Musgrave, but many people can't name many women in the same field with the exception of Sally Ride.
In terms of equality we have a ways to go (but we are making progress) but so much still needs to be accomplished.

I take your point, but surely a lack of diversity in NASA is for NASA to address, not LEGO?

The reason the women of NASA are less well known than the men is because it was (overwhelmingly) the men who were the astronauts. Like it or not, it's the astronauts who get the recognition, because going into space is the dangerous part of the missions.

With the best will in the world, whilst doing all the calculations and everything like that is obviously important, it's nowhere near as dangerous - and therefore as high-profile - as being an astronaut.

Women have been going into space as astronauts ALMOST as long as men have (in Russia even longer, see Valentina Vladimirovna Tereshkova)  However, due to our culture the men received more recognition, training, and jobs compared to the women (as you pointed out because obviously space is dangerous and women shouldn't be there, as per what our male centered culture felt for a long time). 
So, it's not a NASA problem but a cultural problem.

You're gravely misrepresenting what I said.

I never said that 'space is dangerous and women shouldn't be there'. I said that 'going into space is the dangerous part'. Therefore as there have been a lot more men in space than women, it follows that a society which makes heroes of people who do dangerous jobs will know a lot more NASA male astronauts than NASA female astronauts.

I did NOT say that 'space is dangerous and women shouldn't be there'. Clearly that's complete rubbish, and my estimation of you sank through the floor when you claimed that I'd said that.

You're also factually wrong in claiming that 'Women have been going into space as astronauts ALMOST as long as men have'. Unless you class 'almost as long' as being 22 years difference. Alan Shepard was the first American man in space, in 1961. Sally Ride was the first American woman in space, in 1983. That is not 'almost as long'.

I wasn't quoting you. 
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
I was using almost exactly what you said to show the mentality of the 50s through pretty much the 70s (and a little beyond).
Many men (and some women too) felt that dangerous jobs were no place for women. 
Sad fact.

You are right about Sally Ride in the 80s, It was sloppy editing on my part. I was typing quickly on my phone and was thinking about Russian Cosmonauts (which is why I also included that bit in my statement and deleted Yuri Gagarin in my list but deleted him when I realized I was trying to talk strictly about NASA).

Fauch

Bumblepants said:

I expect to see a dramatic rise in special interest groups of all sorts putting up mediocre projects and stuffing the ballot box for them. By the weekend there will be dozens of similar projects and some will probably hit 10K quickly. Could be some really ridiculous review groups in the coming months.

there is no way they can reject a famous jews set, right?

MattPetersen

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA said:

You're also factually wrong in claiming that 'Women have been going into space as astronauts ALMOST as long as men have'. Unless you class 'almost as long' as being 22 years difference. Alan Shepard was the first American man in space, in 1961. Sally Ride was the first American woman in space, in 1983. That is not 'almost as long'.

Actually @MattPetersen its you who are factually wrong. The first woman in space was Valentina Tereshkova in '63. And THATS assuming that Maria  Gromova WASN'T lost in late 58/59 (which the more I read seems more probable than not).
Paperballpark actually mentioned Tereshkova by name in the same post which you quoted!
Devils advocate and all that...

@MAGNINOMINISUMBRA

actually I'm the one who mentioned her first if you look at the quotes right. 
The internet is at least good for jumping on each other to try and make someone wrong. ;)


I am not trying to make anyone look wrong or factually incorrect. I'm having a discussion on why this set is important and not a negative thing at all.

tallblocktoo

My issue with this seats with some others is not the subject matter so much as it lacks interest as a build.  Sure I love mini figures and I'm sure the info included will be educational and interesting but I would hope with the Lego Ideas there would be something interesting to build as well.

Legoboy

What's the betting LEGO use minidolls in the final version.  Just you wait.  ;)

MattPetersen

tallblocktoo said:

My issue with this seats with some others is not the subject matter so much as it lacks interest as a build.  Sure I love mini figures and I'm sure the info included will be educational and interesting but I would hope with the Lego Ideas there would be something interesting to build as well.

This is a valid argument.
I understand the necessity for an actual set build over just a bunch of minifigures with some accessories. 

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA

@MattPetersen - sorry mate - this ones moving so fast (and once we're into 4 brackets of quoting) things slip! 
  I also have a bad habit of jumping on people who claim others to be factually wrong when they're not.  Add to this the fact I firmly believe the Russians put a women in space years before the US got a guy up there and I just had to bite.
 
BTW - Gender politics and opinions on history aside - NOONE will convince me this set isn't a dud!

And to echo my own comments of MONTHS ago - Still can't quite work out how it got to 10k so quick (and more importantly) willing to bet my gender specific bits that there is no way that the majority of voters are either FOL's or eventual owners of the produced set.

CCC

Legoboy said:

What's the betting LEGO use minidolls in the final version.  Just you wait.  ;)

It would be great if they did. It would show minidolls / Friends style sets had really made it. 

bandit778

Not impressed, wouldn't be impressed even if I was a NASA history buff.
To me the Ideas platform should be about creative design, build and content, not just one of the three. 
I do understand to a degree why it was chosen but IMO it is a wasted slot in a very select section of TLG's set releases.
The upside is it has saved me from buying another Ideas set that holds zero appeal to a kid that likes the build (Adventure Time being the other).

catwrangler

Bumblepants said:

catwrangler said:

And was that a problem after Research Institute? 

If you are saying that in response to me, I would say research institute had some interesting builds and unique designs. Good idea, good set.

 Five minifigs on a baseplate is super boring as a set. Maybe (hopefully) they jazz it up in the design process but this set comes across as both being made and chosen around the subject matter and not the Lego build. To my mind a worthy Lego Idea needs a good build to go with the subject matter.

I was just saying that when people see the picture of what was selected a number will probably think "hey we can do five figures about our thing!" Or on the Lego side "I can make a winning project if I just pick the right special interest to tap into!"

Personally I don't have strong opinions for or against this set. Was just thinking about the way it could shape Ideas in the future.

Yeah, it just struck me that if tons of copycat sets were likely to be a problem, we'd likely have seen it after the Research Institute was so popular. From what people are saying, there's been some, but also some decent stuff, and we haven't ended up with the scenario of the 10K review process getting bogged down by them - if anything, I think that the more of any type of submission they get, the less likely any individual submission is to hit 10K.

If it did become a problem, I don't think that TLG want to pit nine different slightly dressed-up minifig sets against each other either, and I think they'd have the sense to nip it in the bud by changing the system; it wouldn't be the first time they've tweaked things. Of course, a lot of people would say they haven't gone far enough, but then that's not a new problem, what with the glut of people using Ideas to display their MOCs, or to submit things Lego already license and which are against the rules...

Legoboy

CCC said:

Legoboy said:

What's the betting LEGO use minidolls in the final version.  Just you wait.  ;)

It would be great if they did. It would show minidolls / Friends style sets had really made it. 

Not at all.  Would instead illustrate moreso that they're playing the 'girlie' card.

MattPetersen

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA said:

@MattPetersen - sorry mate - this ones moving so fast (and once we're into 4 brackets of quoting) things slip! 
  I also have a bad habit of jumping on people who claim others to be factually wrong when they're not.  Add to this the fact I firmly believe the Russians put a women in space years before the US got a guy up there and I just had to bite.
 
BTW - Gender politics and opinions on history aside - NOONE will convince me this set isn't a dud!

And to echo my own comments of MONTHS ago - Still can't quite work out how it got to 10k so quick (and more importantly) willing to bet my gender specific bits that there is no way that the majority of voters are either FOL's or eventual owners of the produced set.

@MAGNINOMINISUMBRA
 
I'm completely in agreeance with you on Russia. Regardless of their politics at the time, they kicked U.S. rear in the beginning of the space race in many ways. 

I also agree that in terms of creativity and a set build this is not a great set. I still like it. I still think it's important and should be made, but I totally get the disappointment of not getting something more substantial. 

ecmo47

This "recognition" line of Lego sets/builds would be much better served as a continuing CMF series. Famous person(s) and a fact sheet. Teachers and collectors would eat it up and it would not generate near the stir that this submission is. Of course, there will be a chorus for a famous gay, or a famous Christian, or a famous Muslim, or a.....never mind.....maybe Lego should just stick to making toys with generic yellow head minifigs.

catwrangler

I think a big part of the dissatisfaction that's coming out here in general is based on the fact that what many AFOLs want Ideas to be isn't what it actually is. It's easy to hang it on the argument as to whether highlighting women in STEM is good or not, but if the Beatles set had ended up being a minifigure pack rather than a full playset, we'd still be having a variation on this conversation.

We'd like Ideas to be a venue where sets too big/complex/niche/ornate for the normal themes get a chance to exist, and sometimes (Fisherman's House!) that's even what actually happens, but I don't think that's how TLG perceives its major function.

Seems like a big function of Ideas is PR outreach to people who don't normally pay attention to Lego. Every one of those people is either a potential AFOL or a potential buyer of Lego for their/other people's children, so the brand value in getting them to notice a set (and by extension, Lego in general), because it's touched on an interest of theirs, is huge. 

datsunrobbie

The Women of NASA set somehow managed to get 10,000 supporters in 2 weeks, which I think is very impressive. The set, as proposed, is not something I'd buy for myself unless it is priced a lot lower than I expect it to be. Nothing against the subject matter, I simply have no need for 5 generic minifigures, a few basic bricks and some stickers for upwards of $50.

When I was a KFOL most of the LEGO I had was from the classic space theme. Every minifigure had the same yellow face, and the only way to tell the gender of a minifigure was to ask the kid playing with it. 

tmgm528

catwrangler said:

I think a big part of the dissatisfaction that's coming out here in general is based on the fact that what many AFOLs want Ideas to be isn't what it actually is. It's easy to hang it on the argument as to whether highlighting women in STEM is good or not, but if the Beatles set had ended up being a minifigure pack rather than a full playset, we'd still be having a variation on this conversation.

We'd like Ideas to be a venue where sets too big/complex/niche/ornate for the normal themes get a chance to exist, and sometimes (Fisherman's House!) that's even what actually happens, but I don't think that's how TLG perceives its major function.

Seems like a big function of Ideas is PR outreach to people who don't normally pay attention to Lego. Every one of those people is either a potential AFOL or a potential buyer of Lego for their/other people's children, so the brand value in getting them to notice a set (and by extension, Lego in general), because it's touched on an interest of theirs, is huge. 

This, this, this. 

A big way Ideas is framed makes it super easy to get behind something that we never would have gotten in a million years, so to see a favorite franchise get 'taken away' in favor of something like this with a different appeal is a bit frustrating. 

It's all just a different Adult consumer v company thing. 

As much as I personally think this is a good idea, there have been things that passed before I was less than happy with. So if you don't want it, dont buy it. When the next Ideas is chosen, do the same. No obes being forced to buy something or pay money, so everyone, just appreciate TLG is putting out something a bit different along with stuff we get and love every year from them.

Legopassion8

Pitfall69 said:

^^Bonus Marie Curie that glows in the dark.

Sucks I can only like this one time. She's my favorite scientist. Glow in the Dark is my favorite feature. This would be an awesome minifigure! You're a freaking genius, yo!


I got two leftover U(s) cause I spelled favorite the right way!

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA

Does anyone HONESTLY believe we'll be seeing posts in the introduction thread saying 'It was the Women of NASA set that bought me into the hobby/ out of my dark ages"? If the answer is yes then I'd say you're as deluded as the marketing brains who approved this set! Standing by my previous assertion that the majority of voters are not fans of Lego or (and much more importantly) eventual owners of the set once it becomes available...

leetshoe

Lame. Give us Spaceballs

CCC

Legoboy said:

CCC said:

Legoboy said:

What's the betting LEGO use minidolls in the final version.  Just you wait.  ;)

It would be great if they did. It would show minidolls / Friends style sets had really made it. 

Not at all.  Would instead illustrate moreso that they're playing the 'girlie' card.

They'd never do it. The feminist activists would be up in arms if they made a set celebrating women's achievements using "girls Lego".

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA

^ just spat my Weet bix over my iPhone!  It's funny cause it's true!

Legoboy

^^ I don't disagree and why I originally said it with tongue in cheek.

What they'll actually do is rename them Mia, Stephanie, Andrea, Emma and Olivia for their final release.

HugeYellowBrick

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA said:

Does anyone HONESTLY believe we'll be seeing posts in the introduction thread saying 'It was the Women of NASA set that bought me into the hobby/ out of my dark ages"? If the answer is yes then I'd say you're as deluded as the marketing brains who approved this set! Standing by my previous assertion that the majority of voters are not fans of Lego or (and much more importantly) eventual owners of the set once it becomes available...

It was the Female Research Scientists that brought me back to LEGO. It was the first time I'd been in a toy shop for years. I had no idea there were so many themes and sets.

datsunrobbie

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA said:

Does anyone HONESTLY believe we'll be seeing posts in the introduction thread saying 'It was the Women of NASA set that bought me into the hobby/ out of my dark ages"? If the answer is yes then I'd say you're as deluded as the marketing brains who approved this set! Standing by my previous assertion that the majority of voters are not fans of Lego or (and much more importantly) eventual owners of the set once it becomes available...

It will be interesting to see how this set fares once released. 10K votes in a couple of weeks suggests a strong social media following, which may or may not translate to sales. Clicking a button to like a set costs nothing, so there could be a lot of folks voting for the set that have no intention of buying it.

I'm honestly surprised that in the 20 minutes since you posted that nobody has dropped that quote into a post on the introduction thread, just because that's the sort of silliness that thrives here :)

Legopassion8

leetshoe said:

Lame. Give us Spaceballs

Or...

Jews In Space

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA

^Throw in a Piss Boy and Miracle the wonder horse and I'm there!

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA

HugeYellowBrick said:

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA said:

Does anyone HONESTLY believe we'll be seeing posts in the introduction thread saying 'It was the Women of NASA set that bought me into the hobby/ out of my dark ages"? If the answer is yes then I'd say you're as deluded as the marketing brains who approved this set! Standing by my previous assertion that the majority of voters are not fans of Lego or (and much more importantly) eventual owners of the set once it becomes available...

It was the Female Research Scientists that brought me back to LEGO. It was the first time I'd been in a toy shop for years. I had no idea there were so many themes and sets.

I'm not surprised by that @HugeYellowBrick. Research Institute was a great set - THIS ISN'T.
 I also found the comment on the main site article from an ACTUAL female scientist quite interesting...

By lentil in United States, 28 Feb 2017 16:45

As a female scientist, I personally find groupings like "Women in science" pretty patronizing. It's like there are (real) "scientists" and "women scientists" (wow, who knew!), and they are for some reason separate groups. I do understand the need to encourage young females to enter STEM fields, but ghettoizing "women in space," etc. hardly seems like the right approach to me. More useful would be to make a "Heroes of NASA" set, and have 50% female minifigs and 50% male (proportionate to the gender distribution of the population at large).

Also I think the builds on this set look pretty boring, lol. Overall a disappointing choice in my opinion.

goshe7

Pitfall69 said:

I fear this is setting a bad precedent. In order to get your IDEAS entry approved, you can put Lego in a tough position so they HAVE to approve it or suffer backlash.

[rushes to submit UCS MF with "coexist" bumper sticker]

Fauch

catwrangler said:

Seems like a big function of Ideas is PR outreach to people who don't normally pay attention to Lego. Every one of those people is either a potential AFOL or a potential buyer of Lego for their/other people's children, so the brand value in getting them to notice a set (and by extension, Lego in general), because it's touched on an interest of theirs, is huge. 

but women scientists was already covered with the research institute set and when it comes to nasa, the appollo 11 set will probably be much more exciting to most people. so who are they trying to reach? only medias?

tmgm528

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA said:

HugeYellowBrick said:

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA said:

Does anyone HONESTLY believe we'll be seeing posts in the introduction thread saying 'It was the Women of NASA set that bought me into the hobby/ out of my dark ages"? If the answer is yes then I'd say you're as deluded as the marketing brains who approved this set! Standing by my previous assertion that the majority of voters are not fans of Lego or (and much more importantly) eventual owners of the set once it becomes available...

It was the Female Research Scientists that brought me back to LEGO. It was the first time I'd been in a toy shop for years. I had no idea there were so many themes and sets.

I'm not surprised by that @HugeYellowBrick. Research Institute was a great set - THIS ISN'T.
 I also found the comment on the main site article from an ACTUAL female scientist quite interesting...

By lentil in United States, 28 Feb 2017 16:45

As a female scientist, I personally find groupings like "Women in science" pretty patronizing. It's like there are (real) "scientists" and "women scientists" (wow, who knew!), and they are for some reason separate groups. I do understand the need to encourage young females to enter STEM fields, but ghettoizing "women in space," etc. hardly seems like the right approach to me. More useful would be to make a "Heroes of NASA" set, and have 50% female minifigs and 50% male (proportionate to the gender distribution of the population at large).

Also I think the builds on this set look pretty boring, lol. Overall a disappointing choice in my opinion.

Finding one statement by one woman scientist is pretty cherry picking an issue. It's easy to find one example of any group/subset that falls on either side of an issue. It's like the whole 'Hey my *blank* friend says it isn't racist/sexist/etc.' It's easy to cherry pick a 'look I'm right' argument

77ncaachamps

SMC said:

A couple of comments from the front page:

"Well since the Brickset comments seem upset I called their decision a "political correctness ploy," I feel it is worth explaining my dissatisfaction with their decision. Was it smart for it to include Katherine Johnson who was depicted in a film recently? Yes. Do these women deserve to be recognized? Yes. But so does John Glen, Warner VanBraun, etc. Furthermore as an American I love NASA, but... let's be honest that the U.S.S.R made an equal contribution to space exploration which Lego deserves to recognize (the U.S.S.R. historically sending women to space first). That is why I called it "politically correct," because it stoops to the modern social political trends to earn Lego "public brownie points." 

Just as I think an all male Lego set (like what we saw often in the 90's) was a mistake; I also think an all female set falls into the same error. You can't call one an error while calling the other flawless. If we really want to celebrate space exploration, let's celebrate all of it; and stop trying to draw lines along gender, race, and ethnicity for the politics we want to promote. STEM fields need to be promoted among both boys and girls, not just one or the other. Remember, in the modern US at least; more women are getting degrees then men now in school, suggesting that a method is needed to promote both genders to go to school, not just one or the other.

It's also a lame minifig pack disguised as a set, so it has that against it too."

An aside, when did Lego have anything remotely Russian?
Is there a set that may have hinted of Cossacks or the Tsarist period?

GoodCoffeeJoey

I'm mixed. This is the first ideas set that has won solely on the idea of the set, rather than the build. It's ascension has benefited from a particular set of recent circumstances: the success of Hidden Figures film, the rise of the orange menace and Lego already having licensed NASA sets. On the other hand the reactions on the internet to anything vaguely feminist are always amusing and having a women only 'people of NASA' set does insure that it won't depict any actual Nazis.

MAGNINOMINISUMBRA

^hence why my Spies Like Us MOC remains unattempted! It's an interesting point and possibly a Cold War hangover particularly as far as space sets go - so many shuttles, Apollo modules and landers and now a Saturn V and still not a humble Soyuz (the longest serving and quantatively most reliable spacecraft mankind has flung up there)

catwrangler

The most salient fact is that, regardless of how any of us feels about it, TLG chose this set over all those others. What does that say about their reasoning? Especially since, as @Fauch highlighted, Women of NASA will be released after another NASA ideas set, Saturn V.

To me it suggests that, while obviously there'll be some overlap in the audience for those two sets, they think that Women of NASA will reach people the Saturn V won't. This seems reasonable - if you're not a habitual builder, something on the scale of Saturn V may be more expensive, fiddly and time-consuming than you'd want, whether you see it as a one-off purchase or a way to jump back into a childhood hobby. A minifigure set, though, can be quickly put together and sit on your desk as a conversation starter/signifier of your personal interests. And there's no reason you can't move on from there to CMFs, or other sets of whatever theme/scale. 

Apparently TLG think that will do them more good at this point. And "at this point" is key - any decision they make happens in the context of the other Ideas models scheduled for release, and whatever else they're counting on. It's not just Hidden Figures, either - we've just had The Astronaut Wives Club on TV, and there's a new series in the works about the Mercury 13. That's a wave of interest in NASA history, specifically in the less well-known parts involving women and minorities, and in the lives of the individuals involved, which a lot of people are passionate about. I guess we'll all see somewhere next year whether that passion translates into buying this minifig set. 

Pumpkin_3CK5

Gooker1 said:

Guess I'm in the minority.  I really like this set and after seeing Hidden Figures, i'm even more excited to get this set. 

 Hidden Minifigures ayyy

#jksorta

oldtodd33

After reading all of the comments above and irregardless of the reasons they chose this set it is a waste of an Ideas spot. It's more of a battle pack than anything else.

Jenni

I have a 12-year-old daughter who's ecstatic that she's getting a Katherine Johnson minifigure, happy to get a Mae Jemison one and interested in finding out who the white women are. 

I will buy a minimum of three of this set, I have nieces too.

It really may not be aimed at AFOLs, hard as that is for us to believe, but at kids, and their parents, or adult science fans. Maybe they're thinking of little girls who are told they can't like LEGO because it's for boys (my daughter by her classmates), or a teenager dealing with boys unable to accept the possibility she's better at math than them (my experience) or young women pushed into "female" professions (the 23-year-old Spanish teacher who wistfully told me last month she'd like to have been an engineer, make that four sets I need to buy).

Whatever your personal experience has been it doesn't mean some (many?) girls are not being actively discouraged from pursuing careers in science. If LEGO wants to throw a little bit on the encouragement side of the scales then good for them, there's more than enough on the other side already.

tmgm528

Jenni said:

I have a 12-year-old daughter who's ecstatic that she's getting a Katherine Johnson minifigure, happy to get a Mae Jemison one and interested in finding out who the white women are. 

I will buy a minimum of three of this set, I have nieces too.

It really may not be aimed at AFOLs, hard as that is for us to believe, but at kids, and their parents, or adult science fans. Maybe they're thinking of little girls who are told they can't like LEGO because it's for boys (my daughter by her classmates), or a teenager dealing with boys unable to accept the possibility she's better at math than them (my experience) or young women pushed into "female" professions (the 23-year-old Spanish teacher who wistfully told me last month she'd like to have been an engineer, make that four sets I need to buy).

Whatever your personal experience has been it doesn't mean some (many?) girls are not being actively discouraged from pursuing careers in science. If LEGO wants to throw a little bit on the encouragement side of the scales then good for them, there's more than enough on the other side already.

Granted it's a little dated but in the 60's when my Grandmother was getting out of High School she told her guidance counselor she wanted to be a history teacher and was told 'that was a man's job.' And that 'maybe kindergarten would be better.' And it actually did turn her away from that field. Granted that's 50 years ago but the world most certainly is not perfect when it comes to giving women accurate representation and oppurtunities when it comes to plenty.

But I'm a bleeding heart liberal probably so who knows