Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Women of NASA - Can of Worms

1456810

Comments

  • LyichirLyichir United StatesMember Posts: 934
    For everyone complaining that it's a set with no men, don't forget that Apollo 11 got approved.  Pretty sure we're gonna get Neil, Buzz, and Michael.

    My only concern about this set is whether they improve the playability of the vignettes in the final product.
    It's also worth remembering that we'll also be getting a big arse Saturn V rocket!  If the already approved set was Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins with an American flag, a movie camera and a control panel - I'd hope it's announcement would be met with as much scepticism and derision.
      STILL trying to work out how a thread about a crap set that firmly falls outside LEGOs own requirements for Ideas approval has become an issue of gender politics...
    It doesn't fall outside those requirements, though. People may not like it but those requirements are meant to stop things like minifigure series or even more egregious projects like the 100 Stormtrooper bucket—not a series of figures with substantial brick-built vignettes like this one (or the earlier Research Institute, which itself should have been evidence enough that a project like this one would also fall well within the Ideas rules).

    The way I see it either people are only glancing at the header image without paying attention to the contents of the project as a whole, or just latching onto a rule that doesn't apply in this scenario as an "excuse" for why this project shouldn't have won out over other projects they would have preferred for one reason or another.
    RogerKirk
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 14,218
    edited March 2017
    Where can I 'thumbs up' a Stormtrooper Bucket?

    Even better - can I get a bucket of Lego Kool-Aid Men?

    And for clarification, I would not approve a Lego bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken.  
  • MAGNINOMINISUMBRAMAGNINOMINISUMBRA Member Posts: 993
    edited March 2017
    ^^ The only "excuse" I can offer is that we obviously have vastly different views of what substantial means. I also question anyone who compares this submission to RI as far as the quality of its associated vignettes (or lack there of).  The closest comparison (in terms of figs and composition) to ANYTHING previously released by TLG are battle packs which (TLG themselves have stated) fall outside of what Ideas is supposed to represent.  
      Personally feel that they should have done what they did with GBHQ - reject the submission (then work with the designer behind the scenes) and released it as a DTC set outside of the ideas theme. 
      It's not a bad idea FOR a LEGO set but it's an atrocious LEGO Ideas set...
    Legopassion8
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    This thread has finally gone plaid.
    pharmjodDedgeckobandit778SumoLegogmonkey76
  • 12651265 The Great State of TexasMember Posts: 1,013
    Reading this thread you would think we were still living in a time where a man who admitted to sexually assaulting women could be elected the president of the United States of Amer... wait hold on.
    We have a history.......just following the lead of two former Presidents beloved by many.






    pharmjodsklambecmo47Pitfall69TikiLukigmonkey76
  • Jern92Jern92 MalaysiaMember Posts: 845
    edited March 2017
    SMC said:

    There is nothing wrong with it unless you want equality, this set doesn't treat men and women the same, does it?
    LEGO as a whole has been very male-centric throughout its existence. There have been plenty of male-only sets produced and sold for decades and decades now. This set brings LEGO closer to actual equality, but it's going to take thousands of women-only sets in order to actually achieve equality, the way you see it. 

    Or you know, we can actually just have a set honoring women without all the men calling out "Inequality!" or "Sexism!" Honestly, I never heard any men complaining when LEGO produced male-only sets. If you were really about equality you'd have been all up in arms a long time ago.
    stluxGoodCoffeeJoeytmgm528catwranglerAanchirShibmampepin
  • GoodCoffeeJoeyGoodCoffeeJoey Member Posts: 82
    Please vote go and vote for my 'Forced Vaccination Clinic' on Lego ideas. It would not only help promote the politically correct agenda of the globalist elites science; but doubles as great way to get a bunch of Lego babies in one set.
    CM4S
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,103
    Jern92 said:
    SMC said:

    There is nothing wrong with it unless you want equality, this set doesn't treat men and women the same, does it?
    Or you know, we can actually just have a set honoring women without all the men calling out "Inequality!" or "Sexism!" Honestly, I never heard any men complaining when LEGO produced male-only sets. If you were really about equality you'd have been all up in arms a long time ago.

    If someone had wrote "all the women" they wound have been beaten (metaphorically) worse than that dead horse.

    Lego used to be really good gender neutral toys, as a kid I had space lego with smiling faces and helmets. Those figures could be want ever I wanted them to be. As figures become more detailed yes we did see a lot more males than females. Now how do you address that is the question. You could put out a lot of female battle packs (which in my mind is divisive) or you create a separate line just for girls with more females in (which is what Lego have done).

    The other option as with all conflicts is you move on, you don't let the past define you and in this case you try to make sets with both men and women working together like we do in the real world.

    Now this was the most commented on news article on the front page. Where has all the opposition gone? This is a relatively new phenomenon but now again and again we see people shouted down and called names, racist, sexist, men, white. We now live in small bubbles where everyone agrees with us. This is why we are so shocked when brexit and trump happen. We have no idea what the consensus is because we have silenced a large group of people.

    Drmnez
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    This is what this thread reminds me of ;)
    CM4Sbandit778datsunrobbieSprinkleOtterTyresOFlahertyRsa33gmonkey76Redbullgivesuwind
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,103
    ^ How did you get a JPEG of your dreams?
    CM4SPitfall69
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,769
    Jern92 said: no
    SMC said:

    There is nothing wrong with it unless you want equality, this set doesn't treat men and women the same, does it?
    LEGO as a whole has been very male-centric throughout its existence. There have been plenty of male-only sets produced and sold for decades and decades now. This set brings LEGO closer to actual equality, but it's going to take thousands of women-only sets in order to actually achieve equality, the way you see it. 

    Or you know, we can actually just have a set honoring women without all the men calling out "Inequality!" or "Sexism!" Honestly, I never heard any men complaining when LEGO produced male-only sets. If you were really about equality you'd have been all up in arms a long time ago.
    Are you sure all the ones you think are male only are actually male only? Because many of the early ones could equally well contain male or female minifigures, it is down to the person playing to decide. Many people, it seems, assume they are male due to the jobs or situations, due to their biased view of male and female roles. 
  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    CCC said:
    Jern92 said: no
    SMC said:

    There is nothing wrong with it unless you want equality, this set doesn't treat men and women the same, does it?
    LEGO as a whole has been very male-centric throughout its existence. There have been plenty of male-only sets produced and sold for decades and decades now. This set brings LEGO closer to actual equality, but it's going to take thousands of women-only sets in order to actually achieve equality, the way you see it. 

    Or you know, we can actually just have a set honoring women without all the men calling out "Inequality!" or "Sexism!" Honestly, I never heard any men complaining when LEGO produced male-only sets. If you were really about equality you'd have been all up in arms a long time ago.
    Are you sure all the ones you think are male only are actually male only? Because many of the early ones could equally well contain male or female minifigures, it is down to the person playing to decide. Many people, it seems, assume they are male due to the jobs or situations, due to their biased view of male and female roles. 
    Really? Because even I certsinly recall drastically more Male figures even past the days of pure smiling faces.
    Jern92
  • DrmnezDrmnez USA, Planet earth Member Posts: 859
    Mods can you please, for the love of Lego, shut this dam thread down! This is just an endless loop of opinions which is going nowhere. I don't collect Lego as an adult and go on this forum to hear people talk about politics or their views on politics or their views on others politics. 
    Talk about the toys for what they are... Toys... And move on. 
    (Sad that I have to add this statement but this is not an angry post)
    madforLEGOgmonkey76
  • bandit778bandit778 Docking Bay 94. Member Posts: 2,269
    Will someone hold my Baseball bat while I slip into my Stormtrooper Uniform?
    Pitfall69Bumblepantsgmonkey76
  • MattPetersenMattPetersen Florida, USAMember Posts: 282
    CCC said:
    Jern92 said: no
    SMC said:

    There is nothing wrong with it unless you want equality, this set doesn't treat men and women the same, does it?
    LEGO as a whole has been very male-centric throughout its existence. There have been plenty of male-only sets produced and sold for decades and decades now. This set brings LEGO closer to actual equality, but it's going to take thousands of women-only sets in order to actually achieve equality, the way you see it. 

    Or you know, we can actually just have a set honoring women without all the men calling out "Inequality!" or "Sexism!" Honestly, I never heard any men complaining when LEGO produced male-only sets. If you were really about equality you'd have been all up in arms a long time ago.
    Are you sure all the ones you think are male only are actually male only? Because many of the early ones could equally well contain male or female minifigures, it is down to the person playing to decide. Many people, it seems, assume they are male due to the jobs or situations, due to their biased view of male and female roles. 
    That does a very good job of actually proving a point about society and male dominance.
    People have been taught to associate certain things with men for the longest time and while we are making progress it's not a fight that has been won yet. 
  • Jern92Jern92 MalaysiaMember Posts: 845
    CCC said:
    Are you sure all the ones you think are male only are actually male only? Because many of the early ones could equally well contain male or female minifigures, it is down to the person playing to decide. Many people, it seems, assume they are male due to the jobs or situations, due to their biased view of male and female roles. 
    For recent sets, please refer to this article:http://jaysbrickblog.com/2017/03/08/happy-international-womens-day-2017-gender-equality-lego/

    There is a disproportionate number of sets that are male minifigs only. It's only revently that LEGO has begun to address this issue, by replacing some of the male minifigs with females in newer sets. 
    tmgm528catwrangler
  • Jern92Jern92 MalaysiaMember Posts: 845
    edited March 2017
    SMC said:

    If someone had wrote "all the women" they wound have been beaten (metaphorically) worse than that dead horse.

    Lego used to be really good gender neutral toys, as a kid I had space lego with smiling faces and helmets. Those figures could be want ever I wanted them to be. As figures become more detailed yes we did see a lot more males than females. Now how do you address that is the question. You could put out a lot of female battle packs (which in my mind is divisive) or you create a separate line just for girls with more females in (which is what Lego have done).

    The other option as with all conflicts is you move on, you don't let the past define you and in this case you try to make sets with both men and women working together like we do in the real world.

    Now this was the most commented on news article on the front page. Where has all the opposition gone? This is a relatively new phenomenon but now again and again we see people shouted down and called names, racist, sexist, men, white. We now live in small bubbles where everyone agrees with us. This is why we are so shocked when brexit and trump happen. We have no idea what the consensus is because we have silenced a large group of people.

    In this situation, LEGO is releasing ONE (1) female only pack, and the only other one they have released is the Research Institute. This is not 'a lot of female battle packs', these are 2 sets which figure only female minifigures, highlighting the achievements of women in science and technology. 2 sets. 2.

    Now contrast that with the overwhelmingly large number of male only sets released recently. There are plenty of male only battle packs, but again people are not complaining about those. People seem to be focused specifically on sets which have females only, of which there are 2 (if you don't count the Friends line). So the mass majority thinks is OK to release male only sets, but not female only sets, and that is why we have a problem.

    I do agree that educating someone is much better than calling them names. But after a while we do get tired of politely telling people their views are sexist and racist and homophobic, all while they keep shouting profanities at us, or telling us we don't deserve equal rights or whatever. Or they get defensive and start the "Not all men..." argument, which really does nothing other than make a person feel better about themselves. 

    So yes, we call out sexism and racism for what they are. Brexit and Trump happened for the simple reason that there is a lot of sexism and racism in this world, and they are very much vocal instead of silent. Imagine if we had listened to them, and entertained their racist and sexist views. Would that have really helped society in any way?

    Just reading through this thread makes a lot of the misogyny obvious, and there have been countless attempts by various people to try and point out why certain comments are sexist or misogynistic, but they're not getting through. Regardless of whether we play nice or call them names, people are going to stick to their opinion anyway, because minds don't change that easily. At the end of the day, it really doesn't make too much of a difference, and that is a very depressing thought. All we can do is soldier on and keep pushing for equality.
    catwranglerMattPetersenLegogramtmgm528stluxAanchirShibmampepin
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,769
    tmgm528 said:
    CCC said:
    Jern92 said: no
    SMC saippng
    There is nothing wrong with it unless you want equality, this set doesn't treat men and women the same, does it?
    LEGO as a whole has been very male-centric throughout its existence. There have been plenty of male-only sets produced and sold for decades and decades now. This set brings LEGO closer to actual equality, but it's going to take thousands of women-only sets in order to actually achieve equality, the way you see it. 

    Or you know, we can actually just have a set honoring women without all the men calling out "Inequality!" or "Sexism!" Honestly, I never heard any men complaining when LEGO produced male-only sets. If you were really about equality you'd have been all up in arms a long time ago.
    Are you sure all the ones you think are male only are actually male only? Because many of the early ones could equally well contain male or female minifigures, it is down to the person playing to decide. Many people, it seems, assume they are male due to the jobs or situations, due to their biased view of male and female roles. 
    Really? Because even I certsinly recall drastically more Male figures even past the days of pure smiling faces.

    So what are these?






    Drmnezgmonkey76
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,103
    Jern92 said:
    Imagine if we had listened to them, and entertained their racist and sexist views. Would that have really helped society in any way?

    Maybe just maybe not all 62,979,636 Americans and 17,410,742 Britons are racist and/or sexist. Maybe just maybe not everybody that has a different opinion to you is a wrongen.

     

    Drmnez1265shotgunchipmunk
  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    edited March 2017
    CCC said:
    tmgm528 said:
    CCC said:
    Jern92 said: no
    SMC saippng
    There is nothing wrong with it unless you want equality, this set doesn't treat men and women the same, does it?
    LEGO as a whole has been very male-centric throughout its existence. There have been plenty of male-only sets produced and sold for decades and decades now. This set brings LEGO closer to actual equality, but it's going to take thousands of women-only sets in order to actually achieve equality, the way you see it. 

    Or you know, we can actually just have a set honoring women without all the men calling out "Inequality!" or "Sexism!" Honestly, I never heard any men complaining when LEGO produced male-only sets. If you were really about equality you'd have been all up in arms a long time ago.
    Are you sure all the ones you think are male only are actually male only? Because many of the early ones could equally well contain male or female minifigures, it is down to the person playing to decide. Many people, it seems, assume they are male due to the jobs or situations, due to their biased view of male and female roles. 
    Really? Because even I certsinly recall drastically more Male figures even past the days of pure smiling faces.

    So what are these?






    Remember when I said drastically more men AFTER the days of generic smiles? Sure, you could view those both as women I suppose, but what does a 7 year old in 1988 takes off the helmet? They probably aren't thinking girl.
  • BumblepantsBumblepants DFWMember Posts: 6,978
    CCC said:
    So what are these?






    Fun! Especially the first one.
    gmonkey76
  • MrShinyAndNewMrShinyAndNew Member Posts: 281
    CCC said:
    So what are these?






    Here is where it gets complicated and the psychology isn't easy. One of the problems of the patriarchy is the "male default", which is to say that people are conditioned to assume someone is male unless otherwise told. This goes hand in hand with priming, which is where people assume certain things based on past experience. I'd say, given the circumstances in which those figs were released, that most people (boys, girls, men, women, etc) would assume that those minifigs were male, because those jobs were extremely male-dominated and because they'd assume minifigs were male. Early on there were female hair pieces that you could use to mark the gender of your minifigs, but yes, otherwise they had similar body shapes and few obvious gender markers.

    Of course that all changed in 1989, which is a fairly long time ago. Then minifigs started getting mustaches and lipstick and boobs. From that point on, it's fairly simple to assume that any minifig without boobs or lipstick or a female hairpiece or some other gender marker must be male. (Sure, some clothing, like spacesuits, tends to hide body shape). Once gender markers become widespread, anything lacking obvious markers has to fall into whatever default people assume. And if you think the designers at Lego were somehow super-progressive and putting in all these gender-ambiguous figures ... well, I won't bother trying to argue with you about that. But the evidence is clear that since 1989 there has been an increase towards more gender-marked figures. 

    It's been so long that minifigs have been gender-marked that it's basically irrelevant to discuss the hypothetical gender-utopia of 1978-1989. 

    The same factors that make people question a dad's parenting skills, or assume a man won't make as good a school teacher as a woman, or steer a boy into a non-teaching profession while steering a girl into teaching are at play when people design minifigures, and when people come to conclusions about the gender of the minifgures. 
    tmgm528MattPetersentamamahmcatwranglerJern92
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,769
    ^  and personally I think the lack of either gender figures these days is a shame. There have been a few few sets where a figure comes with both a male and female hairpiece, and an indistinct top. If only there were more of those figures, then many of the gender specific issues go away. Not that I think they should get rid of all gender specific figures, but where there is a kid for example in the small cottage set from a few years back, that is a "boys set" as the figure was presumably male (lacked lipstick). Yet if the includes a female hairpiece, then the set gets double the audience.
  • SithLord196SithLord196 Member Posts: 1,160
    Just throwing this out there, but perhaps various inequalities wouldn't be dismissed by pointing out other inequalities if the inequalities being used to dismiss the initial ones were actually given a little more attention, and not dismissed easily like I often see? 

    From my experience, when inequalities related to the majority group are brought up, they are often dismissed in a similar way, ie the minority responds with "well we have it worse". All this really does is create more animosity among everyone, and we get nowhere.

    I've also seen it happen in this thread. There was a comment stating that the group that experiences less sexism shouldn't view a comment towards them as sexist. Basically, we need to dismiss this notion that sexism can affect the majority group. Why? Isn't all sexism bad? Or just certain sexism? It seems a bit like talking out both ends of your mouth to say "all sexism is bad, but the group that experiences less sexism shouldn't take a comment/compliment as sexist". It is also a repeat of the exact same action that the minority group takes issue with, that being using a different inequality to dismiss the original one.
    SMCDrmnezRsa33
  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    Just throwing this out there, but perhaps various inequalities wouldn't be dismissed by pointing out other inequalities if the inequalities being used to dismiss the initial ones were actually given a little more attention, and not dismissed easily like I often see? 

    From my experience, when inequalities related to the majority group are brought up, they are often dismissed in a similar way, ie the minority responds with "well we have it worse". All this really does is create more animosity among everyone, and we get nowhere.

    I've also seen it happen in this thread. There was a comment stating that the group that experiences less sexism shouldn't view a comment towards them as sexist. Basically, we need to dismiss this notion that sexism can affect the majority group. Why? Isn't all sexism bad? Or just certain sexism? It seems a bit like talking out both ends of your mouth to say "all sexism is bad, but the group that experiences less sexism shouldn't take a comment/compliment as sexist". It is also a repeat of the exact same action that the minority group takes issue with, that being using a different inequality to dismiss the original one.
    I dont think this was directed at me or anything, but the examples I refuted in this discussion were those that weren't sexism. Ex. Life Expectancy.

    There is sexism of all kinds, but regarding this specific example (Girls representation in Science fields and in a toy brand like Lego) there certainly isn't any attack on men here or lack of male representation.

    (And as a note, I'm a guy, and yes, women have it far worse)
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,977
    CCC said:
    ^  and personally I think the lack of either gender figures these days is a shame. There have been a few few sets where a figure comes with both a male and female hairpiece, and an indistinct top. If only there were more of those figures, then many of the gender specific issues go away. Not that I think they should get rid of all gender specific figures, but where there is a kid for example in the small cottage set from a few years back, that is a "boys set" as the figure was presumably male (lacked lipstick). Yet if the includes a female hairpiece, then the set gets double the audience.
    I do agree. I think there are certain sets especially the small cottages and houses where all they need to do is have two different hair pieces. Lakeside cottage is a good example. It is a 3:1 set even, they could have easily thrown in a separate hairpiece.

    This was done in that small fountain set last year where the statue could be male or female. It was quite brilliant.

    I do not think it works with all sets, but the creator house sets... it really would.
    Bumblepantsstluxcatwrangler
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,697
    CCC said:
    ^  and personally I think the lack of either gender figures these days is a shame. There have been a few few sets where a figure comes with both a male and female hairpiece, and an indistinct top. If only there were more of those figures, then many of the gender specific issues go away. Not that I think they should get rid of all gender specific figures, but where there is a kid for example in the small cottage set from a few years back, that is a "boys set" as the figure was presumably male (lacked lipstick). Yet if the includes a female hairpiece, then the set gets double the audience.
    Should that female hairpiece be patterned on Sinead O'Connor, Amber Rose, or Ripley from the Alien movies?
    CCCgmonkey76560Heliport
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,697
    tmgm528 said:
    CCC said:
    tmgm528 said:
    CCC said:
    Jern92 said: no
    SMC saippng
    There is nothing wrong with it unless you want equality, this set doesn't treat men and women the same, does it?
    LEGO as a whole has been very male-centric throughout its existence. There have been plenty of male-only sets produced and sold for decades and decades now. This set brings LEGO closer to actual equality, but it's going to take thousands of women-only sets in order to actually achieve equality, the way you see it. 

    Or you know, we can actually just have a set honoring women without all the men calling out "Inequality!" or "Sexism!" Honestly, I never heard any men complaining when LEGO produced male-only sets. If you were really about equality you'd have been all up in arms a long time ago.
    Are you sure all the ones you think are male only are actually male only? Because many of the early ones could equally well contain male or female minifigures, it is down to the person playing to decide. Many people, it seems, assume they are male due to the jobs or situations, due to their biased view of male and female roles. 
    Really? Because even I certsinly recall drastically more Male figures even past the days of pure smiling faces.

    So what are these?






    Remember when I said drastically more men AFTER the days of generic smiles? Sure, you could view those both as women I suppose, but what does a 7 year old in 1988 takes off the helmet? They probably aren't thinking girl.
    That depends entirely on who was playing. I know that when my sister and a female cousin played with LEGO with me and 2 male cousins back in the early 1980s they were sure the characters they were playing with were girls.
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,977
    ^ Consider why that was, though.
    If they were playing with them as girls, then the reason was probably because they wanted to play with the toy and wanted a girl character. If a set does not make a girl character then, what is a kid supposed to do? The only choice is to firmly say this character is a girl. I would have done the same as a kid for that reason. Give a kid a choice between characters, though, and most girls would probably not have picked that character to play with as a girl.

    The entire reason we have the mini-doll is because after Lego researched they saw that girls in play use the character as an avatar to express themselves in the story they are playing. The minifig was not quite cutting it for many girls. They came up with a character that looks more 'real' than a typical yellow minifig and has more human and what is often considered 'girl' detailing. 




    tmgm528
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 14,218
    edited March 2017
    bandit778 said:
    Will someone hold my Baseball bat while I slip into my Stormtrooper Uniform?
    That sounds like a really good Ideas set.

    And for @Pitfall69:



    How I (now) feel about this thread:


    bandit778stluxPitfall69gmonkey76AllBrick
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,922
    I'm kinda bewildered about some posts here using "minority" to describe girls/women… for the globe as a whole, that's kinda silly, since men and women are split pretty evenly. To describe women as a minority in that context itself diminishes their relevance.

    It is true that women are a minority in the LEGO fan community, but to acknowledge that, we have to acknowledge that there are inequalities in the LEGO product and fan community that skew in favor of men. We can't pretend that LEGO is a perfect gender-neutral product for everyone and that sets reaching out to girls and women specifically deviate from or threaten that default state if we accept that the majority of existing LEGO products are preferred by boys/men.

    Also, re: minifigure gender signifiers, something I rarely see people ask is WHY they skewed male from their first introduction? Which is easier to believe: that LEGO designers simply never noticed that the majority of the new figs they were making were male? Or that this was a deliberate choice to appeal to the gender they knew preferred their existing products even before this change? The fact that LEGO was making specific outreach efforts to girls even in the mid-70s while just using more generalized advertising for boys should be evidence enough that gender imbalance among LEGO fans is much older than gendered minifigure faces.
    SMCcatwrangler
  • SithLord196SithLord196 Member Posts: 1,160
    Aanchir said:
    I'm kinda bewildered about some posts here using "minority" to describe girls/women… for the globe as a whole, that's kinda silly, since men and women are split pretty evenly. To describe women as a minority in that context itself diminishes their relevance.
    What should the proper term be when talking about the underrepresented/oppressed group in a discussion about inequality then? 

    I can see and understand your point, but my particular comment above was meant as an in general statement about inequality discussions as a whole, not this particular one.
  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    Aanchir said:
    I'm kinda bewildered about some posts here using "minority" to describe girls/women… for the globe as a whole, that's kinda silly, since men and women are split pretty evenly. To describe women as a minority in that context itself diminishes their relevance.
    What should the proper term be when talking about the underrepresented/oppressed group in a discussion about inequality then? 

    I can see and understand your point, but my particular comment above was meant as an in general statement about inequality discussions as a whole, not this particular one.
    Yeah, I suppose minority isn't the proper term. But in the context of a number of careers they are. Though perhaps under represented is a more proper term
  • FauchFauch FranceMember Posts: 2,551
    I've just read a bunch of articles about the set and reactions have actually all seemed appropriate so far, no one blaming lego about the male/female ratio in their products, though I think there were articles of people complaining about it in the past. and when they released fun in the park, it kinda sounded from some articles that they had been discriminating against handicaped people.

    a lot of toys are targetted towards one gender, does it often cause problem? do people blame Barbie for ignoring boys maybe?

    also, lego isn't the only brick construction brand, did any other brand even try to capitalize on the girls market, before Lego launched Friends? 

    Do Lego have to include everyone in its product due to its absolute domination of the overall market (if another brand dominated the girls market, would it be that bad for Lego to focus on boys)?

    I like getting female minifigs, but maybe they are exciting just because they are more rare. I really don't care about handicaped minifigs though.
  • MrShinyAndNewMrShinyAndNew Member Posts: 281
    Aanchir said:
    Also, re: minifigure gender signifiers, something I rarely see people ask is WHY they skewed male from their first introduction? Which is easier to believe: that LEGO designers simply never noticed that the majority of the new figs they were making were male? Or that this was a deliberate choice to appeal to the gender they knew preferred their existing products even before this change? 
    There are other possibilities:
    • They wanted to make sets that mirrored the real world so those sets mirrored real-world inequality (i.e. all astronauts were male, so all astronaut figs were male)
    • They viewed the minifigs as male from the very beginning because male was the default, and so when they started making them more obviously marked for gender they just kept doing it
    • They assumed boys wouldn't play with girl figs but that girls would be fine playing with boy figs
    • They assumed girls would rather play with Town lego than Castle or other themes (Town always had more female figs than the other themes)
    I'm sure I'm missing some other possibilities and I bet the truth is it's a mix of all of these. They probably weren't trying to do anything about sexism - just look at Belville, Scala, Clickits, etc for proof. In those days they were happy to be just like all the other toy companies: primarily focused on boys. Think back to toy stores back then. The entire store was the "boys" section, except the one part where everything was pink and was the "girls" section. It's not as bad now as it used to be, but it's still basically true. At least now Lego is taking steps to include women in their "default" lines and no longer patronizing girls with simplistic builds that are all about being housewives.
    eggshencatwrangler
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,697
    I was just browsing through the minifigures on Brickset.com. Much to my surprise, it appears that "girl" hair was introduced in 1975, on 6 out of 25 figures in the first batch of figures released. All the rest had hats. Males were either bald or had to wear a hat until 1979, when a part was created for male hair. Many people assume that all those early figs are male unless they specifically have "girl hair". I think that says more about the people making the assumptions than about the product. 

    I also noticed that there were a lot more female minifigures than I expected in the early ones - 6 male/8 female listed in 1981. 
    Drmnez
  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    I was just browsing through the minifigures on Brickset.com. Much to my surprise, it appears that "girl" hair was introduced in 1975, on 6 out of 25 figures in the first batch of figures released. All the rest had hats. Males were either bald or had to wear a hat until 1979, when a part was created for male hair. Many people assume that all those early figs are male unless they specifically have "girl hair". I think that says more about the people making the assumptions than about the product. 

    I also noticed that there were a lot more female minifigures than I expected in the early ones - 6 male/8 female listed in 1981. 
    But how many sets did those figures appear in? I would imagine those 8 female were in few sets a piece
  • eggsheneggshen Middleton, WIMember Posts: 586
    I remember when the Research Institute came out, there were a TON of people (mostly women) that came into the store where I work looking for it. I heard from a lot of women about how they are accountants, research scientists, professors, doctors, etc and they were excited about how TLG was making sets specifically for girls. They were planning on buying the set for their daughters, nieces, cousins, themselves, etc.

    We of course didn't have the set so I would always show them the other Friends sets we had, a lot of them would be surprised that TLG was already making girl-specific sets. We would discuss how clever it was for TLG to create a theme that merged the aspects of playing with dolls with building. Almost all of them bought a set or three. 

    Not to toot my own horn but I KNOW I helped make at least a few new LEGO fans as a result of the media hype behind the Research Institute. I continue seeing those same customers come into the store to see the latest sets. And the female fans are branching out to Ninjago, Creator, City, etc, and I'm sure they would not due so without the inclusion of female characters in the sets. Also, moms are becoming fans along with their girls. It's really awesome!

    I feel this set is going to have the same effect as the Research Institute. I anticipate a ton of people getting excited due to social media, then I'll have a ton of new people coming in for the NASA set. Now there's Elves to go with the Friends sets, so I'm sure some people will get drawn in.

    Maybe I'm an idealist because I was pushed into science and my sisters (who I think are just as smart if not smarter than me) were pushed into home economics. I ended up a software developer and they ended up starting families at young ages. I attribute at least a little of how they ended up on what had to have been their ABSOLUTE boredom at school. How can we get a 'Star Trek' future if half the population of the planet doesn't meet their full potential because they are being told they need to know how to sew? That was in the 70's but let's face it, the problem still exists today.

    As an aside, anyone interested in the importance in playing with LEGO bricks and other building toys (I'm talking Meccano, etc) should check out any of the talks given by the inventor of GoldieBlox, Debbie Sterling, on youtube. Her stories about her (and a lot of other women's) struggles with spatial relationships in her math classes in college are pretty eye opening. She is the reason why I push LEGO sets on every customer that comes into our store :-)
    tmgm528catwranglerdatsunrobbietamamahmLyichirToc13nhyone
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,697
    tmgm528 said:
    I was just browsing through the minifigures on Brickset.com. Much to my surprise, it appears that "girl" hair was introduced in 1975, on 6 out of 25 figures in the first batch of figures released. All the rest had hats. Males were either bald or had to wear a hat until 1979, when a part was created for male hair. Many people assume that all those early figs are male unless they specifically have "girl hair". I think that says more about the people making the assumptions than about the product. 

    I also noticed that there were a lot more female minifigures than I expected in the early ones - 6 male/8 female listed in 1981. 
    But how many sets did those figures appear in? I would imagine those 8 female were in few sets a piece
    I went looking specifically because you stated "Remember when I said drastically more men AFTER the days of generic smiles? Sure, you could view those both as women I suppose, but what does a 7 year old in 1988 takes off the helmet? They probably aren't thinking girl." So I went looking, and was surprised to find that the pigtails hairpiece predates the "boy hair" that came out in 1979, so it is likely when my little sister pulled the helmet off she stuck pigtails on. 

    I don't know how many sets any of the 1981 minifigures were in. Brickset shows a set count, but that includes all years the figure was available, like the fireman that was still being made in 2010. Looks like each figure introduced in 1981 was available in 1 set in 1981
  • GremerGremer The Commonwealth of VirginiaMember Posts: 183
    Drmnez
  • HugeYellowBrickHugeYellowBrick At my PCMember Posts: 496
    I'm done with this thread, so here's my pennyworth.

    Perhaps the final LEGO set will have mini-dolls, instead of minifigs. Then what?

  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,977
    I highly doubt that. There has not been an Ideas set that has done that. In addition, my assumption (and maybe it is a wrong assumption) it seems that the minidoll is more expensive than a minifig. In all sets I have seen there are far fewer minidolls compared to an analogous set with minifigs. This is especially noticeable with the advent calendars where it should not be a big deal to have 5 main friends character minidolls. I would presume a set with 4-5 minidolls compared to 4-5 minifigs raises the price a fair amount. In addition there are usually far more pieces in the regular minifig line that can be reused compared to the minidolls line. From a cost standpoint alone, staying with minifigs makes far more sense.
  • LyichirLyichir United StatesMember Posts: 934
    edited March 2017
    I'm done with this thread, so here's my pennyworth.

    Perhaps the final LEGO set will have mini-dolls, instead of minifigs. Then what?

    Not going to happen. While all or most Ideas sets get redesigns before release, it's always done in such a way that it's essentially true to the original proposal. Changing them all to mini-dolls would not only be an unnecessary and expensive change, it'd be an unnecessary and expensive change that neither the project's creator nor any of its supporters asked for.

    Of course, I remember people trying to pose the same bizarre question when the Research Institute passed review, and it's as incomprehensible now as it was then. Is it meant to somehow divert attention from the more relevant discussions, or to somehow form a rift between supporters who like mini-dolls and supporters who don't? Either way it's a completely implausible proposal that doesn't really have anything to do with the reality of situation.
    tmgm528
  • gmonkey76gmonkey76 ChicagoMember Posts: 1,690
    First I don't care if a set 100% female, 50/50, or 100% male. I thought there were better sets in the review, I will hold judgment on this set untill the final design is out.

    This is just my two cents, but maybe there are more male minifigures because off the way there made/printed. Remember the uproar over the minidolls because they had breasts? Most female minifigures are repersented by lipstick and printed breast, and some people will say that is sexist. In today's day age you can't assume male, female, or whatever just by looks. Lego is damed if they do or don't print/mold figures of sex, race, size, age......

    And before anyone jumps on me for the whatever comment as long as you're happy and don't try to force your way of life down on me I don't care what you identify as.
    1265
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,769
    tmgm528 said: but
    I was just browsing through the minifigures on Brickset.com. Much to my surprise, it appears that "girl" hair was introduced in 1975, on 6 out of 25 figures in the first batch of figures released. All the rest had hats. Males were either bald or had to wear a hat until 1979, when a part was created for male hair. Many people assume that all those early figs are male unless they specifically have "girl hair". I think that says more about the people making the assumptions than about the product. 

    I also noticed that there were a lot more female minifigures than I expected in the early ones - 6 male/8 female listed in 1981. 
    But how many sets did those figures appear in? I would imagine those 8 female were in few sets a piece
    Why would it matter if repeated in multiple sets. Most kids back then weren't getting every set made. Plus Lego is modular, that hairpiece could have gone on any presumed male figure and turned it into a female.
    gmonkey76
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,769
    tamamahm said:
    I highly doubt that. There has not been an Ideas set that has done that. In addition, my assumption (and maybe it is a wrong assumption) it seems that the minidoll is more expensive than a minifig. In all sets I have seen there are far fewer minidolls compared to an analogous set with minifigs. This is especially noticeable with the advent calendars where it should not be a big deal to have 5 main friends character minidolls.
    I think you are right that minidolls cost more to make, although I don't believe there are far fewer minidolls in sets that are analogous to minifigure ones. Although it depends what you mean by analogous.

    I don't follow Friends much, but my daughter likes Elves and there seem to be a decent number of figures these days, at least based on part counts. Even more so if you take into account other characters, such as the animals that often do not appear so much in the analogous minifig sets. Elves and to some extent Friends have brought a lot of new creatures. I picked up a very cheap Jungle Falls Rescue for my daughter a couple of weeks back. Even though there are only two humans in it, there are a lot of creatures that are playable as characters and so have the same play value as minifigs/dolls.

    I was looking at a couple of sets the other day ... #60147 and #10747

    Both are similar type sets, based on boats. 144 pieces vs 143 pieces so almost identical in size. The minidolls set has a small boat but more location for story telling, two girls and a dolphin. The minifigs set is mainly the vehicle, one male and one female figure, and a shark. Both contain a reasonably large molded part (boat hull vs slide). On the figures vs part count, the sets look equally well balanced, with two figs plus one sea animal each. They differ on the price though: £18/$20 vs £25/$30.  So while there is parity in the number of characters based on part count, there isn't based on price. Presumably the cost of the minidolls is partly to blame. I imagine that is it also partly due to number of sets likely to be sold. I expect many more of the City set are sold compared to the Friends set. The Friends set is fairly clearly girl-only. Whereas the other set, what would have used to have been a boy set, is now gender balanced and so maybe appeal to the girls that like less stereotypically girly sets than Friends? My sample of one daughter said no to it, and prefers the Friends set, but then she is a definite minidoll fan.




     
  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    CCC said:
    tmgm528 said: but
    I was just browsing through the minifigures on Brickset.com. Much to my surprise, it appears that "girl" hair was introduced in 1975, on 6 out of 25 figures in the first batch of figures released. All the rest had hats. Males were either bald or had to wear a hat until 1979, when a part was created for male hair. Many people assume that all those early figs are male unless they specifically have "girl hair". I think that says more about the people making the assumptions than about the product. 

    I also noticed that there were a lot more female minifigures than I expected in the early ones - 6 male/8 female listed in 1981. 
    But how many sets did those figures appear in? I would imagine those 8 female were in few sets a piece
    Why would it matter if repeated in multiple sets. Most kids back then weren't getting every set made. Plus Lego is modular, that hairpiece could have gone on any presumed male figure and turned it into a female.
    It matters because of frequency? If you look at face value 8 out of 15 is pretty soldi, but if those 7 male are in 20 sets a piece and the female in one, it definitely shows a lack of gender representation has been in lego. (Which it has)
  • Toc13Toc13 Member Posts: 1,098
    Among my idle thoughts of the other day.
    What if Lego were to strike some sort of licensing deal & release it as a Hidden Figures film tie-in set rather than labelling it as Women of NASA. Would this remove a lot of the arguments about why there isn't 'men of NASA', political correctness, etc, etc and all of the resentment that is causing and allow the Lego set to be looked at as a Lego set & not some sort of political statement.

    I was also curious why the earlier post didn't want to count Friends sets? Is that disagreement with Lego's methods or some other reason?
    SMC
  • TheOriginalSimonBTheOriginalSimonB Felixstowe Member Posts: 1,643
    Speaking of Hidden Figures, it is only 99p on Kindle today.
    Toc13stluxcatwrangler
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,769
    tmgm528 said:
    CCC said:
    tmgm528 said: but
    I was just browsing through the minifigures on Brickset.com. Much to my surprise, it appears that "girl" hair was introduced in 1975, on 6 out of 25 figures in the first batch of figures released. All the rest had hats. Males were either bald or had to wear a hat until 1979, when a part was created for male hair. Many people assume that all those early figs are male unless they specifically have "girl hair". I think that says more about the people making the assumptions than about the product. 

    I also noticed that there were a lot more female minifigures than I expected in the early ones - 6 male/8 female listed in 1981. 
    But how many sets did those figures appear in? I would imagine those 8 female were in few sets a piece
    Why would it matter if repeated in multiple sets. Most kids back then weren't getting every set made. Plus Lego is modular, that hairpiece could have gone on any presumed male figure and turned it into a female.
    It matters because of frequency? If you look at face value 8 out of 15 is pretty soldi, but if those 7 male are in 20 sets a piece and the female in one, it definitely shows a lack of gender representation has been in lego. (Which it has)

    What does it matter if they make more sets for boys than girls? There are plenty of toy ranges that create more girl toys than boys. If girls want to play with lego there is a choice now, there was a choice then.

    That said, take a look at sets released in 1981 (as that is the date listed above) ....

    There are 10 or so basic sets (no minifigs), equally appealing to both genders.

    A load of service packs, we can ignore.

    A few duplo, ignore.

    Fabuland, 6 sets, equally appealing.

    3 Castle, probably more boy than girl although does contain the princess.
    Then a mixture of town sets, quite a few of which contain female only minifigures. Sure there are some that are male only but plenty of female too - ambulances, gas pump, summer cottage, one in the fire set. And they are just the ones identifiably female figures, not including ones that could easily be female if you believe that women can be firefighters, police, etc and would wear a helmet or whatever in that role.

    A number of classic space, again these could easily be female minifigures if you believe females can be astronauts. Appeals to both genders if they like space sets.

    And a few technic, which appeal to either gender if they like technic.

    I fail to see the lack of gender representation there. There was plenty of choice if girls wanted to get sets with female minifigures, small sets through to more substantial builds.

    datsunrobbie
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.