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

145679

Comments

  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,830
    Toc13 said:
    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 doubt it would happen as the movie will probably be forgotten about by the time the set is ready. They lose a lot of the advertising if the movie is no longer playing.



  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    CCC said:
    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.

    Bingo. So isn't this Women of NASA set exactly that? A choice. So then why the hubub over this?
    AanchirLyichir
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,830
    tmgm528 said:
    CCC said:
    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.

    Bingo. So isn't this Women of NASA set exactly that? A choice. So then why the hubub over this?
    For me, I don't care about the set being made. It is a set aimed at a particular group of people.

    The problem for me was what the designer said about it, that it was to teach boys and girls that women can do science. It meets the latter fine. The former, not so well, if it features women only - this is using the same arguments that you have used - in that it is only girl friendly if it contains females. This set ignores male contributions / promotes only female contributions, so it is an "ignore" for boys. Thus it doesn't do half of what the designer claimed.

    For me, having sets that are more realistic - showing men and women working together - are much more powerful than the isolationist view in this set.


    SMCDrmnezVorpalRyupharmjod
  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    CCC said:
    tmgm528 said:
    CCC said:
    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.

    Bingo. So isn't this Women of NASA set exactly that? A choice. So then why the hubub over this?
    For me, I don't care about the set being made. It is a set aimed at a particular group of people.

    The problem for me was what the designer said about it, that it was to teach boys and girls that women can do science. It meets the latter fine. The former, not so well, if it features women only - this is using the same arguments that you have used - in that it is only girl friendly if it contains females. This set ignores male contributions / promotes only female contributions, so it is an "ignore" for boys. Thus it doesn't do half of what the designer claimed.

    For me, having sets that are more realistic - showing men and women working together - are much more powerful than the isolationist view in this set.


    How exactly does it fail in showing boys that girls can do science? 

    And yes, that is the ideal, for sets to be an equal representation. But until the say comes when we still aren't releasing sets with a far greater quantity of male characters than females, can't we just let this happen without some massive hubub over crazy claims of reverse sexism? 'Well I know a woman who saw this and said it wasn't good for equality and---'
    catwranglerJern92stlux
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,923
    CCC said:
    tmgm528 said:
    CCC said:
    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.

    Bingo. So isn't this Women of NASA set exactly that? A choice. So then why the hubub over this?
    For me, I don't care about the set being made. It is a set aimed at a particular group of people.

    The problem for me was what the designer said about it, that it was to teach boys and girls that women can do science. It meets the latter fine. The former, not so well, if it features women only - this is using the same arguments that you have used - in that it is only girl friendly if it contains females. This set ignores male contributions / promotes only female contributions, so it is an "ignore" for boys. Thus it doesn't do half of what the designer claimed.

    For me, having sets that are more realistic - showing men and women working together - are much more powerful than the isolationist view in this set.


    The idea that boys and girls will outright ignore a set if it doesn't include figures of their gender is needlessly reductive. They are probably more LIKELY to pay attention to a set if it includes characters of their gender, but there have been sets in more boy-oriented themes with only female figures as well as sets in girl-oriented themes with only male figures. Honestly this sort of reductive thinking often came up in the controversy over LEGO Friends, since people asked why LEGO didn't just balance the gender ratios of their existing sets. But the reality is that there are more reasons than just the gender of the characters for boys and girls to take notice of a set. A boy who's super interested in spaceflight might jump at the chance to buy a set with real NASA scientists and engineers, regardless of their gender.

    On a related note, the arguments that classic sets were gender-neutral wears on me for much the same reason. Regardless of figures' gender signifiers, it's no accident that themes like Castle and Space and Pirates and even Town to a great extent were modeled on things that, back then, were considered typical of boys' interests. Or for that matter, that even superficially gender-neutral sets of the 80s had fairly little of the interior detail that girl-oriented sets from the 70s to today exemplify. Designing a set based on what boys are expected to like or how they're expected to play and then putting a few female or ambiguously gendered figures in it is not gender-neutral design.
    Jern92catwranglertmgm528stluxLyichir
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,830
    edited March 2017
     
    tmgm528 said:
    How exactly does it fail in showing boys that girls can do science? 

    How many boys want a set with 5 women and no men in it? Probably a similar number to the number of girls that want a set with 5 men and no women in it. Especially if there is another NASA set out at the same time with a cool rocket in it, and two or three well known spacemen. I doubt many boys will be asking for the set, just like girls tend not to want a set that is purely male minifigures.

    tmgm528 said:

    And yes, that is the ideal, for sets to be an equal representation. But until the say comes when we still aren't releasing sets with a far greater quantity of male characters than females, can't we just let this happen without some massive hubub over crazy claims of reverse sexism? 'Well I know a woman who saw this and said it wasn't good for equality and---'
    The problem is that it is reverse sexism, if men doing similar things are not commemorated. And then it becomes an easy thing to ignore, as it becomes a political statement more than anything else to the people that the designer thinks she is speaking to.

    And to be honest, I don't think it is a problem if there are more sets with male minifigures than female - if LEGO's core target audience for minifigure based sets remains male and if there is still enough choice for girls that are into minifigure sets to get sets with female figures in. Although it would be nice if there were more female figures, if they don't sell as well then it is understandable that LEGO would bias populations in minifigure sets. However, that is where the head and hair switch makes sense. If there is a mechanic or a postman in a set, then supplying a two sided head and one extra hairpiece can turn it from male to female (or vice versa), so long as the torso is gender unspecific enough and it makes sense to do it.

  • MattPetersenMattPetersen Florida, USAMember Posts: 282
    CCC said:
    tmgm528 said:
    CCC said:
    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.

    Bingo. So isn't this Women of NASA set exactly that? A choice. So then why the hubub over this?
    For me, I don't care about the set being made. It is a set aimed at a particular group of people.

    The problem for me was what the designer said about it, that it was to teach boys and girls that women can do science. It meets the latter fine. The former, not so well, if it features women only - this is using the same arguments that you have used - in that it is only girl friendly if it contains females. This set ignores male contributions / promotes only female contributions, so it is an "ignore" for boys. Thus it doesn't do half of what the designer claimed.

    For me, having sets that are more realistic - showing men and women working together - are much more powerful than the isolationist view in this set.


    Ugh, it is not an ignore for boys.
    Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, George Washington Carver, Ben Franklin, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Gregor Mendel, Etc.
    We know men contributed to science because it's in our science and history books. 
    Women not so much (they may get a footnote until more recently).
    Isolating views are sometimes necessary to show and prove a point.
    You and I may know women contribute and are equal but even in the 21st century there are many who will down right places it off or just ignore it (or weren't exposed to it). I'm a teacher and I deal with the misogyny taught by parents on a daily basis. Yes, there are children who will openly say in Western civilization that boys are smarter than girls, or that a certain job is a boy's job and not a girl's job. I have boys who say girls can't read comic books about superheroes or play video games (not kindergarteners, but 10-14 year old kids).


    To me this is a non issue and I can't believe people are upset over it.
    It reminds me of all the men who were upset at the Ghostbusters remake featuring an all women cast, or gamergate and all the bullying and issues that derived from that (evidence that everything is NOT ok in this world)........

    An exclusively female set bothers me not in the least. 
    Just out of curiosity are any of you who don't like the exclusivity going to raise the same ruckus at all the male only sets from now on? 

    Legogramcatwranglertmgm528stluxLyichirJern92
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,120
    edited March 2017
    Just out of curiosity are any of you who don't like the exclusivity going to raise the same ruckus at all the male only sets from now on?

    If the set is called Men of NASA yes I will, if the set is called Apollo 11 no I wont. It looks like many people cant understand that distinction.

    Again you cant have it both ways either women were given less opportunities in the past than men leading to men being at the forefront discovery or not.

    There is a reason your books talk about people like Newton and Einstein. Do you want to rewrite history so that men and women took an equal part. Again you can do that but if you do you have to remove people like emmeline Pankhurst because they wouldn't have been needed.

  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,830

    Ugh, it is not an ignore for boys.


    It reminds me of all the men who were upset at the Ghostbusters remake featuring an all women cast, or gamergate and all the bullying and issues that derived from that (evidence that everything is NOT ok in this world)........

    You seem to contradict yourself there. You say this is not an ignore for boys. Yet also that men were upset at the all female Ghostbusters reboot, and thus presumably ignored it at the cinema. That is the whole point. If a group feels alienated from something for whatever reason, they tend to ignore it. Then the message will not get to that group. If the point of the film was to inform women that women can be funny, it probably worked. If it was to inform fans of the original Ghostbusters movie that women can be funny, it probably failed. It is like any relationship - if you don't respect the other party, then they aren't going to want to listen to you.
  • MattPetersenMattPetersen Florida, USAMember Posts: 282
    CCC said:

    Ugh, it is not an ignore for boys.


    It reminds me of all the men who were upset at the Ghostbusters remake featuring an all women cast, or gamergate and all the bullying and issues that derived from that (evidence that everything is NOT ok in this world)........

    You seem to contradict yourself there. You say this is not an ignore for boys. Yet also that men were upset at the all female Ghostbusters reboot, and thus presumably ignored it at the cinema. That is the whole point. If a group feels alienated from something for whatever reason, they tend to ignore it. Then the message will not get to that group. If the point of the film was to inform women that women can be funny, it probably worked. If it was to inform fans of the original Ghostbusters movie that women can be funny, it probably failed. It is like any relationship - if you don't respect the other party, then they aren't going to want to listen to you.
    No, I didn't contradict myself.
    There were many men who were upset at just the fact the remake featured women. 
    That was the reason for them hating it, to the point that they started harassing the female leads. 

    I didnt feel feel alienated because the cast was female. The movie wasn't even written to be a female aside. It was just four scientists busting ghosts. No alienation unless you made it that way. 
    tmgm528stluxcatwranglerJern92
  • mountebankmountebank Member Posts: 1,237
    CCC said:

    If a group feels alienated from something for whatever reason, they tend to ignore it. Then the message will not get to that group.
    At first, yes, there is the tendency to brush things under the carpet. That's why it can often take decades to change prejudices that run deep in society. Take the acceptance of gay people. Where we're at now would have seemed impossible pre-1980.
  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    SMC said:
    Just out of curiosity are any of you who don't like the exclusivity going to raise the same ruckus at all the male only sets from now on?

    If the set is called Men of NASA yes I will, if the set is called Apollo 11 no I wont. It looks like many people cant understand that distinction.

    He means any set. So any time ever a set comes out with no female figures you have to be outraged. That's then blatantly bad with your argument here. I should expect you in outrage whenever any set is released with all males.
    Jern92
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,120
    Can we just pause a moment and go though this topic and count the number of times the terms "Men" was used negatively and compare it to the number is times "Women" is used negatively. Then we can get back to talking about prejudice.
    VorpalRyu
  • tmgm528tmgm528 Member Posts: 457
    CCC said:
     
    tmgm528 said:
    How exactly does it fail in showing boys that girls can do science? 

    How many boys want a set with 5 women and no men in it? Probably a similar number to the number of girls that want a set with 5 men and no women in it. Especially if there is another NASA set out at the same time with a cool rocket in it, and two or three well known spacemen. I doubt many boys will be asking for the set, just like girls tend not to want a set that is purely male minifigures.

    tmgm528 said:

    And yes, that is the ideal, for sets to be an equal representation. But until the say comes when we still aren't releasing sets with a far greater quantity of male characters than females, can't we just let this happen without some massive hubub over crazy claims of reverse sexism? 'Well I know a woman who saw this and said it wasn't good for equality and---'
    The problem is that it is reverse sexism, if men doing similar things are not commemorated. And then it becomes an easy thing to ignore, as it becomes a political statement more than anything else to the people that the designer thinks she is speaking to.

    And to be honest, I don't think it is a problem if there are more sets with male minifigures than female - if LEGO's core target audience for minifigure based sets remains male and if there is still enough choice for girls that are into minifigure sets to get sets with female figures in. Although it would be nice if there were more female figures, if they don't sell as well then it is understandable that LEGO would bias populations in minifigure sets. However, that is where the head and hair switch makes sense. If there is a mechanic or a postman in a set, then supplying a two sided head and one extra hairpiece can turn it from male to female (or vice versa), so long as the torso is gender unspecific enough and it makes sense to do it.

    So its reverse sexism to commemorate the group who has faced sexism and no commemeration in a field for hundreds of years? Yeah....that makes sense...totally...
    Jern92brickventures
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,830

    No, I didn't contradict myself.
    There were many men who were upset at just the fact the remake featured women. 


    Which is the point. Some men and boys may not know women can do science. Is putting out a set with just women in likely to change their mind? Will they even look at it or will they just ignore it? Now if that set had men in it too, would they be more likely to purchase it and realise the message in it?

    Just like if the rebooted ghostbusters had a male and female team, men that didn't want to see it when it was all female might go and watch it.

     
  • MattPetersenMattPetersen Florida, USAMember Posts: 282
    edited March 2017
    SMC said:
    MattPetersen said: had 
    Just out of curiosity are any of you who don't like the exclusivity going to raise the same ruckus at all the male only sets from now on?

    If the set is called Men of NASA yes I will, if the set is called Apollo 11 no I wont. It looks like many people cant understand that distinction.

    Again you cant have it both ways either women were given less opportunities in the past than men leading to men being at the forefront discovery or not.

    There is a reason your books talk about people like Newton and Einstein. Do you want to rewrite history so that men and women took an equal part. Again you can do that but if you do you have to remove people like emmeline Pankhurst because they wouldn't have been needed.

    You aren't rewriting history if you are giving credit to someone who deserves it in the first place.

    Lise Meitner screwed out of recognition for her work until Bohr and Einstein got word out of how crucial she was to the exploration and theory of nuclear fission. Still relatively unknown, even though Einstein touted her as "our Madame Curie". 
    Caroline Hershel helped her brother discover Uranus and was the first woman to discover a comet. 
    Maria Mitchell first Female American professional astronomer.
    Emmy Noether one of the best mathematicians of her time. The Noether Theorem was used in searching for the Higgs Bosen.

    These women broke boundaries and many of them were ignored on purpose just for being women until someone else spoke up for them on their behalf.
    Unfortuantely they are still relatively unknown even though all of them have made great contributions to science that still have an impact today. 

    This is why it's important to continue to show isolating views of people who make great contributions. Sometimes a little individual recognition is a good thing. 






    ***off topic*** this is the only site I frequent on my phone that doesn't automatically capitalize the first word in a new sentence when I type. So weird. 
    tmgm528catwranglerJern92
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,120

    tmgm528 said:
    SMC said:
    Just out of curiosity are any of you who don't like the exclusivity going to raise the same ruckus at all the male only sets from now on?

    If the set is called Men of NASA yes I will, if the set is called Apollo 11 no I wont. It looks like many people cant understand that distinction.

    He means any set. So any time ever a set comes out with no female figures you have to be outraged. That's then blatantly bad with your argument here. I should expect you in outrage whenever any set is released with all males.

    There have been sets (a lot friends sets) that have only had females and I have not said a word against them have I. So why do I need to be outraged by only male sets, unless they are recognising people based in a large part on there gender. Maybe I should be outraged with the sports sets we have seen like the Germany CMF but not all sets.
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,120
    These women broke boundaries and many of them were ignored on purpose just for being women until someone else spoke up for them on their behalf.
    Yes but like this set the question is: Is it only women that have been ignored and have not received recognition?
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,830
    And not only that but would you have a set that has, for example, Caroline Herschel but ignores William Herschel or probably more importantly John Herschel?
    MattPetersen
  • SithLord196SithLord196 Member Posts: 1,160
    edited March 2017
    My issue with this set is, and always has been, the fact that a similar "Unsung Men of NASA" set featuring all obscure males, such as the programmers behind the scenes, would more than likely be rejected. If such a set was approved, the PR would be an absolute disaster and Lego would undoubtedly have to recover from being labeled as sexist. For my part, should an "Unsung Men of NASA" submission reach 10,000 votes and get approval, my negative reaction towards this approval would instantly disappear.

    Although I'd still be left questioning why Science Adventures and National Parks were rejected. 

    Also, I did find it kind of bothersome that only the German Men's National Team got a CMF Series and not the Women's National Team. 
  • MattPetersenMattPetersen Florida, USAMember Posts: 282
    CCC said:
    And not only that but would you have a set that has, for example, Caroline Herschel but ignores William Herschel or probably more importantly John Herschel?
    In a perfect world (and if the set were not boring) I'd include them all if that was the focus of the set.

    In no way was I excluding her brother when I mentioned her. However her brother gets all the credit for the discovery of Uranus already.

    If the subject and focus of the set is to introduce people to women who are unknown to us that contributed to their fields of science I'd be quite ok with just featuring Caroline (I'd make sure the box or a pamphlet inside summarizes he achievements and credits her family work). 



  • MattPetersenMattPetersen Florida, USAMember Posts: 282

    SMC said:
    These women broke boundaries and many of them were ignored on purpose just for being women until someone else spoke up for them on their behalf.
    Yes but like this set the question is: Is it only women that have been ignored and have not received recognition?
    Historically? For the most part yes, women were ignored for just being women. This isn't a new concept.
    Now, there are other scientists who were male that were lost to the pages of history for various reasons but never because of their gender. Some had rivals that were better with promoting themselves, some never bothered to publish their work or cared for the recognition. 
    The key thing is they weren't pushed aside because they were thought to be less valued than another gender. That is the difference. 

    tmgm528catwranglerJern92MinifigsMebrickventures
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,120
    edited March 2017
    ^ would you say the same about this NASA set. Would the women here have been well known had they been men or would they have been less well known?
    SithLord196
  • DrmnezDrmnez USA, Planet earth Member Posts: 859
    What in the world is reverse sexism? 
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,120
    ^ msixes
    pharmjod
  • DrmnezDrmnez USA, Planet earth Member Posts: 859
    ¿What is msixes?
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,120
    See it's hard to recognise sexism backwards!
    MAGNINOMINISUMBRAdatsunrobbiepharmjod
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,830
    CCC said:
    And not only that but would you have a set that has, for example, Caroline Herschel but ignores William Herschel or probably more importantly John Herschel?
    In a perfect world (and if the set were not boring) I'd include them all if that was the focus of the set.

    In no way was I excluding her brother when I mentioned her. However her brother gets all the credit for the discovery of Uranus already.

    If the subject and focus of the set is to introduce people to women who are unknown to us that contributed to their fields of science I'd be quite ok with just featuring Caroline (I'd make sure the box or a pamphlet inside summarizes he achievements and credits her family work). 

    So presumably you would exclude women like Marie Curie, Dian Fossey, Rosalind Franklin, etc who are reasonably well known. And then the set would be unknown female scientists. If it was that, then why not do unknown scientists, as there are many male scientists that contributed to their field that no doubt most people have never heard of, unless they are less deserving of having their names remembered. But would that set have much meaning without also highlighting the famous scientists too?

    To me, putting someone like Lise Meitner alongside Einstein or probably Hahn says more than not putting her alongside Einstein or Hahn. An unknown person next to an unknown person is just an unknown person. But putting an unknown person next to a well-known person provides much more context for who the former was.


    SMC
  • DrmnezDrmnez USA, Planet earth Member Posts: 859
    I don't get it... reverse sexism is sexism backwards? Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex (gender). So you are telling me that reverse sexism is the normal behavior to both men and women? Or are you trying to say women being sexist to men? FYI that is not reverse sexism... That's just sexism
    VorpalRyu
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,120
    ^ I was just making a bad joke but ended up making a good point. That some people can only see sexism when it goes one way.
    sklambVorpalRyupharmjod
  • DrmnezDrmnez USA, Planet earth Member Posts: 859
    Cuz of spelling it backwards? And most ppl do only see it going one way tiwards women and not men
    VorpalRyu
  • Legopassion8Legopassion8 North CarolinaMember Posts: 1,181
    tmgm528 said:

    So then why the hubub over this?
    Boredom, probably. 
    SumoLegopharmjod
  • 12651265 The Great State of TexasMember Posts: 1,021
    edited March 2017
    I'm not against the Woman of NASA set, however, there were better sets that exhibit the purpose of what LEGO ideas represent.  I found this interesting snippet for the guidelines and rules on the LEGO Ideas website:

    No Minifigure-only projects, Minifigure series proposals, or “battle packs.”

    We don’t accept projects that request only LEGO Minifigures, a new LEGO Minifigure series, LEGO Minifigures with accessories, “battle packs,” or “army builders.” We only consider Minifigures as a part of a set that includes a substantial LEGO model.

    Battle Packs

  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 14,285
    CCC said:
    ...Caroline Herschel... William Herschel or John Herschel?


    Caroline Hershel helped her brother discover Uranus... 
    Gene Roddenberry discovered Klingons.  (Are we really letting such a ripe joke just wander away?)
    bandit778
  • RogerKirkRogerKirk BrightonMember Posts: 364
    1265 said:
    I'm not against the Woman of NASA set, however, there were better sets that exhibit the purpose of what LEGO ideas represent.  I found this interesting snippet for the guidelines and rules on the LEGO Ideas website:

    No Minifigure-only projects, Minifigure series proposals, or “battle packs.”

    We don’t accept projects that request only LEGO Minifigures, a new LEGO Minifigure series, LEGO Minifigures with accessories, “battle packs,” or “army builders.” We only consider Minifigures as a part of a set that includes a substantial LEGO model.

    Battle Packs

    Yet, this is the model that has been approved - much more than 5 figures in a frame. I'm sure Lego will work with these models to improve them and I wouldn't be surprised if there was not a frame to display them in in the final set.
    Aanchirtmgm528stluxshotgunchipmunkLyichir
  • shotgunchipmunkshotgunchipmunk USMember Posts: 74
    ^ this is why it is not just a "battle pack."  I do however hope they improve on these vignettes, because they just don't scream "playability!" as is.
    SprinkleOtterSumoLegotmgm528stlux
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,167
    SumoLego said:
    Nothing says 'playability' like IBM 7090s.  
    The question I have is are those stickers or printed parts? Because I'm sure I could use for some kind of MOC.
    SumoLego
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 14,285
    SumoLego said:
    Nothing says 'playability' like IBM 7090s.  
    The question I have is are those stickers or printed parts? Because I'm sure I could use for some kind of MOC.
    I wish, wish, wish it is a printed piece.
    Pitfall69
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,923
    Judging from past Ideas sets, I figure all the designs will be printed unless they go on parts/surfaces that LEGO doesn't already have printing machine fittings for.
    Lyichir
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 3,047
    And now we're wishing for printed pieces - this is the forum behaving as I expect it! And I agree with @Aanchir - prior experience leads me to believe they will be printed...
    SumoLego
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 14,285
    Most of us are completely predictable.
    MaffyDpharmjod
  • TheOriginalSimonBTheOriginalSimonB Felixstowe Member Posts: 1,651
    9) Endless debate over whether to actually build the set or keep MISB.
    SprinkleOtter
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,830
    SumoLego said:

    8) Discuss Whether Buying a Dozen is a 'Good' Investment (even though you're not one of those 'evil' resellers)
    To start at the end, for this set, at least quick returns will depend on the release date.

    If this is released before Christmas, and lego are cautious with numbers again, then it will probably be an excellent quick flip. It is the sort of set that if it goes OOS before Christmas and Little Tabitha has to have it under the tree, then it will be a good 50%+ almost instant return, although it will probably depend on RRP too. Even better if you can combine with an October or November promo. If it isn't released until after Christmas, then I wouldn't buy until much later in the year for resale.

    I also wonder if they will have both this and the Saturn V released at the same time. In one way, it makes sense - two NASA sets to help market each other. In another way, it will probably get bad press from the bloggers, that boys get a detailed construction model, whereas girls get minuscule builds; the implication being that Lego doesn't think girls can cope with bigger building sets.
    VorpalRyu
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 3,047
    ^ in which case I reckon they won't release them at the same time...
    VorpalRyu
  • DrmnezDrmnez USA, Planet earth Member Posts: 859
    9) Endless debate over whether to actually build the set or keep MISB.
    Never a question for me. I don't buy Lego to display a box. I will however, be happy to sell my boxes to any of the box collectors/displayers ;)
  • Jern92Jern92 MalaysiaMember Posts: 845
    CCC said:
    To start at the end, for this set, at least quick returns will depend on the release date.

    If this is released before Christmas, and lego are cautious with numbers again, then it will probably be an excellent quick flip. It is the sort of set that if it goes OOS before Christmas and Little Tabitha has to have it under the tree, then it will be a good 50%+ almost instant return, although it will probably depend on RRP too. Even better if you can combine with an October or November promo. If it isn't released until after Christmas, then I wouldn't buy until much later in the year for resale.

    I also wonder if they will have both this and the Saturn V released at the same time. In one way, it makes sense - two NASA sets to help market each other. In another way, it will probably get bad press from the bloggers, that boys get a detailed construction model, whereas girls get minuscule builds; the implication being that Lego doesn't think girls can cope with bigger building sets.
    Isn't the fishing shack coming out sometime around then too?
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,830
    Jern92 said:
    CCC said:
    To start at the end, for this set, at least quick returns will depend on the release date.

    If this is released before Christmas, and lego are cautious with numbers again, then it will probably be an excellent quick flip. It is the sort of set that if it goes OOS before Christmas and Little Tabitha has to have it under the tree, then it will be a good 50%+ almost instant return, although it will probably depend on RRP too. Even better if you can combine with an October or November promo. If it isn't released until after Christmas, then I wouldn't buy until much later in the year for resale.

    I also wonder if they will have both this and the Saturn V released at the same time. In one way, it makes sense - two NASA sets to help market each other. In another way, it will probably get bad press from the bloggers, that boys get a detailed construction model, whereas girls get minuscule builds; the implication being that Lego doesn't think girls can cope with bigger building sets.
    Isn't the fishing shack coming out sometime around then too?
    I doubt there is so much overlap in fan-base for the fishing shack with the two NASA sets, aside from normal lego fans.
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,120
    ^ That's where the can of worms come from.
    Bumblepantsricecakegmonkey76cheshirecatbandit778Toc13dannyrwwbluedragonpharmjod
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.