Gender in LEGO Themes

[Lind Whisperer]

I'm putting this comment in spoilers because it isn't finished, and I'm in too much of a hurry right now to give the issue the attention it merits.

Huh? Oops, I didn't really explain myself well. Obviously women can drive and vehicles are driven my female minifigs. I was arguing that I believe the City theme is geared towards males more as there tends to be a lot of vehicles...

...And again I point out, "How do vehicles gender a theme? Vehicles are perhaps one of the most neutral elements of anything, since they have the lowest qualifications to be used of pretty much anything. If you have decent spatial reasoning, and enough muscle structure to press a pedal, you can drive a car."

Those careers are the ones I most frequently see within the City theme.

That's on the capitalism front. LEGO has been nervous about putting out sets that focus on less-action oriented themes, such as hair-dressing

Sorry, I don't quite understand your last sentence. You don't think the examples (police/firefighter) are male dominated?

I consider those examples to have a high number of male workers, yes, but they are by no means male-dominated. "Domination" - see quote below* - means to have a significant, or commanding influence over the topic. Yes, men do have a significant influence in those careers. As do women who choose to pursue those careers.

By your definition though, I suppose that yes, you could describe those jobs as being "male-dominated" - but by that logic, you could also define, say, hair-dressing, or writing, as being "woman-dominated" fields, simply because there are more women than men in those jobs. It's a true argument, but it's not really a constructive argument. People have the chance to advance in all of these fields regardless of what their gender is - how many people of each gender are in these fields is a less important factor than what they are doing. Now, I know that saying "gender quotas is bad," is a inflammatory statement to a lot of people, so let me re-frame it in an example:

Say for example I suggested that we make sure that hair-cutting has an equal ratio of genders in it, and we set standards that force salons to hire an equal number of both genders of haircutters, regardless of quality. Why is this bad? Because you're focusing on quotas, not on standards. The quality of haircutting is, unless you have dozens of people of both genders applying for those jobs, going to go down, not up. The focus needs to be on their qualifications, not on their gender.

*

dom·i·nate

verb

past tense: dominated; past participle: dominated

have a commanding influence on; exercise control over.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Lind Whisperer

[Peppermint_M]

Hmmm

This thread often crops up in one form or another. I like to make a mention of my experience, simply because I wants too!

I am the eldest, my sister is a little over a year younger than me. Mum always bought Duplo, she had parents who proclaimed "LEGO is for Boys" (Even though thier close friends bought one of the very first basic brick boxes for their daughters) and never had any, even as it was lavished on her younger brother (Dude,he had Yellow Castle and then sold it for a bike, a mountain bike! ). As such, she wanted to play too! My sister and I played Duplo, but as we got older she was drawn more to dolls and Polly Pocket (The original tiny ones) while I was all about that Aquazone and any plane I could get my hands on. Same influnences, same media consumption, same parental provisions. She just asked for a Barbie while I wanted LEGO.

As we grew up, out games with LEGO and Barbie reflected us. My Sindy (In Action Man outfits) raced around in the sports car and the most trainer-like barbie shoes, her Barbie and Ken played house while we played dolls. When we played LEGO, characters we had made up went on adventures and had air shows and races, then parked up and went to the cafe to eat and retired to bed in the little homes we built. We mixed our games, if it was my turn to choose then we built LEGO things to play with. If it was her turn we played Barbie.

Now, she did like LEGO, she does like LEGO. Elves and Friends and Princesses? She loves them! We are in our mid twenties now, I am an AFOL (Well duh) and she is a doll collector (Monster and Ever After high to be precise). But all this new Elves LEGO is right up her street, she loves it. Her husband bought her a set or two for their anniversary. It caters to her and girls like her, created to appeal to them.

You also have the girls in the unfortunate situation of girls who's parents think LEGO is for boys. Now, with these sets that are for girls, they can otherwise have access to LEGO that they would not have had. Which, as we all know: A few sets are a gateway to brick boxes and assorted wheels, extra minifigures, PaB...

I love the inclusion of more directly female figures (Smile-face and lady hairstyles didn't cut it in my book) but I also think the minidolls and those themes open LEGO up to a whole other sort of child.

[Lordofdragonss]

Here is some stuff I noticed working in Lego shop in Poland:

- 70% Girls (and their parents) have no idea friends sets can connect to other Lego themes

- Girls don't like how Lego dolls are not able to sit properly or can't move their arms

- Many girls have no idea that you can swap hair/hats from minifigures to minidols

- There are some boys that love Elves theme and are disapointed that there is no many male elves

- Kids are greatly discouraged to buy sets they want because they are "for boys/for girls".

- Many kids have no idea that you can REBUILD stuff you build

- I know many girls who LOVE ninjago and are disapointed that Nia is only in biggest sets

-What is in commercial/ videos- sells and that makes a big trouble as we have 4-5 years old kids asking for 8+ sets - and many of this kids will never build them as their parents are foten like " you can't build it, it's too hard, I will make it for you"

The main problem I see in kids/parents thinking is that they treat LEGO as TOY not as a building toy. Many kids don't want to rebuild stuff as they are replicas from the show. It would be amazing if Lego Ninjago (for exaple) had instances where ninja had to rebuild their vechicles for their missions. Of course Lego could put instructions on Lego Club site!

Edited October 13, 2015 by Lordofdragonss

[ShaydDeGrai]

As both an AFOL and an ardent feminist, I hold this subject very dear. To me, the biggest issue with the girl-oriented themes is not the colors or the minidolls or even the more domesticated scenarios, but that the advertising downplays the building aspect. The most meritorious thing about LEGO as a toy is the way building with the bricks develops a child's skills in 3-D spatial reasoning, structural and mechanical design and engineering, and overall creativity...but the ads for the girls' sets tend to gloss that over and depict them as prefabricated dolly playsets like Polly Pocket. Then, too, the girls' sets seem to include fewer and larger parts, making them less build-intensive in fact. The sum effect is that girls are getting shortchanged with regard to what makes LEGO so great.

In a previous career I was a professor at an engineering school with one of the highest (percentage-wise) female enrollment in the world (sadly, most engineering schools don't set the bar too high in that regard). Our university also had a college dedicated to child development and education, and I had a number of grants working with the child study gurus to address STEM education curriculum development, gender bias in basic skill acquisition and other factors that ultimately spoke to the question of "why are there so few women of note in engineering and the (hard/dry) sciences (as opposed to life/wet sciences, which, by comparison have been far better at attracting/producing accomplished practitioners who happen to be female)"

One factor (of, admittedly, many) is early development of 3D spatial reasoning skills. Traditionally, males have scored much higher than females and for decades the generally accepted explanation (given by male 'experts' in the field and affirmed by their male colleagues in related fields as intuitively obvious) was that it was an evolutionary bias: millions of years of men having to hunt, build traps, make tools and build shelters while women sat around breast feeding babies and cooking dinner had, supposedly, resulted in a gender based natural selection of brain development. Since women were "genetically incapable" of developing strong spatial reasoning, they were destined to be bad drivers, terrible engineers, and generally dismissed in the "male professions" whereas males were considered to have a natural affinity for such things (and even those who couldn't handle the math could at least go on to be brilliant painters and sculptures).

The giant hole in these age old theories is that there isn't a single bit of hard evidence to support it. We know where 3D reasoning "lives" in the brain; we can scan for activity and structure and if a million years of evolution had really differenced men from women in this regard, we should have been able to find something by now -- but we haven't. Unlike many other evolutionary, gender-biased traits (strength v. stamina, body chemistry, skeletal proportions, etc.) men's and women's brains aren't built all that differently, we just don't exercise them properly/equally. Spacial reasoning is predominantly a learned skill (and, like language, best developed prior to the onset of puberty). Statistically boys _are_ better at it than girls, but that's because they are given far more opportunity to explore and exercise those skills than girls are. Studies have been done comparing "tom girls" who played with "boys' toys" (Lego, lLincoln Logs, Tinker Toys, Erector Sets, etc.) at a young age and, guess what, they test out just as well as boys with a similar background with respect to spatial reasoning. (And as an aside, recent studies on boys raised on video games and screens rather than "hands-on" toys are showing significant retardation with respect to spatial reasoning compared to the age-peers a generation ago - so much for a million years of evolution).

More so than any wage inequality or glass ceiling being imposed by some cigar smoking old-boys-club (which are certainly issues, I'll grant you), the single-most thing holding (most) women back in Engineering and (certain) Sciences is the societal expectations and stereo types. We "expect" girls to play with toys of limited educational value and that may actually limit early brain development, then saturate them with messages (both overt and subtle) that bias future career options and interests at a ridiculously early age. Don't bother blaming the toys, blame the society that makes those toys seem desirable to young girls.

So back to LEGO...

Clearly there is a gender bias in their themes (and clearly it is driven by marketing and profitability), as a former educator for whom the question of women in engineering was a key issue, I'm generally okay with that, but I have my reservations. The big win that I see in TLG's latest effort is that (unlike prior pushes such as Scala, Belville and Clikits), Friends and Elves are "real" in-system building kits, take out the mini-dolls and you still have a set worth putting a LEGO logo on. Paradisa flirted with this status previously, but a "complex" Paradisa build was the order of a promotional polybag for typical Lego fan. Even the "high-end" offerings like Poolside Paradise or Fun Fair were more on par with what one would get out of a Lego Juniors set from a building experience standpoint ( and just to be clear, that's a condemnation of the Paradisa designs and their unwillingness to offer girls a real building challenge, not a slam against the Juniors line - for what it is and who it's targeted at, I think Juniors is a great Idea ). Friends, in contrast, is a more typical Lego line-up and I know a number of middle aged men who rushed out to get the Dolphin Cruiser, not because it was a good "girls" set, but because it was a "good set" in general. Personally, I really like the Elves sets, good build experience, reasonable designs, excellent color palette (as opposed to the gut wrenching preponderance of Belville pink); the mini-dolls don't work for me, but other than that I think the line is respectful and educational for children in general even though it is nominally aimed at girls.

And speaking of mini-dolls, I really don't like them. I recognize that they serve a purpose in trying to market a construction toy to a Barbie-brainwashed consumer market, but, socially, psychologically and educationally I see them as a hold-over to an era when toys reinforced the notion that girls were supposed to look pretty, play house and, if they were really gifted, learn to cook. I don't blame TLG for them in that, without mini-dolls, many girls might never discover LEGO at all, but if I were buying and Elves set for _my_ daughter, I'd pull the mini-dolls out and replace them with mini-figures with pointed ears before she ever got her hands on them in the first place.

In terms of other lines and other sets, I think it's easy to point to lots of instances of kits with a distinct "boy-bias" or/and (often patronizing) pandering for the girl market, so I'll flip the question around and look in the opposite direction. I think, based purely on my own observations, that the Castle theme has really had the best track record for drawing boys and girls in for creative play. Certainly there have been sub-themes within castle from time to time where you couldn't find a female minifigure without a spy satellite, two blood hounds and a clairvoyant, but in general I think it has been pretty fertile ground for boys and girls to approach creative, constructive play on a pretty level footing. There are knights and princesses; castles and horses; swords and flower bouquets; siege equipment and farm animals. In general (and yes, I know there are some pretty marked departure from this in the various sub-themes) the theme creates a context for kids to run with the narrative of their choice and a setting to build aspects of the world that are of interest _to them_ based on their personalities and interests more than their gender. By comparison, City, Space and Pirates tend to have a very "designed by big boys for little boys" feel. Castle, despite it's many obsessions with dragons and ninjas, has always struct me as a more balanced world and one of the few ares where, prior to Friends, I recall seeing little girls getting excited about Lego.

Edited October 14, 2015 by ShaydDeGrai

[CMP]

I think Friends' minidolls spawned this brand of off-shoot themes that are designed specifically for girls and that's worsening the divide.

That said, I have noticed in the City sets there's female cops/firefighters all over the place now. They're doing better than they were a few years ago where there were maybe one-two female figs per wave of a theme, usually in the biggest, most expensive set.

[MAB]

It is only worsening the divide in the sense that girls that would never have played with Lego are now playing with Lego. These tend to be the more "girly" girls. It's a good thing they are building. If it takes more pink and minidolls to get them playing, so what? It may widen the divide, but traditionally more "boyish" sets are being made more accessible to girls by including more female minifigs.

However, it is important that the "boyish" sets remain technical.

[Karalora]

I think, based purely on my own observations, that the Castle theme has really had the best track record for drawing boys and girls in for creative play.

In theory I agree, but I think there's lots of room for improvement to make a genuinely unisex theme.

* More roles for female minifigs. It's easy to sell princess fantasies to little girls--so easy that it's arguably lazy. I would like to see at least one female knight in a future Castle line (without her having to also be a princess or the tired story element that she's hiding her gender), as well as a good sorceress in a fantasy theme.

* More female minifigs in general. I theorize that one problem girls have getting into themes like Castle is that the female minifigs are usually reserved for the higher end sets, making it less likely that economy-minded parents will take a chance on the concept.

* More color variety. I'm not asking for a return of the Jellybean Knights, but purple or light blue would be a good signature color for a "third faction" to attract more girls to the line. Or perhaps the third faction could build white or tan castles instead of the standard gray. The preponderance of red, royal blue, gray, and dark colors might make the line seem too "gritty" for girls who are used to seeing lighter, softer colors in toys intended for their gender.

* More sets depicting peaceful activities instead of the majority being focused on combat scenarios. This would be a big draw for AFOLs too! We all love the Medieval Market Village!

[Lind Whisperer]

In theory I agree, but I think there's lots of room for improvement to make a genuinely unisex theme.

* More roles for female minifigs. It's easy to sell princess fantasies to little girls--so easy that it's arguably lazy.

You're making a better argument here for "selling princess fantasies" than against it. Companies will sell what sells.

I would like to see at least one female knight in a future Castle line

(without her having to also be a princess or the tired story element that she's hiding her gender)

Unless it's a fantasy universe, that's just not going to happen. You can't rewrite history just because it "would be more politically correct".

as well as a good sorceress in a fantasy theme.

They all look like pretty good sorceresses to me, unless you mean good as in Lawful Good, in which case..That's not what sorceress implies.

* More color variety. I'm not asking for a return of the Jellybean Knights, but purple or light blue would be a good signature color for a "third faction" to attract more girls to the line.

So..."Princess=bad," but "Girl-colors=good"?

Or perhaps the third faction could build white or tan castles instead of the standard gray. The preponderance of red, royal blue, gray, and dark colors might make the line seem too "gritty" for girls who are used to seeing lighter, softer colors in toys intended for their gender.

...Your standards kind of feel like they're flopping all over the place.

...They're not supposed to make sets that are "gritty" - because that would be too "boy-ish," I presume - but they are supposed to make sets in "girl-friendly colors" - in a theme that by your standard is supposed to be "unisex," but no realistic female knights because they would be too "girly"...

* More sets depicting peaceful activities instead of the majority being focused on combat scenarios. This would be a big draw for AFOLs too! We all love the Medieval Market Village!

That's just not financially viable.

[Karalora]

Lind Whisperer, you are railing against arguments I didn't actually make. I never said no princess minifigs and I never said no red and gray. I'm asking for these other elements in addition to the traditional ones.

The "historical accuracy" argument is not only up way past its bedtime, but completely irrelevant. LEGO Castle is not Colonial Williamsburg. If the idea of female knights gives you a history!sad, just don't play with those minifigs. There's no reason to deprive those of us, adults and children, who would like to have some. (Also, Princess Storm was in a past Castle line, which is why I specified a future Castle line.)

You don't like "sorceress"* for that purpose? Do you have a better word for a female spellcaster on the side of good? Obviously you knew what I meant and you're just being contrary. Does that concept give you a history!sad too? Unlike all the male wizards which are perfectly historically accurate?

* Dude, I'm an Eighties kid. The Sorceress was on the good guys' side.

[Lind Whisperer]

I never said no princess minifigs

Correct, and I apologize. I forgot to type Princess knight.

The "historical accuracy" argument is not only up way past its bedtime, but completely irrelevant.

Good point. Historical accuracy is irrelevant.

That statement speaks for itself, as to what's wrong with this argument.

I will agree that female knights in a fantasy theme are perhaps, not the worst idea - although they are rather unrealistic, just in terms of how people behave* - but in a realistic setting, it's just not realistic, nor is rewriting history-which is what you're effectively doing to the minds of all of the kids who will play with these-a constructive end.

If the idea of female knights gives you a history!sad

We're all adults, or nearly so, on these forums - let's type like we are.

just don't play with those minifigs.

"If you don't like the book, just don't read it!"

There's no reason to deprive those of us, adults and children, who would like to have some.

Agreed. Also, there's no need to deprive me of my Purdue Pete Ideas set, darn it! Except that LEGO deemed the audience clamoring for it not large enough to pursue. LEGO sells what will sell, and the wallets for politically correct, re-written history, are far smaller in number than the millions for normal, normal history. Fantasy? Yes. Re-written history? No.

(Also, Princess Storm was in a past Castle line, which is why I specified a future Castle line.)

I was just reminding everyone that there had been a Castle line before with a female knight.

It also was the second-least favorably remembered Castle line.

Not that the two of those are connected.

But since there's this large audience of girls and adults who want to play with bright-colored castles and girl knights...well, you'd almost think it would be remembered a bit more fondly than it is...

You don't like "sorceress"* for that purpose? Do you have a better word for a female spellcaster on the side of good?

Mage, archmage, battlemage, cleric, and I'm not even out of Heroica job traits yet...

Does that concept give you a history!sad too?

I'd type, "Does typing history!sad give you a false sense of superiority through mocking another person," but I know we're all adults here, so you wouldn't do a thing like that.

Unlike all the male wizards which are perfectly historically accurate?

Strawman here, I was strictly having an issue with female knights in a historical, non-fantasy context. So...moving on.

* Dude, I'm an Eighties kid. The Sorceress was on the good guys' side.

Rad, mon. Groovy slang.

Also, I thought we were talking about female spellcasters, not swapped-gender Falcons. But nice picture.**

Point partially ceded, however, only partially.

This is what most people think of - if Google Search can be considered most people - when they think of sorceresses. Sorceressi? Sorceri? Hard to determine plurals aside, it looks nothing like your picture. Yes, I will admit that "good-aligned" characters called a "Sorceress" have been in at least one children's theme - but said character also looks nothing like the typical image created by the name "sorceress". Parents might buy a box with a strange wierd winged female on it, without looking at the title too closely, but a box with a magic-user, dressed as magic-user, called a sorceress? Yeah...they're going to at least take a second look before clicking buy.

*Armor is freaking heavy. You can't just lower the standards on armor. Would some women still go into battle? Possibly. But not enough so that it's such an imperative thing as it must be done.

[Lind Whisperer]

If anyone has a response to my last response, I will reply to that response, but beyond that, I believe I should withdraw from this conversation. My piece has been said; and I fear that I am starting to kindle a flame war...

Edited October 15, 2015 by Lind Whisperer

[Karalora]

Historical accuracy is irrelevant because LEGO Castle is not Colonial Williamsburg. If it were supposed to be accurate history, it wouldn't be Lions vs. Dragons but France vs. England or what-have-you. If children are reduced to using LEGO sets to learn about the real Middle Ages (in which, anyway, women did more than you might think--don't be led astray by the revisionism handed down from the ultra-misogynistic Victorians), then something has already gone horribly wrong. You never get this sort of wailing and gnashing of teeth when the historical inaccuracies in the Pirates lines are brought up, so why do people get so prickly about Castle?

The fantasy versions are more fun anyway.

Armor too heavy for women? Hardly. Per Wikipedia, a full suit of steel plate armor weighs about 35-55 pounds. For people, male and female, who already lead a very physical lifestyle, as most medieval folk did, that's a routine amount to carry. Add another five-six pounds for a sword and shield (also a lot lighter in reality than some have been led to believe), and it's still not an outrageous amount for a properly conditioned woman. I think part of the problem is that people hear/read "woman" and think of the kind of women Hollywood likes to cast in leading roles, rather than the meatier (and not as cute) athletes such women would actually be.

This next bit I have to quote directly, because it's just too bizarre...

a box with a magic-user, dressed as magic-user

How, pray tell, does "a magic-user" dress? Wouldn't the actual attire depicted on the minifig speak for itself? A "sorceress" doesn't have to have a dress slit up one thigh and Doom Cleavage if LEGO doesn't design her that way. I think the mainstream market is less intimately acquainted with the paintings of Boris Vallejo than you seem to assume.

[fred67]

First thing: I haven't read all the responses; I'm actually surprised I missed the beginnings of this thread. I will go back and read through some more responses, and maybe edit this post, but I couldn't even make it entirely through the first message. My first reaction is "#@%ing again someone's whining about gender in LEGO? They're TRYING! They can't change it OVERNIGHT. It's already a lot different than it used to be.

But I read this:

I have young nieces within the age range of most LEGO products. The oldest niece is around 9, and was talking about how much she liked the cool ninjas in Ninjago sets. She specifically talked about how much she liked the Temple of Airjitzu. Then, she looked a bit sad and said "but it's for boys."

And there's two things that immediately come to mind. The first thing is that it sounds entirely made up. Now, hear me out, maybe it isn't, but it sounds like a story any activist would come up with just to make a point. But, let's say it's true, let's try to think the best of each other and that we wouldn't exaggerate something like that trying to make some social point....

Even if true - TLG did NOT tell your niece this, they in NO WAY suggested it was only for boys, that she couldn't get or enjoy it. You know what it sounds like? Something a mom would say to a daughter wanting a $200 LEGO set, or something some of her friends might have said after finding out that she wanted it... she didn't get it from TLG or any store employees, she didn't get it from catalogs or commercials. You can't possibly lay the blame at the feet of TLG.

The fact that she looked a bit sad when she said sounds exactly like someone told her she couldn't get it and then made up an excuse.

And it's these kinds of stories that bring light to the fact that it's NOT TLG's fault, and that it's NOT their responsibility to educate kids that anyone can play with the sets. Their marketing is much more neutral than it used to be - there is still gender inequality in sets, to be sure, but there's nothing in their marketing that would suggest to a 9 year girl that she's "not allowed" to play with ANY set TLG releases.

Secondly, some themes may seem targeted to gender, but keep in mind that, after the huge success of Friends (so complain all you want, but girls like it), they released Elves - which is COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY gender neutral.

The point being, as I said, they are TRYING, but they can't change overnight, and they aren't going to stop doing what people quite obviously like (making them the most successful toy company in the world) in the name of "social justice." For the most part, they are doing a great job at giving people exactly what the people want.

[Lind Whisperer]

Historical accuracy is irrelevant because LEGO Castle is not Colonial Williamsburg.

If it were supposed to be accurate history, it wouldn't be Lions vs. Dragons but France vs. England or what-have-you.

Actually, Classic Castle directly referenced...Never mind, not worth it.

If children are reduced to using LEGO sets to learn about the real Middle Ages

Well, if they aren't learning about them in school, toys aren't the worst way to teach 'em...

(in which, anyway, women did more than you might think-

Examples needed, because that's how debating works.

--don't be led astray by the revisionism handed down from the ultra-misogynistic Victorians)

I'll...let that comment speak for itself.

Also, examples of Victorian revisionism needed.

then something has already gone horribly wrong. You never get this sort of wailing and gnashing of teeth when the historical inaccuracies in the Pirates lines are brought up

Because historical inaccuracies in Pirates are "those two groups wouldn't have met when they were active". Not "that gender did something they didn't do".

The fantasy versions are more fun anyway.

...

Armor too heavy for women? Hardly. Per Wikipedia, a full suit of steel plate armor weighs about 35-55 pounds. For people, male and female, who already lead a very physical lifestyle, as most medieval folk did, that's a routine amount to carry. Add another five-six pounds for a sword and shield (also a lot lighter in reality than some have been led to believe), and it's still not an outrageous amount for a properly conditioned woman. I think part of the problem is that people hear/read "woman" and think of the kind of women Hollywood likes to cast in leading roles, rather than the meatier (and not as cute) athletes such women would actually be.

Fair. ^^^^^This, is a well-argued rebuttal. You provided examples, and gave good reasons.

How, pray tell, does "a magic-user" dress?

Well, according to Google...a bunch of robes. Very few feathers...

Wouldn't the actual attire depicted on the minifig speak for itself?

Yes it would.

A "sorceress" doesn't have to have a

No, they don't. But LEGO does follow the typical marker in general design, and the general design of a sorceress would, unless the plot called for something different, follow...common depictions of sorceresses.

dress slit up one thigh and Doom Cleavage if LEGO doesn't design her that way.[i think the mainstream market is less intimately acquainted with the paintings of Boris Vallejo than you seem to assume.

...

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...For starters...You're the one assuming that I'm assuming something...

You know, I was on the right track when I said I should leave this discussion. This...is heating up.

[Karalora]

Because historical inaccuracies in Pirates are "those two groups wouldn't have met when they were active". Not "that gender did something they didn't do".

...and?

I guess what I'm asking is, why are people so much more attached to historical sexism than other historical facts?

Also...you're way too hung up on that image of The Sorceress I linked to. I wasn't trying to say "This is what a sorceress is by default," just demonstrate the precedent for a "sorceress" being a good-aligned character.

[danth]

Good point. Historical accuracy is irrelevant.

That statement speaks for itself, as to what's wrong with this argument.

None of the Lego castles include garderrobes. Totally historically inaccurate! Where did the soldiers poop? I'm sure it just tears you up.

I will agree that female knights in a fantasy theme are perhaps, not the worst idea - although they are rather unrealistic, just in terms of how people behave* - but in a realistic setting, it's just not realistic, nor is rewriting history-which is what you're effectively doing to the minds of all of the kids who will play with these-a constructive end.

Lego is not a history class. Lego is a toy that is meant to be fun. Castles are fun. Knights are fun. Girl knights are fun. Worrying about whether female knights are "realistic" is like wondering why castle sets lack latrines and piles of horse dung.

We're all adults, or nearly so, on these forums - let's type like we are.

*BEEP BOOP* Please do not use slang *BEEP BOOP* Non-standard language protocol does not compute *BEEP BOOP*

I was just reminding everyone that there had been a Castle line before with a female knight.

See guys there is ONE female knight in Lego castle history so sexism isn't real.

It also was the second-least favorably remembered Castle line.

Not that the two of those are connected.

They aren't.

But since there's this large audience of girls and adults who want to play with bright-colored castles and girl knights...well, you'd almost think it would be remembered a bit more fondly than it is...

Dude, Lego had terrible sets across the board during this time period but you're pretending this KK1 was unpopular because of a single female knight? Okay.

Strawman here, I was strictly having an issue with female knights in a historical, non-fantasy context.

Please link to posts where you complain about how the Black Falcons aren't an actual historical faction. Otherwise I'm going to think this is just you really hating on women.

I guess what I'm asking is, why are people so much more attached to historical sexism than other historical facts?

Nailed it.

Also...you're way too hung up on that image of The Sorceress I linked to. I wasn't trying to say "This is what a sorceress is by default," just demonstrate the precedent for a "sorceress" being a good-aligned character.

I thought this was clear. She's called "the sorceress" and she's definitely the first character that comes to mind for 80's kids. Also if you google "sorcercess" HOLY SEXUALIZATION BATMAN!

[Lind Whisperer]

...and?

I guess what I'm asking is, why are people so much more attached to historical sexism than other historical facts?

You are re-framing this to fit your narratative.

People are not attracted to "sexism," they are attracted to real-to-life portrayals of history, in history themes.

Pirates/Armada/French Navy/Redcoats=real people, real things. Timing is off. But real-to-life - enough - portrayal, of real people.

Lady knights=just did not exist.

Also...you're way too hung up on that image of The Sorceress I linked to. I wasn't trying to say "This is what a sorceress is by default," just demonstrate the precedent for a "sorceress" being a good-aligned character.

And I was saying that your sorceress example was an example in name only, and was not what people would most likely think of when they hear that a person is a sorceress.

See guys there is ONE female knight in Lego castle history so sexism isn't real.

See guys, sexism is a word! And if you call something sexist, that...Okay, Lind, just step away.

They aren't.

Which is why I said it. And you missed the second point here, so...

Dude, Lego had terrible sets across the board during this time period but you're pretending this KK1 was unpopular because of a single female knight? Okay.

I was pointing out that if there's this large audience of girls and adults wanting to buy sets with girl knights, you'd think it'd be a little more fondly remembered for having had a female knight.

Please link to posts where you complain about how the Black Falcons aren't an actual historical faction.

...

Okay, you are clearly...

Okay, people if you want to hear my reply to this...go back and actually read the post s/he's quoting. Just...just go back and actually read the post.

Otherwise I'm going to think this is just you really hating on women.

This is what's called "out-of-context". As I said before, go back and read the original post.

[fred67]

Girls tend to favour minidolls over minifigs, but that doesn't mean Elves is girls only. I know of a few boys that have the Farran set. Similarly, Nexo Knights and similar series such as Ultra Agents may be primarily marketed to boys but girls can play too, and there are female figures in the sets.

Not only do I agree with this, but as a middle aged man, I would love some elves sets... I don't care about back story, but I think they are pretty cool. My only problem is that LEGO is expensive, and I don't want to spend as much as they're asking and not even get usable figures. If it were minifigures, I'd be all over it. When I got back into LEGO as an adult, it was for trains... but Fantasy Castle helped break me out of that. I'd love to see more Fantasy era sets with some prominent female figures (especially elves). If I were in the typical age range for these sets, I would ask my parents for Elves. Hell, I even think a lot of the friends sets are awesome sets.

...

My one-person perspective is that the big struggle for LEGO was always to broaden their appeal to girls. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it was mostly a boy-toy for most of its history. Not completely of course, and I think not with great intentionality, but boys just seemed to be the predominant market for them, whether it was City or Technic or even just building blocks. They tried a few girl-oriented initiatives from time to time, and as far as I know they failed pretty badly. Friends, et. al., appears a much better effort, in part because not "dumbed-down," and therefore much more successful to moving girls into the LEGO market. So is all this LEGO's fault, or a "fault" of the kids for wanting the wrong things?

Good comment - you said it first, but I echoed it in my first response - TLG has been TRYING for years to broaden it's appeal. The problem nowadays is less with TLG and more with society at large. That last line I quoted from you is absolutely perfect, too, but perhaps in a different way than you were meaning - there's a lot of "social justice warriors" out there that would have girls absolutely NOT playing with Friends sets... as opposed to some parent telling their daughter they can't play with Ninjago because "it's for boys," they'd tell their daughter they couldn't play with Friends sets because "it's demeaning because it's targeted towards girls." I've met women that will not buy their daughters Barbie dolls. Period.

Hey! Kids want what they want. In the OP's example about his niece saying "it's for boys," I promise you she didn't get that from anyone working for TLG.

I bought my daughter EXACTLY the LEGO she asked for - she did PAB and got pinks and purples (knowing she could use my other colors, too), and the only set she ever picked out was a Belville set (Blossom Fairy - I know because I still have it from when she "outgrew" LEGO). It was completely usable with any other LEGO.

I did have one interesting experience in a LEGO Store where I had some of the Christmas boxes to fill up for free at the PAB wall. A girl was there with her dad who seemed more excited about LEGO than she did. One of the bins had dogs in it, and her dad was busy filling up the PAB cup and said "no, they just waste space in the cup, these are the parts you need." So I handed her a "free" box, explained how it worked, and she went and got a handful of dogs, and then dug into some of the other bins.

Again, I promise the OP that nobody at LEGO ever told his 9 year old niece that she couldn't get Ninjago because it was only for boys. If it's a true story, it likely came from a parent that didn't want to spend $200 on a LEGO set.

Yeah, although the research institute was skewing traditional gender toys, it was still gender based. The only way Lego could be without gender bias is if themes were 50% split figure wise, but Lego doesn't seem to do that. Even Bionicle with it's strong female characters is a 80% dude to 20% gal ratio.

I have a problem with Research Institute... it seemed to sell out really fast. Normally sets that sell really fast get reprinted. The Ecto-1 is still around, the Exo-Suit is still around... I don't get why they didn't make more Research Institutes. I did manage to get a copy, but they would be pretty nice gifts, IMO.

Anyway, back on subject, I think the reaction to the set was interesting... people weren't really complaining (IMO), but they were flippantly complaining that it was all women. While I'm all for more female figures, the solution is not to start alienating boys in favor of girls.

Of course there are more males tin physically demanding jobs. Those careers are the ones I most frequently see within the City theme. Sorry, I don't quite understand your last sentence. You don't think the examples (police/firefighter) are male dominated? I consider a 'male-dominated' field to be one with a larger % of males involved in roles and decision making.

It's interesting, because a lot of people would disagree with you - I've had the same argument before, and people seem to think that everything has to be absolutely neutral. It doesn't matter that police and fire departments largely consist of men, there ARE some women in those fields and so sets should be EQUAL because it's TLG's "social responsibility" to teach kids it should be equal. The key here is that I would agree there should be more female figures in sets - that there should be more female cops and firefighters, but no, it's not TLG's responsibility to "guide" society to being entirely gender neutral.

No... it's not their job.

HOWEVER, as I said - I would be happy to see a lot more female figures, and even female figure dominated sets when it works, like research institute, although if TLG were to release a set like that in the future, I wouldn't mind the tables being turned to have females dominate the set, but obviously there was some bias there making ALL the figures female.

And now, just offhand, I think about the Detective Agency and how a lot of modern cop shows are either neutral or actually female dominated (not even just modern - I remember watching Cagney and Lacy back in the 80s); but a set like the Detective Agency is a product of it's time, also - a very male dominated time in the U.S.. I know that excuse is being bandied about here with the Castle theme, but it rings a lot more true in sets like D.O..

The bottom line, IMO, is that TLG has been trying for quite some time, and they are succeeding. They can't change everything overnight, they can't force parents to buy Ninjago for their daughters any more than they can force parents to buy Friends for their sons. While the marketing may influence opinions, there's nothing in the marketing that says girls can't like Ninjago, and absolutely NOTHING that would lead a 9 year old girl get all sad and say "but it's for boys."

I definitely WOULD like to see more female figures in sets, even if only one in three or four cops or firefighters are women.... and with the more detailed faces coming out, I would like obviously female ones that aren't screaming (helpless victims) or smiling... just serious, doing their job type expressions.

Edited October 15, 2015 by fred67

[ShaydDeGrai]

Examples needed, because that's how debating works.

I don't want to get into the middle of this, as I think this exchange is really starting to drift off the rails of the original thread more than a tad, but since you seen to be dwelling on _actual_ history you might as well have all the facts:

Joan of Arc was only a teenage girl when she wore full armor and broke the Siege of Orleans in a mere 9 days during the 100 Years War. She was a brilliant strategist and was eventually burned at the stake for witchcraft and heresy because the English could imagine any other explanation for why she was so much better at prosecuting a war than the male nobility.

Artemesia of Caria was an ally of Xerxes, King of Persia and served as his supreme naval commander at the Battle of Salamis. She had a reputation for being ruthless, cunning and extremely intelligent and was feared by sailors and soldiers alike across the eastern mediterranean.

Queen Boudicca of Britain united the Celtic Tribes in a revolt against Roman occupation and personally lead her warriors in a campaign that cost Rome and estimated 70-80,000 troops and support personnel before finally being defeated by an overwhelming force in both numbers and technology. While she didn't drive the Romans from the island, the economic and psychological damage she inflicted had ripple effects across the empire and is considered a contributing factor in both future rebellions agains the romans and the assassination of the Emperor Nero ( one whose watch a "mere" woman embarrassed the greatest empire Europe had ever known ).

And speaking of women who stood up to Rome, Zenobia was queen of what would become Syria. She was considered a fierce warrior who lead from the front and fought both on foot and one horseback in campaigns that crippled key trade route for Rome. When she was finally defeated, Rome paraded her through the streets in golden chains to prove to the people that she was mortal and had been beaten, but she was so respected by the Generals who had faced her in battle that the Emperor is said to have pardoned her in exchange for a pledge of allegiance as they feared her execution would spark an even greater rebellion and they'd rather have her fighting for them than against them.

Grace O'Malley was a warrior "cheiftan" of the Umaill Kingdom of Ireland around the 16th century and maintaing a pirate navy collecting tariffs on English shipping in defiance of Queen Elizabeth (who, in her younger days was no slouch either, not exactly your Disney Princess there. Eventually, she struct a deal with the Queen of England to use her fleet as privateers attacking England's enemies and so long as she left English ships alone, she could keep whatever she could capture and Elizabeth would allow her to remain an independent state.

In the East, Lady Trieu is considered to the the Vietnamese Joan of Arc. At the age of 20 she raised an army of more than 1000 again the Chinese. She's said to have fought with two swords and road a war elephant into battle.

In Japan, Tomoe Gozen and Nakano Takeko were actual female Samurai. Given the culture of the day, you can just imagine how accomplished these women must have been to earn such a title.

So, you asked for examples of historic females warriors, this is just a sample of some of the more famous ones. True these aren't all technically "knights" from the middle ages, but I don't think anyone who went up against Joan of Arc was really worried about her title or standing in the feudal system of the day. Boudicca may have come a few centuries too early for your taste but I don't think that made much of a difference to the town and fortresses she sacked.

Brining this back to LEGO, if a girl wants to play lord of the castle and put swords in the hands of her female mini-figures, more power to her. While most of the histories dwell on what the men were doing there's plenty of precedent and wiggle room for a girl to role something other than a damsel in distress or lowly milkmaid waiting for a man to rush in and save the day.

[Myrddyn]

(in which, anyway, women did more than you might think-

Examples needed, because that's how debating works.

I didn't intend to join this debate either, but I have a few more examples that I don't think were mentioned.

Jeanne de Clisson

Marcia ordelaffi

Joanna of Flanders

The order of the Hatchet (not too pleased with the sources I've been able to readily find for that one, though)

The wikipedia page for 'Knight' also has a subsection on female knights.

Regardless, though, I think the idea that examples of female fighters are needed is actually as flawed as asking for examples of non-female fighters would be.

Back in the middle ages, if you wanted to fight in an army and weren't important you had to meet three criteria.

1. Can you run forwards? *Not actually that important if you have a bow.

2. Can you tell who your enemy is? *Not actually that important, we'll send you in first.

3. Can you kill? *Not actually that important, cannon fodder.

As for the argument that women were prevented from fighting by not being strong enough to wear a knight's armour, most fighters couldn't afford to buy that much armour anyway.

[MAB]

So do these female warriors need to have cleavage on show, or feminine shaped armour, or wear lipstick to show they are female? Does she need to have long flowing locks coming out of her helmet to show she is female? Should they be wearing pink and purple to denote that it is a women only battalion?

If so, isn't that rather sexist? If not, existing parts not be used (minus heads with a beard on them). A woman with no make-up on, wearing armour and a helmet looks pretty much like a man wearing armour and a helmet. If girls don't believe that current minifig knights can be female, why would they accept new ones unless they are made in pink and have cleavage and make-up?

[Karalora]

So do these female warriors need to have cleavage on show, or feminine shaped armour, or wear lipstick to show they are female? Does she need to have long flowing locks coming out of her helmet to show she is female? Should they be wearing pink and purple to denote that it is a women only battalion?

If so, isn't that rather sexist? If not, existing parts not be used (minus heads with a beard on them). A woman with no make-up on, wearing armour and a helmet looks pretty much like a man wearing armour and a helmet. If girls don't believe that current minifig knights can be female, why would they accept new ones unless they are made in pink and have cleavage and make-up?

I suspect you are being sarcastic, but sure, I'll bite.

No, "feminine" armor and loads of pink and purple are not necessary. A head with defined eyelashes and lips--since that is how TLG codes its adult female minifigs--should suffice. In a line with named individual characters instead of just "Soldiers 1 through 12," the same head could be used with more feminine clothing and hair to show what she looks like out of armor.

To steer this a little back toward the main thread topic, please remember that this was just one of several suggestions I had to make Castle more appealing to girls. Girls don't necessarily shy away from action-intensive scenarios, but they do like to feel as though they can be part of it instead of stuck on the sidelines as the damsel in distress.

Let me share a personal anecdote. Back in 2008, I bought the Castle Advent Calendar. I was babysitting my nice (aged four at the time) and wanted to introduce her to LEGO, so rather than save it for myself and open one mini-build a day, I did them all in a row and let her help. I also pulled out some of my existing Castle minifigs so we would have more characters to play with. She pounced on the princess minifig, of course, but when it came time to imagine scenarios, she immediately came up with the idea that bad guys were attacking the village and the princess went and pulled the sword out of the stone to defeat them. For the record, I didn't prompt her on this. She obviously didn't know the Arthurian legends at the time, but "the sword in the stone" had entered her consciousness anyway and she developed ideas about its purpose based on what appealed to her.

[MAB]

I wasn't actually being sarcastic - it's a serious point to see if you want existing sets or something new and much more girly. Some past sets have exactly what you want. Remove the head from the princess and put it on a knight. You have the princess knight. Nothing else needs changing. Just because the box or instructions don't direct you to do it, it doesn't mean you cannot do it. A "boys" set now appeals to (some) girls.

Of course, there will still be a lot of girls not wanting it, and a number that will still say it is a boys set even if shown they can put a female head on a soldiers torso.

[danth]

I wasn't actually being sarcastic - it's a serious point to see if you want existing sets or something new and much more girly. Some past sets have exactly what you want. Remove the head from the princess and put it on a knight. You have the princess knight. Nothing else needs changing. Just because the box or instructions don't direct you to do it, it doesn't mean you cannot do it. A "boys" set now appeals to (some) girls.

Of course, there will still be a lot of girls not wanting it, and a number that will still say it is a boys set even if shown they can put a female head on a soldiers torso.

What a huge cop out.

Edited October 15, 2015 by danth

[MAB]

Why is it a cop out to change minifig identities. After all Lego is a building toy designed to be changed. That includes minifigs.