NZ scientist writes open letter to TLC - asks for 'Janus' head

[ShaydDeGrai]

(snip) - there's no need to smear feminism nor academia, considering they're two of the few institutions which actually try to understand and address gender inequity. (snip)

Speaking as a former academic, I can assure you that your kind regard for academia is a bit of an over generalization. Academics (particularly in disciplines that allow for subjectivity) are often, shall we say, "less grounded" in reality than most people. In having devoted their careers to becoming the world's foremost experts in the dark corners of the human experience that most people don't care about, let alone explore, some academics even project their own opinions and personal biases as facts. They cherry-pick raw data to support their stance after the fact while dismissing data that doesn't fit their hypothesis claiming their expertise enables them to distinguish a clear trend versus "random outliers." Then they get really territorial about not sharing their raw data. The usual excuse is that they have a lot vested in the data and they don't want to get scooped in the publication pipeline ("I'm working on three other papers based on that data set right now, let's talk after they're published" or "I'm talking to my editor about including it as a CD Rom with my book, so once it comes out, everyone can have it", etc.) Usually they just drag their feet until people stop asking and someone else has published something more recently that either supports or refutes their findings, and this other author is now the one being scrutinized.

This occurs far less in experimental and hard sciences where results can be reproduced (or not) and clearly _wrong_ answers can be identified. Even in those disciplines, most academics who've seen the inside of the sausage factory know to take the other guy's "facts" and findings with a heavy dose of salt until things have been independently confirmed by multiple sources.

Pulling this back toward the topic at hand, at the university where I worked (which was/is a pretty reputable place) I remember sitting in one Arts and Sciences faculty meeting where a small faction of academics were seriously lobbying to have the History Department officially renamed to the HERstory Department because they found the word HIS-tory to be oppressive to women. They also felt that all new hires in the Herstory department should be women because males were "genetically incapable of understanding the role women have placed in shaping human civilization" and therefore could not teach the subject without infusing it with gender bias. Further, they felt that all classes in the department should boycott textbooks written by men (regardless of quality, content or academic reputation) because "the youth of the world needed a fresh perspective". The people behind this push all had Ph.D.s, respected publication records and decades of experience in the classroom and not one of them even considered the notion that the word "history" traced back to the ancient greek word for wise/insightful narration and has nothing to do with the question of "his" versus "hers" (which has germanic roots) they just latched onto three letters and started venting about perpetuating gender inequity, etc.

So, by all means, do support academia for the good things it often strives to achieve. Recognize that, while many of us are often socially awkward, we usually know our stuff and do our best to keep each other honest. But don't embrace the myths that we're experts in everything, that we don't have biased agendas of our own, or that we really appreciate how looney we can be sometimes.

I'm sure the author of the Janus head proposal thought it was a good idea at the time based on their personal experience (and carefully selected data that "validated" their personal beliefs) but I'm equally sure that the cadre of faculty who thought abolishing the word "history" in favor of "herstory" was a perfectly rational way to make the world a better place. That doesn't mean either of them were "right". I do think there is an issue to be addressed (and have already chimed in on that) but I don't think that just because the "janus head solution" came from a (lone) academic that that magically makes it the ideal solution (or even a mere "good" one).

Having been an academic (and married to an active one) I think it's unfair to dismiss or deride them out of hand (as commonly happens when they say things we don't want to hear) but it's equally unsound to put them on a pedestal and assume that every they say is worth listening to and backed by unbiased, statistically significant, hard facts. My former colleagues, were some of the most learned, well-read, inventive and just downright smart people I've ever met, but they were also self-absorbed, biased, petty, territorial and occasionally paranoid. Academics are trained to make mountains out of mole hills, and over time that takes it toll on common sense.

Edited December 14, 2013 by ShaydDeGrai

[Vee]

... where a small faction of academics were seriously lobbying to have the History Department officially renamed to the HERstory Department because they found the word HIS-tory to be oppressive to women. They also felt that all new hires in the Herstory department should be women because males were "genetically incapable of understanding the role women have placed in shaping human civilization" and therefore could not teach the subject without infusing it with gender bias. Further, they felt that all classes in the department should boycott textbooks written by men (regardless of quality, content or academic reputation) because "the youth of the world needed a fresh perspective". The people behind this push all had Ph.D.s, respected publication records and decades of experience in the classroom and not one of them even considered the notion that the word "history" traced back to the ancient greek word for wise/insightful narration and has nothing to do with the question of "his" versus "hers" (which has germanic roots) they just latched onto three letters and started venting about perpetuating gender inequity, etc....

This is a joke, right? It can`t be true, just can't!

[ShaydDeGrai]

This is a joke, right? It can`t be true, just can't!

No, unfortunately, it wasn't a joke. When it was debated at the meeting a lot of the faculty didn't think it was real either at first and were immediately accused of being so chauvinistic that they could even see how "serious" the issue was...

Ultimately the measure got voted down, but not before a subcommittee was formed to investigate the proposal and their findings were debated at a later meeting. There were people there who seriously believed that once a big name university took the plunge to ban "history" in favor of "herstory" it would just be a matter of time before political correctness forced all other institutions to do the same.

[DPrime]

I don't see a problem with more female minifigs. Frankly I find the sometimes harsh reaction to these kinds of things a bit unnecessary. There are actual issues people should get worked up over, and that includes sexism even in this day and age.

The usual Fox News type "outrage" over this stuff baffles me, and quite frankly is a bore.

[aurly]

And yet the only identifiable black females (humans) are from the Friends line.

Minifigs are YELLOW.

That's... not the same as white. And probably as neutral as they could get without making them purple or something, and that would just be silly.

Some people just WANT to see racism everywhere.

[Faefrost]

Racism? Really? I was pointing out that a friend's daughter would really like a mini fig that looks like her and racism comes into it?

As far as all mini figs are yellow. You might notice that above and beyond the yellow they are quite good at communicating cultural or ethnic characteristics through design. Particularly in the cmf line. There are a number of yellow figs that communicate or at least acceptably self represent black males. There are Asian men and women. A few that lean or are obviously latin. But nowhere is there anything that roughly represents a typical black girl. The main thing is the hair.

It's even worse over with the flesh toned license figures where the only dark toned female figs representing black actresses have non human hair pieces.

[LukeWarmTea]

Wow, this was a bigger response than expected! For a start (and for those who did not visit the blog to read the really short letter) I should state that the woman in question wasn't writing from a position as 'scientist' or an 'academic' she was writing from her position as a mother, and she simply thought of an idea that might give her daughter a chance to see more female minifigs. The reason why her science background matters is only because it meant her simple plea to TLG was picked up by NZ national media - most likely to publicise the fact she recently won a major award, and one we would never really get to hear about in the media otherwise. Which is a shame. But there you are.

What I really find most interesting about this whole thread is that whether you are saying 'get ova it already it's a toy' or 'gender specification in construction/creative toys is an issue for serious consideration' not one person has expressed surprise over the minifig gender disparity, no one has simply 'not noticed' there are a dearth of women in Lego land, no one has suggested the ratio is balanced. Essentially, no one has doubted it is an issue.

[AndyC]

I don't think the gender skew in minifigs really is the issue here. TLG spent a lot of time and money looking into this and firmly established that girls in the target audience just don't relate to female minifigs regardless. That's why Paradisa wasn't a huge success and it's why the minidolls exist and have been staggeringly successful despite an even bigger bias in the opposite direction. The actual proposal of a Janus head would actually make the situation worse, in my opinion, since it would only emphasize the idea amongst girls that the females have "boy like bodies" and that's what they mostly objected to.

Now it's a fair question why society still places such enormous importance on the physical appearance of women and so heavily impresses that same mentality onto ever younger girls. That's a much, much bigger issue though and one that wouldn't even be dented by a toy company trying to fight the tide, especially not a toy company that makes what many still think of as a "boys toy"

It's much more important, in my opinion, to give girls Lego sets they can identify and happily play with without feeling it is something that ostracizes them from their peers. There are enormous cognitive benefits from regular play with Lego as a child and I'd much rather focus on bringing those benefits to as many children as possible.

Gender balance and equally the over-emphasis of physical appearance for women are much, much bigger issues and need to be tackled at a cultural scale, rather than picking out comparatively small examples and trying to solve the world's problems through them.

Edited December 15, 2013 by AndyC

[Dayton]

TLG have remade figures from past series and just simply change the gender. i think she is making a big deal out of nothing.

[BlueberryWaffles]

Batman/Batwoman

Voldemort/ Ms. Voldie

Sam Gamgee/ Samantha Gamgee

this is an...interesting idea. I'll use that word.

[ShaydDeGrai]

Batman/Batwoman

Voldemort/ Ms. Voldie

Sam Gamgee/ Samantha Gamgee

this is an...interesting idea. I'll use that word.

Well if you're talking about licensed themes, don't forget:

Clair Kent

Alexis Luthor

Victoria Von Doom

Octavia Octopus

Gandalfa the ("I refuse to go gray and I'm a wizard damn it so I don't have to" ) Brunette

and Charleen Xavier

I'm sure no one would notice let alone object to the change...

But more seriously, where the heck is Galadriel and Eowyn and why won't they put Arwen in riding leathers and give her a sword? (Okay, just needed to squeeze in a rant… better now)

[Wodanis]

Lego has done a lot of research into how children learn and play with each other. Kids have a hard enough time as it is, to learn about themselves, the expectations placed on them and the world at large. Let them play however they wish to and give them the respect they deserve. This is why I get really annoyed though when adults project their (and consequently society's perspective on gender inequality) onto children and their toys. Children will play with whatever they want to. If one as a parent wants more female or male figures simply order them. How difficult is it to order some female heads at .25 a piece? I would happily buy Lego for my daughter or son regardless of any gender specificity.

However I am happy with the ratio of boys to girls mini-figures. I do not believe a Janus head would be beneficial it would just add to the confusion children feel. I am delighted that new City sets are including more female mini-figures.

I should state that the woman in question wasn't writing from a position as 'scientist' or an 'academic' she was writing from her position as a mother, and she simply thought of an idea that might give her daughter a chance to see more female minifigs.

You are absolutely right LukeWarmTea, she was speaking as a mother.

Pulling this back toward the topic at hand, at the university where I worked (which was/is a pretty reputable place) I remember sitting in one Arts and Sciences faculty meeting where a small faction of academics were seriously lobbying to have the History Department officially renamed to the HERstory Department because they found the word HIS-tory to be oppressive to women. They also felt that all new hires in the Herstory department should be women because males were "genetically incapable of understanding the role women have placed in shaping human civilization" and therefore could not teach the subject without infusing it with gender bias. Further, they felt that all classes in the department should boycott textbooks written by men (regardless of quality, content or academic reputation) because "the youth of the world needed a fresh perspective". The people behind this push all had Ph.D.s, respected publication records and decades of experience in the classroom and not one of them even considered the notion that the word "history" traced back to the ancient greek word for wise/insightful narration and has nothing to do with the question of "his" versus "hers" (which has germanic roots) they just latched onto three letters and started venting about perpetuating gender inequity, etc.

This is a seriously flawed argument. No factual evidence, biased opinions and that staff members would be so blatantly sexist against men. Not to mention being disrespectful to the workplace. It is shameful.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Wodanis

[62Bricks]

Why does nobody ever seem to question the central line of reasoning behind these types of criticism that assumes ones personal identity is only validated by having it represented in popular culture? If I am a person of a certain color or gender am I only worthy if I see others like me on toy packages and television commercials? Shouldn't we be teaching children that they do not need to have been commidified and reduced to an easily-packaged version of their particular "identity" in order to be a respected human being?

The balance of male to female minifigs is a non-problem. If children can imagine themselves as a tiny yellow plastic figure then they can imagine that little yellow figure is male, female, or whatever they wish regardless of its facial features. What I see is adults wanting to impose their own loss of imaginative ability onto their children, and perpetuating the idea that unless you see yourself on TV, you aren't being respected.

[LukeWarmTea]

This is a really interesting thread! I have to say however, that I disagree with the last two statements. As a Early Childhood Educator (Kindy teacher, but one with a degree!) I've learned it is crucially important for kids to see themselves represented across a wide variety of mediums. Kids are really really literal. If they only ever see men in one role, they will simply believe only men can be that role. (Which is why Gail the construction worker is so great!)

And while perpetuating a stereotype isn't the greatest thing in the world, and I see your point 62Bricks, this is exactly what the TLG have been doing by limiting such a wide variety of roles to just male figs. I should be clear - I'm talking about City here. Men can do everything in City, women have a few, specific roles, if any. And they always smile!

[Freddy Bricker]

This is a really interesting thread! I have to say however, that I disagree with the last two statements. As a Early Childhood Educator (Kindy teacher, but one with a degree!) I've learned it is crucially important for kids to see themselves represented across a wide variety of mediums. Kids are really really literal. If they only ever see men in one role, they will simply believe only men can be that role. (Which is why Gail the construction worker is so great!)

And while perpetuating a stereotype isn't the greatest thing in the world, and I see your point 62Bricks, this is exactly what the TLG have been doing by limiting such a wide variety of roles to just male figs. I should be clear - I'm talking about City here. Men can do everything in City, women have a few, specific roles, if any. And they always smile!

I'm honestly trying to find something about this post that I disagree with here, but honestly, none. I'm not one to go out of my way to ask for more female characters (though sometimes they are desperately needed) though this I can understand. You see when I was younger, and I didn't agree with others, I wanted to know what I could do differently (I was quite the critical thinker) and mind you I had quite the imagination, but I always went through the various types of people I knew to compare myself to when I was confused. And quite frankly, up until I was 8 I either though everyone was a teacher, an austronaut, or a fire-fighter (and the occasional cop) because that's all I had been exposed to. Forgive me if I am wrong here, but what I think LukeWarmTea is trying to get across is that variety in figures can allow a child to relate or communicate better with their toy and learn to diversify themselves.

Of course this was only my childhood and I'm sure there were the lot of you who knew about secretaries and mercenaries and what not, but I'm also sure that you didn't "make them up", they were jobs and positions that were established in your life, because unless you're someone who was born knowing every single job on earth. I guess what I'm trying to say here is, kids learn positions and are not born simply "knowing" them, you have to teach a kid what a fire-fighter is, they don't "just know" you have to teach them what a strong women is, they don't "just know", and if they do, well then you have something else to worry about. Children need to learn what something is, that's why we want them to do something they're experienced at, and what better place for a kid to learn that a woman can do what a man can do, than through their everyday toys?

[62Bricks]

This is a really interesting thread! I have to say however, that I disagree with the last two statements. As a Early Childhood Educator (Kindy teacher, but one with a degree!) I've learned it is crucially important for kids to see themselves represented across a wide variety of mediums. Kids are really really literal. If they only ever see men in one role, they will simply believe only men can be that role. (Which is why Gail the construction worker is so great!)

And while perpetuating a stereotype isn't the greatest thing in the world, and I see your point 62Bricks, this is exactly what the TLG have been doing by limiting such a wide variety of roles to just male figs. I should be clear - I'm talking about City here. Men can do everything in City, women have a few, specific roles, if any. And they always smile!

I don't disagree that children are influenced by the roles they see, but whose role is it to make sure a child is exposed to a wide variety of experiences? Toy companies? Television producers? I think it's the responsibility of a parent. Sure, it would be easier if every toy company and television producer shared our own personal values and could instill them in our children for us. That isn't a realistic expectation. When I hear of an outcry like the one to put "male" and "female" faces on each minifig I think to myself, "Here are some parents too lazy to make sure their kids understand about gender equality and want LEGO to do it for them."

I also think, "Here are some parents who haven't really spent a lot of time on the floor playing with LEGO minifigs with their children." If they had, they might realize that they may be projecting some of their own stereotypical notions into the issue. For example, here are some City minifigs from 2013:

Are these figures male or female?

I'm going to guess that most people, on first reaction, would say these are male figures. But is there anything specific about them that makes them "male"? Some minifig faces have lipstick and some have facial hair, but only a fraction. Some torsos have female anatomy, but only a fraction. Some have more feminine patterns, like soft colors and jewelry, but only a fraction. What makes these minifigs "male" is the projection of a stereotype onto them. Any one of them could just as easily be imagined as being female. And if ones imagination isn't vivid enough, of course the heads are removable and interchangeable. Put long flowing hair on your fire chief. Give your garbage collector some lipstick.

Speaking of lipstick, it reminds me that in order to make a face "male" or "female" LEGO actually would have to come up with some more stereotypical gender images. Right now, unless a minifig face has facial hair or lipstick (or long eyelashes) it's pretty much gender-neutral. But not all men have facial hair and not all women wear bright red lipstick.

[Wodanis]

Speaking of lipstick, it reminds me that in order to make a face "male" or "female" LEGO actually would have to come up with some more stereotypical gender images. Right now, unless a minifig face has facial hair or lipstick (or long eyelashes) it's pretty much gender-neutral. But not all men have facial hair and not all women wear bright red lipstick.

What you are seeing is symbolism. It is how both adults and children distinguish gender. It is true that while lots of men don't have facial hair or women wear bright red lipstick, a person looking at the mini figure would easily identify which gender they are based on those features. Then stereotyping comes into your psyche. Think about the facial hair and you may think of a lumberjack or a rogue pirate for example. In our societies (mine being North American) we have been told that stereotyping is bad. This is false, it is part of our learning process and how we disseminate information quickly. The trouble stems from not learning there are things beyond the stereotype as we grow.

I really wouldn't have it any other way with mini figure heads. I think lego does enough to demonstrate gender and race neutral figures which allows a child's imagination take over. The smiling faces from classic Lego sets always makes me smile at them and recall hours of fun.

[62Bricks]

What you are seeing is symbolism. It is how both adults and children distinguish gender. It is true that while lots of men don't have facial hair or women wear bright red lipstick, a person looking at the mini figure would easily identify which gender they are based on those features. Then stereotyping comes into your psyche. Think about the facial hair and you may think of a lumberjack or a rogue pirate for example. In our societies (mine being North American) we have been told that stereotyping is bad. This is false, it is part of our learning process and how we disseminate information quickly. The trouble stems from not learning there are things beyond the stereotype as we grow.

I really wouldn't have it any other way with mini figure heads. I think lego does enough to demonstrate gender and race neutral figures which allows a child's imagination take over. The smiling faces from classic Lego sets always makes me smile at them and recall hours of fun.

You're right, but take the minifig below:

If LEGO were to adopt this proposal and make a "male" and "female" version of this face, what would it look like? Is the current one "male" or "female"? There is no symbolic indication of either gender. To make it male or female LEGO would have to add something like facial hair or lipstick or some other gender symbol. In other words, this proposal would require more gender stereotyping (i.e. all men have facial hair, all women wear bright makeup) in cases like this one. That makes me think the people proposing such a move have not really thought this through and are largely unfamiliar with what the current state of affairs is regarding minifigs.

[Wodanis]

Currently the ambiguous nature of that mini-figure would allow for a child to imagine it either as male or female. I think you are right they would have to make a clear distinction and thus take away from a child's imagination. Most of these requests usually are a reaction. The initial request was spoken as a 'mother' and I don't think she thought about the full ramifications for all children and AFOLs alike.

[LukeWarmTea]

For example, here are some City minifigs from 2013:

Are these figures male or female?

I'm going to guess that most people, on first reaction, would say these are male figures. But is there anything specific about them that makes them "male"? Some minifig faces have lipstick and some have facial hair, but only a fraction. Some torsos have female anatomy, but only a fraction. Some have more feminine patterns, like soft colors and jewelry, but only a fraction. What makes these minifigs "male" is the projection of a stereotype onto them. Any one of them could just as easily be imagined as being female. And if ones imagination isn't vivid enough, of course the heads are removable and interchangeable. Put long flowing hair on your fire chief. Give your garbage collector some lipstick.

Speaking of lipstick, it reminds me that in order to make a face "male" or "female" LEGO actually would have to come up with some more stereotypical gender images. Right now, unless a minifig face has facial hair or lipstick (or long eyelashes) it's pretty much gender-neutral. But not all men have facial hair and not all women wear bright red lipstick.

If only children thought in such subtle ways! They don't. They really don't - as I have said, they are very literal. While I agree as an AFOL I can make these figs either male or female, kids won't - they are dressed for stereotypical male roles, they are not wearing or displaying any feminine signs, ergo, they are men. (Part of this is a much deeper discussion on the 'standard' or 'male' vs the 'other' or 'female' - as in 'Junior Builders Basic Box' vs 'Junior Builders Pink Basic Box', but we can come to that another day.)

While I agree stereotyping occurs when gender is distinguished in a minifig (lipstick and beards etc) I don't see why that is a bad thing, and now that is has begun it's unavoidable. "but only a fraction" is the issue I have here. While kids have one or two 'female identified' figs, all these neutral guys will be, well, guys. If there was no distinct female, or male (as in, the old days) then yes! Any fig could be anyone, and joyous it was, but the added detail to faces, career specific roles, curved waists(!) and so on have pretty much prevented younger kids from exploring that option. Don't get me wrong! I love the details. But the devil is in them, so to speak, and now that minifig men have taken over the City, perhaps some gender balancing isn't such a terrible idea?

[62Bricks]

If only children thought in such subtle ways! They don't. They really don't - as I have said, they are very literal. While I agree as an AFOL I can make these figs either male or female, kids won't - they are dressed for stereotypical male roles, they are not wearing or displaying any feminine signs, ergo, they are men. (Part of this is a much deeper discussion on the 'standard' or 'male' vs the 'other' or 'female' - as in 'Junior Builders Basic Box' vs 'Junior Builders Pink Basic Box', but we can come to that another day.)

While I agree stereotyping occurs when gender is distinguished in a minifig (lipstick and beards etc) I don't see why that is a bad thing, and now that is has begun it's unavoidable. "but only a fraction" is the issue I have here. While kids have one or two 'female identified' figs, all these neutral guys will be, well, guys. If there was no distinct female, or male (as in, the old days) then yes! Any fig could be anyone, and joyous it was, but the added detail to faces, career specific roles, curved waists(!) and so on have pretty much prevented younger kids from exploring that option. Don't get me wrong! I love the details. But the devil is in them, so to speak, and now that minifig men have taken over the City, perhaps some gender balancing isn't such a terrible idea?

You're right that these neutral-faced figures will usually be seen as male, but my point is that this is not because of anything intrinsic to the design of the minifig face. They are classified as male because of stereotypes picked up from all over, and in many cases passed on by a child's parents. Where does a child pick up the stereotype that an airport worker, police officer or race car driver is "normally" male? Most of them are not observing people in these professions and applying generalizations to their minifigs. I think perhaps they are picking it up by hearing their parents refer to the race car driver minifig as a "guy" or "he."

And I really cannot get over that we're talking about a building toy that children are encouraged to build, take apart, and build again in a different way. The same is true of the minifigs. Part of the reason this issue strikes me as strange is that I don't think of minifigs as distinct units, but as an assembly of pieces that can be changed around at will. Somehow this fact is being lost on many parents. (The Friends figures did not help to reduce this misconception.) I think LEGO is flexible enough that if a parent wanted to use it to reduce gender stereotypes and reinforce positive images of women all the pieces are there (literally). This of course requires some hands-on involvement and attention which I believe many parents don't want to be bothered with. They would prefer to get it "out of the box" from LEGO.