http://www.hypable.com/2014/02/23/pieces-what-the-lego-movie-taught-me-about-toys-and-equality/

If the author were complaining about Lego Friends, I could see her point more, but come on! Complaining about female minifigures having breasts and slighter physiques than the males, as if those were things to be ashamed of in any way.

Fortunately, a lot of commenters have already taken the author to task.

http://www.hypable.c...s-and-equality/

If the author were complaining about Lego Friends, I could see her point more, but come on! Complaining about female minifigures having breasts and slighter physiques than the males, as if those were things to be ashamed of in any way.

Fortunately, a lot of commenters have already taken the author to task.

I read this earlier. While their concerns are not entirely unfounded (there being few female figs without an hourglass figure these days), minifigures, especially those representing characters rather than nameless townspeople, should be expected to have genders, and having printed curves on the torso is a far more universal and realistic way of broadcasting that than other identifiers like lipstick or eyelashes. And then they lost me entirely when they complained about Wild West Wyldstyle (missing the point that she is one of the MORE desirable figs specifically because she ISN'T just like the version in every other set).

There are also a lot of people who complain about there "Not being enough" Female minifigures and i have even seen a little girl complain about the girls in Lego sets do boring things and the boys do things like swim with sharks. I was recently at a convention where someone from Lego was asked a question at his presentation about what he said "Quote on Quote Girl Lego" and he said that the company is trying very hard to cater to Girls.

One effect of the minifig shading is that it keeps kids (read: boys) from reappropriating those torsos for male figures, which would thereby eliminate girl minifigs from their collection altogether.

For example, growing up I always wanted to make some kind of evil villain Spider-Lord wizard for my castle MOCs, but couldn't because the Fright Knight witch torso had hips. So, by default, there was always a girl in the story.

On the other hand, it was always easy to turn any other torso into a female if needed, just by putting the generic lipstick-wearing face on it. By the same token, a lot of heads (obviously, the ones without facial hair) put on a shaded torso suddenly become female.

I suppose I should write an article all about how female printing on LEGO minifigs is the best thing to happen to gender equality in toys, because it makes it easier to increase the number of female figs while making it harder to get rid of them. Or decrying the use of beard prints as a way of marking male minifigs as bigoted. How dare LEGO print a mustache on a perfectly generic head?

Heck, if nonsense like the article above gets picked up, I think I've got a pretty good chance.

Edited February 25, 201411 yr by rodiziorobs

On the other hand, it was always easy to turn any other torso into a female if needed, just by putting the generic lipstick-wearing face on it. By the same token, a lot of heads (obviously, the ones without facial hair) put on a shaded torso suddenly become female.

Or if the torso and face have no distinguishing marks, and you have a unisex hairpiece such as this, you can decide for yourself which minifigures are female and male. Creativity abounds, and just because TLG hasn't told you that a particular minifigure is female, it doesn't mean it has to be male! Just like how TLG doesn't tell me which hand each minifig favours, but all my minifigs are left-handed!

Actually I'd say this isn't a silly article at all. It's making a decent point, and to brush it off as 'silly' is a huge error.

While their concerns are not entirely unfounded (there being few female figs without an hourglass figure these days), minifigures, especially those representing characters rather than nameless townspeople, should be expected to have genders

Well, not necessarily...

and having printed curves on the torso is a far more universal and realistic way of broadcasting that than other identifiers like lipstick or eyelashes

But men can have curves. Men can also wear lipstick or eyelashes. None of those 'identifiers' are a universal identification for women.

For example, growing up I always wanted to make some kind of evil villain Spider-Lord wizard for my castle MOCs, but couldn't because the Fright Knight witch torso had hips. So, by default, there was always a girl in the story.

On the other hand, it was always easy to turn any other torso into a female if needed, just by putting the generic lipstick-wearing face on it. By the same token, a lot of heads (obviously, the ones without facial hair) put on a shaded torso suddenly become female.

I'd say that's more to do with your own sexism than anything else. Why not have a witch instead of a wizard? Why can't a male character also be thin on the hips? Why can't a woman have stubble? Because of the sexist expectations that society has laid upon you (not your fault, mind!).

I suppose I should write an article all about how female printing on LEGO minifigs is the best thing to happen to gender equality in toys, because it makes it easier to increase the number of female figs while making it harder to get rid of them.

But it doesn't. So far, Lego torsos have been gender neutral - just look at Emmet's torso, or Bad Cop's. They can be used for any gender. To say 'Hey, torsos which don't have the thin hips are male, and torsos that do have hips are female' is DECREASING the number of female torsos - because now only the thin hip-torsos are female, whereas before ANY torso could be female.

Or decrying the use of beard prints as a way of marking male minifigs as bigoted. How dare LEGO print a mustache on a perfectly generic head?

Please, let's not devolve into straw man arguments - the article isn't silly and has a valid point to make. To belittle it is to belittle the topic of gender equality itself.

Or if the torso and face have no distinguishing marks, and you have a unisex hairpiece such as this, you can decide for yourself which minifigures are female and male. Creativity abounds, and just because TLG hasn't told you that a particular minifigure is female, it doesn't mean it has to be male! Just like how TLG doesn't tell me which hand each minifig favours, but all my minifigs are left-handed!

This is along the right lines. These 'female' torsos with the small waist are now considered 'female' torsos - and any character who doesn't have one isn't female. So now all the old, non-small-waist torsos will be seen as male, instead of being gender neutral as they used to be. Which, as I say, decreases the number of female torsos.

Not to mention that the idea that a small waist is how you identify a female is pretty harmful in itself.

That said, the ending point of the article about Wild West Wyldstyle IS silly, though I think it's more down to a lack of understanding as to how Lego markets itself (by putting 'default' versions of characters in full sets - it just makes sense from a business perspective).

Edited February 25, 201411 yr by sj1984

This is a very old fashioned view point on equality (along the 'we must all be the same' lines). Its as important to recognise the differences between people and celebrate them (ie Diversity and Inclusion) to engender a sense of true equality than to portay everything as identical.

Just as with race, age or any other characteristic, its good that Lego figures have become more diverse and more representative of those characteristics.

Unless the depiction is overly sexualised or offensive I see no issue with the movie (Wyldstyle being amongst the most capable characters) or the figures (people do sometimes wear dresses)

Far more dangerous is sensationalised over reaction

This is a very old fashioned view point on equality (along the 'we must all be the same' lines). Its as important to recognise the differences between people and celebrate them (ie Diversity and Inclusion) to engender a sense of true equality than to portay everything as identical.

Just as with race, age or any other characteristic, its good that Lego figures have become more diverse and more representative of those characteristics.

Unless the depiction is overly sexualised or offensive I see no issue with the movie (Wyldstyle being amongst the most capable characters) or the figures (people do sometimes wear dresses)

Far more dangerous is sensationalised over reaction

I totally agree.

People should have really no money or hunger or any issue of any kind in their life if they focus on such facticious, non-existing problems.

When I got back into Lego, I wasn't quite sure how I felt about the female torsos with the printed hips. I liked the old days where you could simply change the hair to create however many male or female characters you wanted. However, minfigs today have a greater amount of detail on the printing than they did in the past. Therefore, it's only natural that female torsos would have hips and boobs. These are natural parts of the female body, and we shouldn't be teaching our kids to be ashamed about the female body. It's not like there's anything incredibly indecent going on here.

Also, Lego has been doing this since at least 1989 with some of the minifigs, so the females with hips and boobs are nothing new here. This is the only minifig I have from the old days that has the printed hips, and I totally forgot she was printed like that.

Edited February 25, 201411 yr by naf

But men can have curves. Men can also wear lipstick or eyelashes. None of those 'identifiers' are a universal identification for women.

Just because there are occasional exceptions to methods of identification does not invalidate the method altogether.

I'd say that's more to do with your own sexism than anything else. Why not have a witch instead of a wizard?

Because he wants the character he conceived of of to be a wizard. How is that sexist?

Why can't a male character also be thin on the hips?

The overwhelming majority of males both in real life and fiction are not.

Why can't a woman have stubble?

The overwhelming majority of females both in real life and fiction don't. And the ones that do have stubble probably are not fond of it.

Because of the sexist expectations that society has laid upon you (not your fault, mind!).

Again, it's not sexist to have a standard preconception of what a male looks like and what a female looks like. Nor does having a standard preconception automatically mean that you are blind to or prejudiced against those who do not necessarily fit with it.

But it doesn't. So far, Lego torsos have been gender neutral - just look at Emmet's torso, or Bad Cop's. They can be used for any gender. To say 'Hey, torsos which don't have the thin hips are male, and torsos that do have hips are female' is DECREASING the number of female torsos - because now only the thin hip-torsos are female, whereas before ANY torso could be female.

Rubbish. In the first place, there are plenty of existing torsos that are used for both genders in Lego. Look at the firefighters. The police officers. The worker wearing coveralls. In the second place, the existence of distinctly feminine torsos in no way constitutes a mandate that you can't use a different torso to represent a female if you so choose. The main theme of the Lego Movie was the power of personal choice.

Please, let's not devolve into straw man arguments - the article isn't silly and has a valid point to make. To belittle it is to belittle the topic of gender equality itself.

I would say that by creating a mountain out of a molehill, this silly article has belittled feminism far more than the printing on Lego minifigures has. There are many larger, much more serious issues facing women today---especially in the United States. The author would be far better off tackling those than bemoaning the existence of hips and breasts.

This is along the right lines. These 'female' torsos with the small waist are now considered 'female' torsos - and any character who doesn't have one isn't female. So now all the old, non-small-waist torsos will be seen as male, instead of being gender neutral as they used to be. Which, as I say, decreases the number of female torsos.

I already addressed this above. You are the one who is choosing to perceive the old torsos as being male-only.

Not to mention that the idea that a small waist is how you identify a female is pretty harmful in itself.

You and the author talk as though Lego minifigures were on par with Barbie dolls. They are not meant to represent a realistic depiction of a human being. Thinner waists and breasts are distinctive to women. That's how it's been since apes first evolved.

Claiming that little girls interpret female Lego minifigures as a sign that they should always be thin and busty is as ludicrous as claiming that little boys interpret male Lego minifigures as a sign that they should lack noses and ears, and have gigantic pincer hands.

I haven't seen the LEGO movie, but I keep hearing about the positive message it sends out to people everywhere. Especially since one of the main protagonists is a female. That's awesome (which I guess is a recurring theme in the movie). I have never noticed the boobs and hips on female figures. In reality, the only problem with the printing is how high the hips become compared to the hip (where it bends) on the actual leg assembly. My daughter is 4, so she is coming into the age where physical representations will probably be viewed by her more readily and she may take cues from that. I don't think she has paid too much attention to the figure printing. She knows people have different shapes and boobs. I don't think there is much more to it than that. As a general consensus, women have boobs. Some men have boobs, but that is hardly something to focus on.

I didn't read the article, but if you want to be upset about boobs, Mini-dolls have actual nubbins where the breasts would be located. But again, most children are aware that women have breasts.

As great as the current printing is, I rather do like the Modular line where it is classic smiley with different hairstyles to represent people. The torsos can reflect that also, but most of it is through the hair, which is interesting since hairstyles can be misrepresented also.

Please, let's not devolve into straw man arguments - the article isn't silly and has a valid point to make. To belittle it is to belittle the topic of gender equality itself.

Remember that this is your humble opinion.

To me the article IS silly and has absolutely no valid points.

Gender equality doesn't mean that you can use women where you can use men and vice versa.

This is gender flatting. Genders have differences. It's scientific. Men and women have biological differences in their brains.

It's silly to think that they are exactly the same. It could have been thought centuries ago when our scientific and biological progress was not the one we have now.

Men aren't better than woman, nor vice versa.

They are simply different. Deeply different.

What's better? A good meal or a good slept?

It just depens on if you're hungry or tired.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man, that article was good. Thanks for the laugh, Suspsy.

"Look at these Black Widow and Catwoman figures, already several years old."

Um, you can count, right? Two (and not even two for BW) IS NOT SEVERAL.

Actually I'd say this isn't a silly article at all. It's making a decent point, and to brush it off as 'silly' is a huge error.

Well, not necessarily...

But men can have curves. Men can also wear lipstick or eyelashes. None of those 'identifiers' are a universal identification for women.

I'd say that's more to do with your own sexism than anything else. Why not have a witch instead of a wizard? Why can't a male character also be thin on the hips? Why can't a woman have stubble? Because of the sexist expectations that society has laid upon you (not your fault, mind!).

But it doesn't. So far, Lego torsos have been gender neutral - just look at Emmet's torso, or Bad Cop's. They can be used for any gender. To say 'Hey, torsos which don't have the thin hips are male, and torsos that do have hips are female' is DECREASING the number of female torsos - because now only the thin hip-torsos are female, whereas before ANY torso could be female.

Please, let's not devolve into straw man arguments - the article isn't silly and has a valid point to make. To belittle it is to belittle the topic of gender equality itself.

This is along the right lines. These 'female' torsos with the small waist are now considered 'female' torsos - and any character who doesn't have one isn't female. So now all the old, non-small-waist torsos will be seen as male, instead of being gender neutral as they used to be. Which, as I say, decreases the number of female torsos.

Not to mention that the idea that a small waist is how you identify a female is pretty harmful in itself.

That said, the ending point of the article about Wild West Wyldstyle IS silly, though I think it's more down to a lack of understanding as to how Lego markets itself (by putting 'default' versions of characters in full sets - it just makes sense from a business perspective).

Because making all figs "unisex" like in the old ways can conceivably be viewed as worse? In most cases when anything becomes unisex, all it is really doing is masking female secondary sex characteristics. You effectively make women invisible or at the least not distinctive. Female characteristics are not something to be shown.

In men the waist and hips are the same width and the center of gravity resides at the waist. (Only deviating from this in the occurrences of gross morbid obesity and near starvation) in women the waist is higher and narrower than the hips, while the center of gravity resides at the hips. (Once again excepting the far extreme reaches of obesity). This is not "gender". This is biology. There is nothing wrong with designing representative figures to reflect both of these core physiological body types. Lego actually has gotten quite good at this sort of thing. They reasonably represent females secondary sex characteristics in a very respectful and straightforward way. "Yes they have breasts and hips, what of it? Nothing to be ashamed of, or embarrassed about or even ask weird questions about here." Fisher Price also used to be very good about this sort of thing back with their 3 1/2" adventure people line.

Also what in the end is the better lesson, especially for the young male friends of Lego? That "you can sex select your Minifigs?" Or that "at the end of the day you have to play with girls too, so deal with it?"

Edit: as far as "Men have curves too". No they really don't. Even when men put on weight, their waist will be the thing broader than their hips. ( ). Whereas even when most women put on weight their hips remain wider than their waist. ) (. The only real exception to that is pregnancy. And I don't think any of us are quite ready for a pregnant minifig.

Edited February 26, 201411 yr by Faefrost

That article was a waste of time. Instead of people putting effort into ridiculous things like this, they should be putting that effort into bigger female problems that go on. Just another person exaggerating something small into something big for attention.

Claiming that little girls interpret female Lego minifigures as a sign that they should always be thin and busty is as ludicrous as claiming that little boys interpret male Lego minifigures as a sign that they should lack noses and ears, and have gigantic pincer hands.

reading this got a chuckle out of me haha

Claiming that little girls interpret female Lego minifigures as a sign that they should always be thin and busty is as ludicrous as claiming that little boys interpret male Lego minifigures as a sign that they should lack noses and ears, and have gigantic pincer hands.

The gigantic pincer hands could go a long way to explain the lack of nose and ears. (also the lack of urinals in Lego city)

I'd say that's more to do with your own sexism than anything else. Why not have a witch instead of a wizard? Why can't a male character also be thin on the hips? Why can't a woman have stubble? Because of the sexist expectations that society has laid upon you (not your fault, mind!).

But you can't have it both ways. If men can be thin on the hips or women can have stubble, then the gender of all minifigs is indeterminate. Maybe they're all women already.

But it doesn't. So far, Lego torsos have been gender neutral - just look at Emmet's torso, or Bad Cop's. They can be used for any gender. To say 'Hey, torsos which don't have the thin hips are male, and torsos that do have hips are female' is DECREASING the number of female torsos - because now only the thin hip-torsos are female, whereas before ANY torso could be female.

The things is, the printing was introduced to try and make minifigs more "female" precisely because young girls main objection to playing with them (in general) was that they were too masculine. Now arguably that didn't really work and would eventually lead to the minidoll instead, but the printing has now become part of the minifig aesthetic and I'm not sure removing it really solves anything, if anything it's just increase complaints about a lack of female minifigs.

Edited February 26, 201411 yr by AndyC

This article is absolutely not silly. Why would LEGO want to define the waist for the female characters? It's not like someone's gonna go "Hey this LEGO minifigure has the same torso as any other but she's a woman so she must have a thinner waist wtf LEGO" (and if someone does, well, that's sexist)

I just don't get it why LEGO feels it has to define the waist when LEGO minifigures are unrealistically proportioned anyway. This is something I'd expect from a japanese toy, not the greatest toy in the world.

Also this

Little girls are inundated with toys that tell them how they ought to look. Lego themselves participate in this nefarious trend with their uber-girly “Friends” sets, designed and marketed specifically at the female demographic. Is it too much to ask that at least these messages of slender success not come from the classically contour-free minifigures?

If you talk to any woman out there there's a big chance she might tell you that she felt pressured to look a certain way because of not only the media, but toys as well. (everything really) why would someone brush it off as "well men don't seem to feel that way to the same extent so why should you" because it's the way it is. when it's obviously a problem if a lot of girls feels this way?

Claiming that little girls interpret female Lego minifigures as a sign that they should always be thin and busty is as ludicrous as claiming that little boys interpret male Lego minifigures as a sign that they should lack noses and ears, and have gigantic pincer hands.

Not when everything thing else also tells girls to be thin and busty.

Edited February 26, 201411 yr by Tromboon

This article is absolutely not silly.

YOUR idea. Not an absolute. To me it's silly, a waste of time.

We're talking about a toy.

People thinking that a toy doest this much should also think that:

• Whoever plaied with HE-MAN (like me) should feel bad if he has not 200 kgs of muscles. Well actually I am fat and I don't care about making a shape.
  
• Whoever plaied with toy soldiers (like me) is more war-inclined. Well I am actually against war in any form, and I don't like even playing war videogames
  
• Whoever plaied a lot with baby dolls will become a better mother.
  

My teenage was filled with japanese fighting cartoon like Hokuto no Ken, or Saint Seyia.

I plaied Street Fighter all the time.

But I am a very peaceful person, I play volleyball not fighting arts, and I am considered to mantain a very kind peaceful and calm attitude.

All these polemic and hate attitude towards a toy is just limiting freedomof expression.

You don't like minifigures with thin waists and breasts? You don't buy them. End of discussion.

With all racial hate, real sexism, homophobia, hunger, slavery-like condition in the world, I feel disgusted when I read people wasting their time in such a nonsense debate.

Nice silencing techniques you've got there. It'd be a shame if someone were to...

point them out.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/You_don%27t_have_to_read_it

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Many_bad_things_in_the_world

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Free_speech

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Male_experience_trump_card

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-retaliation/

Nice silencing techniques you've got there. It'd be a shame if someone were to...

point them out.

http://geekfeminism....have_to_read_it

http://geekfeminism....gs_in_the_world

http://geekfeminism....iki/Free_speech

http://geekfeminism....ence_trump_card

http://www.derailing...ng-retaliation/

Which is all but the last one about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-pity

whereas those links come from a "geek feminism" site, which doesn't absolutely surprise me for the total non NPOV of the subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Instead what you are doing is focusing on my last three sentences, leaving the rest of the message totally apart.

This has been already pointed out so many times as one of the most common logical fallacies as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29

Oh, and FYI, my links are from wikipedia, which is neutral ;)

Debunking this one by one.

http://geekfeminism....have_to_read_it

It talks about OFFENSIVE things. Thinner waists and breasts on minifigures are not offensive.

Are there more chanches that a girl will have an hourglass shape instead of a boy? YES.

Are there more chanches that a girl will have breasts instead of a boy? YES.

There are also minifigures with other torso characteristics like:

so all sumo wrestlers should feel offended because they are represented as fat?

Or

so all surfers shoul feel offended because they are stereotyped as super muscular?

Does this harm normal-shaped or fat surfers?

http://geekfeminism....gs_in_the_world

This is not a gender issue because it is NOT AN ISSUE.

See point 1.

http://geekfeminism....iki/Free_speech

This doesn't apply in any way and you put it here without reading what you linked, or so it seems.

http://geekfeminism....ence_trump_card

This is the most idiotic and stupid thing I have ever read.

A male will be never able to experience something about a female, because if he is a male he cannot be a female.

http://www.derailing...ng-retaliation/

What? YOU DERAILED. I just wrote examples about toys, and you purposedly ignored the first part.

You would have been right if I just put the last three lines of my comment, but SURPRISE I did not.

Writing a article saying that boob printing on a toy will riddle a child's mind with sexism is not silly?

As far as I know, children do not care about it and adults are old enough to know better. I do not see any harm this causes, so feminists, please stop with absurd accusations and target actual sexist problems.

This article is silly, people get offended way to easy. Life is too short, get over it and go have some fun.

I just don't understand what the big deal is. Women have breasts, and they have hips. These are normal parts of the female body, so it makes sense to include them on female Lego characters since Lego is moving more towards a more detailed and accurate printing style on their minifigs. I mean, we're not talking about Barbie dolls here with unrealistic proportions. To say that the printing of a few lines to give the impression of breasts and hips is sexualizing the minifig is completely ridiculous.

I am a big time feminist, and I'm male. I support complete equality for both sexes, pay, job opportunities, how each are portrayed in the media, etc. I just fail to see what the big deal is with printing minifig torsos to be anatomically correct.

Edited February 26, 201411 yr by naf