Female minifigures - do we need the hourglass torso and make up?

[obsidianheart]

Christina Hydron's got on 3 layers, and one of them's a sweater. That's probably why she doesn't have the negative space curves.

[williejm]

Christina Hydron's got on 3 layers, and one of them's a sweater. That's probably why she doesn't have the negative space curves.

Hmmm ... I'm assuming the females in the Arctic sets might be wearing more layers, yet they still get the curves ;)

[obsidianheart]

Hmmm ... I'm assuming the females in the Arctic sets might be wearing more layers, yet they still get the curves ;)

This is a good point! Maybe they couldn't design the curves around her badge and pen? I dunno! The inward bow of her lab blazer suggests (to me, anyway) the curves the lack of negative space leaves out, though.

[Andy D]

To answer the question in the thread title...

Sure!

Andy D

[Lancethecat]

Why do all of the female Arctic explorers in big, furry overcoats have curved torsos? Does LEGO not understand how big, furry overcoats work? What's the point of creating an entirely new print to distinguish male Arctic explorers from female Arctic explorers when it doesn't work like that in real life? How does that make them look more realistic? And why am I asking so many questions?

[figura]

Why do all of the female Arctic explorers in big, furry overcoats have curved torsos? Does LEGO not understand how big, furry overcoats work? What's the point of creating an entirely new print to distinguish male Arctic explorers from female Arctic explorers when it doesn't work like that in real life? How does that make them look more realistic? And why am I asking so many questions?

... because it is impossible to answer them plausibly, so on gets easily caught up.

[Faefrost]

Why do all of the female Arctic explorers in big, furry overcoats have curved torsos? Does LEGO not understand how big, furry overcoats work? What's the point of creating an entirely new print to distinguish male Arctic explorers from female Arctic explorers when it doesn't work like that in real life? How does that make them look more realistic? And why am I asking so many questions?

Because typically even big furry overcoats are somewhat tailored to the wearers form. Whereas Firefighter Turnout gear and Lab Coats typically are not. They are by design protective over garments that just hang straight from the shoulders regardless of the shape beneath them.

[autorazr]

I understand what you are saying about the negative space. But the alternative honestly always seems much worse. Have you ever looked at the Paradisa female torso's? They are distinctively female print torso a but without the negative space waists and the printed breasts or cleavage. And the eye perceives them almost universally as prepubescent girls. Not matter what scene or setting all of your female Minifigs seem to be 8 years old. It doesn't matter which legs you use. Short, normal, extra long toy story. It's honestly kind of creepy. About the only customized use for the things I can figure is to slap some bearded heads on them and call it a Monty Python MOC.

Its not creepy, infact I find the comment creepy. Do the male figs look like little boys cause they dont have printed on penis bulges?

Edited August 5, 2014 by autorazr

[Thetford]

This seemed like the most appropriate thread to post this in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28660069

[legoman19892]

Im going to assume LEGO play tested torsos with their target demographic and curvy prints was the winner.

Edited August 6, 2014 by legoman19892

[mccoyed]

I think the curves demonstrate a notable difference in the strategies of gendering 'figs. TLG occasionally prints "sexy woman" 'figs with visible cleavage and curves. This, rightly or wrongly, implies sex (whether or not we should consider the female chest sexual imagery and the male chest not is a separate issue) and TLG knows it. How could they not?

To me, this is a case of selling sex to kids. That's just as inappropriate, in my view, as selling war to kids (which TLG refuses to do). But they do it anyway because, well, everybody does. It's a cynical, profit driven strategy. Far be it from them to not make a profit, of course, but acknowledging that they are a business trying to make a buck doesn't insulate companies like TLG from social criticism and the suggestion that they always try to do better with stuff like representation and getting away from outmoded gender stereotypes and the like.

That said, TLG is often responsive about this, which is why they're a company worth supporting in spite of any oversights, wrong footing, etc. The Research Lab, though they smartly don't admit it, is a goodwill gesture. They are interested in selling their product AND being ethical. It just doesn't happen by magic. Takes time, research, feedback, etc.

[Hive]

Feminists will always find something to complain because otherwise their legitimation would cease to exist.

If portraing a female fig with female features is a narrow manifestation of gender specifity, then the act defining something must be a terrible sin because it means narrowing and demarcating, hence excluding normatively.

This whole discourse is getting so dull, I hope it will disappear into the tiny academic elite circles it emanated from.

+1

I couldn't agree more.

[Jared]

+1

I couldn't agree more.

Seconded. ^_^

[mccoyed]

You guys shouldn't be so quick to dismiss feminist concerns about the sexualization and representation issues in Lego. They are real issues, though I think TLG generally applies a healthy approach to working through them.

Patting each other on the back for some guy's wordy claptrap about the need for a social consciousness movement to promote social consciousness? Yeah, don't be so hasty guys.

Edited August 7, 2014 by mccoyed

[autorazr]

You guys shouldn't be so quick to dismiss feminist concerns about the sexualization and representation issues in Lego. They are real issues, though I think TLG generally applies a healthy approach to working through them.

Patting each other on the back for some guy's wordy claptrap about the need for a social consciousness movement to promote social consciousness? Yeah, don't be so hasty guys.

This.

I found your previous comment to be quite illuminating too. Aside from my personal issues with the printed on curves of finding them limiting for customizations, I have also been asserting that this is overt sexualization. I realize that there may have been market research to determine girls wanted the curves, but does this not speak to the problems of gender equality that the world is dealing with? Is this not why women in the work place make less, is this not why school aged boys are learning less than girls? Even toys make girls into objects and reduce boys to girl chasers. Prior to the sexualization of legos, they were like the one toy that was doing the right thing by promoting equality and imaginative play that was not based on appearances. Again to agree with mcccoyed, despite these parts, lego still applies a healthy approach to working through these issues more than anyone else, which is one of the many reasons I love them. I am a huge lego fan, I utilize the pieces we are discussing, despite taking some issue with them (its better to have than to have not)

[mccoyed]

This.

I found your previous comment to be quite illuminating too. Aside from my personal issues with the printed on curves of finding them limiting for customizations, I have also been asserting that this is overt sexualization. I realize that there may have been market research to determine girls wanted the curves, but does this not speak to the problems of gender equality that the world is dealing with? Is this not why women in the work place make less, is this not why school aged boys are learning less than girls? Even toys make girls into objects and reduce boys to girl chasers. Prior to the sexualization of legos, they were like the one toy that was doing the right thing by promoting equality and imaginative play that was not based on appearances. Again to agree with mcccoyed, despite these parts, lego still applies a healthy approach to working through these issues more than anyone else, which is one of the many reasons I love them. I am a huge lego fan, I utilize the pieces we are discussing, despite taking some issue with them (its better to have than to have not)

Agreed totally. I think TLG is concerned with this stuff, too. They are smart, conscientious people and they are trying to do right by everyone. I personally don't put a lot of stock in decisions made via focus groups and market testing. Especially when it reinforces ideas about gender that we shouldn't encourage, such as that women must have curves and makeup to be women.

The toy industry has this problem in general, but contrast Lego with something like Bratz or, hell, even Barbie. Their strategies show more nuance, more caution, and more thoughtfulness. Friends, whatever we might say about its less gender-responsible elements, has a lot of love behind its designs and it definitely does demonstrate, in some sets, the notion that young women can be more than consumers, hairdressers, dog walkers, etc.

[Chills]

This isn't a dismissal of feminist concerns. If TLG were grossly sexualizing the mini figures then I could see the point in getting so upset. But TLG is only putting curves to differentiate between women and men in a child's toy. Sure, not all women look like that, but the curved hips and breasts is universally seen as being feminine. That's just how we are wired to identify the sexes. And this isn't some crusade by TLG to make all girls think they have to have hourglass figures; these toys are tested ad nauseam in focus groups and the end result is what you see TLG producing.

To autorzr, I see where you are coming from. Would it be acceptable to you if TLG always made a "male" version of the female torsos they produce? That way you have your freedom to create as you please without being constrained by negative spaces on the female torsos.

[mccoyed]

This isn't a dismissal of feminist concerns. If TLG were grossly sexualizing the mini figures then I could see the point in getting so upset. But TLG is only putting curves to differentiate between women and men in a child's toy. Sure, not all women look like that, but the curved hips and breasts is universally seen as being feminine. That's just how we are wired to identify the sexes. And this isn't some crusade by TLG to make all girls think they have to have hourglass figures; these toys are tested ad nauseam in focus groups and the end result is what you see TLG producing.

TLG is sexualizing minifigures. I'm not sure what "gross" sexualization would look like, but there's definite sexualization. Look no further than the corseted, breasts spilling out torsos of certain minfigs. As you say, breasts and curves are common signs of being of the female sex, but women are also sexualized more than men (male gaze in media) based on these features and it seems like you need to maintain a bit of cognitive dissonance to not see how emphasizing these features, like in the minifig I linked, is sexualization. Yes, men are also sexualized (more and more, actually) but this doesn't detract from the point. Beyond this issue, TLG defines feminity with curves and makeup. This is a less severe issue, I suppose, but also speaks to their gender priorities as being misguided. Not all male minifigs have bears or brawny torsos or whatever male signifiers we could name. They are, on the whole, more varied and thus more representational to men and boys because they run a gamut. This is by virtue of a) there being a 2 or 3:1 ratio of male to female minfigs (higher in some themes, such as Ninjago) and b) TLG seems to think if they don't have lipstick and tits, we won't be able to tell they're girls.

I'm suspicious of the idea that we're "wired" this way, though. Many cultures have additional or different gender identifiers.

I don't think anyone is arguing that TLG intentionally sells sex. I said as much. It's more their reaction and market-driven perpetuation of a common trend in general culture.

Also, the argument that we should shrug this off because of focus grouping or market demand is ridiculous. How much money would TLG make on WW2 Lego? There is precedent for TLG to take a stance based on concerns other than profit, even if it does imply a profit loss as in the case of their policy on war Lego. So the logic doesn't follow. TLG is capable of showing some conscience here and they DO show it, which is why I will continue to support them.

Edited August 7, 2014 by mccoyed

[autorazr]

This isn't a dismissal of feminist concerns. If TLG were grossly sexualizing the mini figures then I could see the point in getting so upset. But TLG is only putting curves to differentiate between women and men in a child's toy. Sure, not all women look like that, but the curved hips and breasts is universally seen as being feminine. That's just how we are wired to identify the sexes. And this isn't some crusade by TLG to make all girls think they have to have hourglass figures; these toys are tested ad nauseam in focus groups and the end result is what you see TLG producing.

To autorzr, I see where you are coming from. Would it be acceptable to you if TLG always made a "male" version of the female torsos they produce? That way you have your freedom to create as you please without being constrained by negative spaces on the female torsos.

Hmmmm. Hips and breasts are immediately identifiable as feminine in a sexual context, yes. It is possible for someone who looks entirely male to feel female. it is entirely possible for me (a male) to be attracted to feminine qualities (not looks) in another man. Gender is not determined exclusively by looks. Tittays are not the only thing I find feminine about a woman, a woman's mind is uniquely different from a man's. You might be saying to yourself right now "how do you show what a lego figures mind looks like?" You don't, you play with it, assign it a personality from you own mind, that's creativity and how you're supposed to play. You may want some visual evidence of gender in your toy and I'm ok with that, however, lets pick a feminine feature that isnt almost exclusively sexualized, like body shape. Paradisa did right, there were torsos that felt feminine without having the curves, and I have and will use those Paradisa torsos for custom male characters. What would be acceptable to me is if lego stuck with their own visual style of squareness, and kept bodies square looking. Make them pink or girly looking all you want, and I'll still make use of them for male characters (even if just to make a tranny or something, I know tranny is derogatory and I'm being very social justicey, kinda contradictory but eff it) and I would feel much lees like they were being sexualized. So I'm a straight male with a normal sex drive, when I see the new Research Institute minifig, I immediately see "sexy science lady," being that I believe I'm normal, I think most of those of you like me feel the same exact way. Why should a kids toy be sexy anything? Why should my straight male brain have to be thinking about sex even when I'm attempting to distract my mind from things like sex with my hobby? On the flipside, I am an adult and sometimes my creative fantasies do involve sex, and theres nothing wrong with that right? So maybe there should be some sex in lego? Yes, in your own creations. In lego's marketing (which is for kids) their neednt be any sexualization or gender stereotyping, however companies seem to be less and less concerned with selling sex to kids, and parents and kids are becoming desensitized. I am american, in my country and some others, it has been noted that women make less money than men, yet, they possess higher levels of education and exhibit better learning abilities. I dont believe that this difference is biological, I believe it is symptom of "market research" that suggests to boys that they need to be interested in getting girls and to girls that they must focus on their looks and finding a man. It creates a situation where boys dont focus on learning, and while girls do, it doesnt really benefit them like it should, as when they enter the workforce they are seen as lesser while possessing higher education.

I don't think lego is like Bratz or something, but if any aspect of lego was, it'd be the printed on curves. This has been quite the rant, hopefully everyones just like eff talking to Auto about this shiiiiizz at this point, cause I dont know how much I've got left in me.

[Hive]

TLG is sexualizing minifigures. I'm not sure what "gross" sexualization would look like, but there's definite sexualization. Look no further than the corseted, breasts spilling out torsos of certain minfigs.

You do realize that those torsos are representing time periods where such garment was what women typically wore, right? Or, at the very least, what people in their minds thinks women wore back then. It's what people expect to see. Why would LEGO not deliver that? LEGO is a toy company, their job is to deliver what people want/expect so that they can make money. I'm not saying that LEGO shouldn't care about discriminization and the likes, but if you want some sort of feminist revolution, I think it's absurd to expect LEGO - or any other business - to lead it.

Male minifig heads are often represented with beards; I, as a male, have a hard time growing anything that even resembles a proper beard. Should I then complain that LEGO is helping paint a picture of beards being an essential part of what makes a man a man? Should I complain that it gives me an inferiority complex? Should I make a case that the large wizard beards gives male children false expectations to their facial hair growth?

I wish people didn't try to ruin the innocence of a harmless toy like LEGO as part of their feminist crusade. I'll make the bold claim that LEGO's representation of female - or male - minifigs have never damaged any childs views on the world or themselves. Let's not underestimate children's ability to see a toy for what it is. I'm fairly certain that all children realize that women have breasts regardless of what LEGO does or does not, anyway...

[rriggs]

I have this torso and when I used it to make a custom "male" character, all anybody could see was his "womanly hips."

I also used this torso for a male officer (actually a ship's captain but that's not the point) and nobody even noticed the hourglass. Those who did notice commented on the gold piping before the hourglass and you can't see the hourglass anyway from very far away.

As others have said people come in all shapes and sizes and so do minifigures. There will always be those who find something to moan about. If the scientists had been all male or even the majority male then people would have moaned about the lack of females. If they didn't have hourglass printing people would have moaned that they were being portrayed as too masculine and pandering to a perceived mail dominated industry and so on...

What a load of fuss over nothing.

Cheers

Rog

[MAB]

To autorzr, I see where you are coming from. Would it be acceptable to you if TLG always made a "male" version of the female torsos they produce? That way you have your freedom to create as you please without being constrained by negative spaces on the female torsos.

I wouldn't want male versions of every female torso. Ones wearing dresses and so on that are obviously female only are fine. Similarly male torsos that are only male are also fine. But it would be nice to have some official female minifigs that do not have the curves and boobs print. This would make it more acceptable in people's minds that women / girl minifigs do not have to have curves. This would allow lego to use a number of gender neutral torsos (no female curves, but also no male muscles) to represent both sexes. Combine that with a head with a male face on one side and female (i.e. lipstick) on the other and the user can choose the sex of the minifig, and thus whether they can identify them or not.

Of course, it could be taken even further in that female minifigs do not need to use lipstick to identify them as female. But that brings us full circle, with the complaints that if it is not recognisably female then it must be male.

[mccoyed]

You do realize that those torsos are representing time periods where such garment was what women typically wore, right? Or, at the very least, what people in their minds thinks women wore back then. It's what people expect to see. Why would LEGO not deliver that? LEGO is a toy company, their job is to deliver what people want/expect so that they can make money. I'm not saying that LEGO shouldn't care about discriminization and the likes, but if you want some sort of feminist revolution, I think it's absurd to expect LEGO - or any other business - to lead it.

Male minifig heads are often represented with beards; I, as a male, have a hard time growing anything that even resembles a proper beard. Should I then complain that LEGO is helping paint a picture of beards being an essential part of what makes a man a man? Should I complain that it gives me an inferiority complex? Should I make a case that the large wizard beards gives male children false expectations to their facial hair growth?

I wish people didn't try to ruin the innocence of a harmless toy like LEGO as part of their feminist crusade. I'll make the bold claim that LEGO's representation of female - or male - minifigs have never damaged any childs views on the world or themselves. Let's not underestimate children's ability to see a toy for what it is. I'm fairly certain that all children realize that women have breasts regardless of what LEGO does or does not, anyway...

People want TLG to produce war Lego as well, but Lego doesn't. I've made this point a few times. TLG has taken socially conscious stances before, is the point. They have shown the capacity to make decisions that aren't purely profit-driven. Your comfort with companies feeding society's issues back to them because it's profitable is what I find absurd. As for expecting TLG to lead a gender revolution, well, they don't have to since it already happened before any of us were born. All anyone is asking TLG to do is be as respectful and responsible in their representations of women as they already are with men. Since they're already taking steps in that direction, I'm not sure why you need to put words in peoples' mouths. This discussion is much more mild than you're making it sound.

As an aside, business are leading development in various areas of life all the time. Sustainable energy? Tesla. Technological networking as a social good? Google. The list goes on for days. To say that business are businesses and have no other responsibilities than... business is just lazy and incorrect.

Male minfigs occasionally have beards. They occasionally have all kinds of other facial features like dimpled chins, scars, wrinkles, etc. There's quite a bit of variety there. But ALL contemporary female minifigs that are not children have lipstick. Every one of 'em.

Feminism isn't a crusade. It's just people, mostly women, who want a fairer shake and point out places where things could be better. No one is saying LET'S RUIN TLG or LET'S BURN ALL THE LEGOS so I don't know why this bothers you so much. Why do you feel threatened by it? Why do you feel like just discussing this stuff is somehow ruining or trying to ruin Lego?

I also used this torso for a male officer (actually a ship's captain but that's not the point) and nobody even noticed the hourglass. Those who did notice commented on the gold piping before the hourglass and you can't see the hourglass anyway from very far away.

As others have said people come in all shapes and sizes and so do minifigures. There will always be those who find something to moan about. If the scientists had been all male or even the majority male then people would have moaned about the lack of females. If they didn't have hourglass printing people would have moaned that they were being portrayed as too masculine and pandering to a perceived mail dominated industry and so on...

What a load of fuss over nothing.

Cheers

Rog

There are MANY figs like that one which are totally appropriate. Unfortunately they are currently exceptions but they do show that TLG is improving and responding to representation complaints from their fans and critics. That is why even someone like me, who feels they could do better, can still love and support Lego. They give a crap and that is amazing.

I do take your point that people find things to complain about. Insightful observation. Could it be derived from the fact that there are tons of different people, all cut from different cloth, who have different feelings and views and want to share them or see them reflected in the world around them?

I wouldn't want male versions of every female torso. Ones wearing dresses and so on that are obviously female only are fine. Similarly male torsos that are only male are also fine. But it would be nice to have some official female minifigs that do not have the curves and boobs print. This would make it more acceptable in people's minds that women / girl minifigs do not have to have curves. This would allow lego to use a number of gender neutral torsos (no female curves, but also no male muscles) to represent both sexes. Combine that with a head with a male face on one side and female (i.e. lipstick) on the other and the user can choose the sex of the minifig, and thus whether they can identify them or not.

Of course, it could be taken even further in that female minifigs do not need to use lipstick to identify them as female. But that brings us full circle, with the complaints that if it is not recognisably female then it must be male.

Seems like TLG can more or less keep doing what they're doing except for a few adjustments. One would be to improve the male to female ratio in non-Friends sets and themes. Another would be to stop boob/curve/lipstick printing every adult (or near to) female fig. The eyes are always quite enough to identify a fig as female. I don't think TLG should make gender-neutral torsos or heads as a rule since some torsos already do this job nicely.

[Hive]

People want TLG to produce war Lego as well, but Lego doesn't. I've made this point a few times. TLG has taken socially conscious stances before, is the point. They have shown the capacity to make decisions that aren't purely profit-driven. Your comfort with companies feeding society's issues back to them because it's profitable is what I find absurd. As for expecting TLG to lead a gender revolution, well, they don't have to since it already happened before any of us were born. All anyone is asking TLG to do is be as respectful and responsible in their representations of women as they already are with men. Since they're already taking steps in that direction, I'm not sure why you need to put words in peoples' mouths. This discussion is much more mild than you're making it sound.

Are you seriously comparing depicting modern warfare, where tons of people, soldiers, terrorists and innocents alike, lose their lives every year... to showing that females have breasts? For real?

See, this is something I find absurdly odd in society today. If you in a youtube video show an exposed breast, no matter how tasteful, artistic and relevant it may be, the video you will taken down instantly. However, just yesterday, I discovered that youtube is filled with real videos taken by the US military and/or individual soldiers, showing them taking lives through various ways. But hey, at least we protect the children against realizing that women have breasts! So that's something... though I'd argue that women having breasts is in actuality one of the first things a child ever realizes, but eh...

Male minfigs occasionally have beards. They occasionally have all kinds of other facial features like dimpled chins, scars, wrinkles, etc. There's quite a bit of variety there. But ALL contemporary female minifigs that are not children have lipstick. Every one of 'em.

I agree there aren't enough variety in female minifig heads, and I too would wish that not ALL of them had lipstick. But I'll still argue that showing females with lipstick is no different than showing males with beards, and showing females with hour glass torsos is no different than showing males with a ripped torso. We could stop with all of that, of course, but then there'd be a lot less variety.

Feminism isn't a crusade. It's just people, mostly women, who want a fairer shake and point out places where things could be better. No one is saying LET'S RUIN TLG or LET'S BURN ALL THE LEGOS so I don't know why this bothers you so much. Why do you feel threatened by it? Why do you feel like just discussing this stuff is somehow ruining or trying to ruin Lego?

I disagree. Sometimes, feminism is a crusade. I don't mind women wanting fairness, naturally, but there are reasonable fights to have - and there are unreasonable, exaggerated ones. And this attack against perceived "sexism" by LEGO falls under the latter category, in my opinion. I see it as feminists trying to make a problem out of nothing. And that bothers me, especially when directed at something I appreciate as much as LEGO.

[Ardelon]

TLG is sexualizing minifigures. I'm not sure what "gross" sexualization would look like, but there's definite sexualization. Look no further than the corseted, breasts spilling out torsos of certain minfigs. As you say, breasts and curves are common signs of being of the female sex, but women are also sexualized more than men (male gaze in media) based on these features and it seems like you need to maintain a bit of cognitive dissonance to not see how emphasizing these features, like in the minifig I linked, is sexualization. Yes, men are also sexualized (more and more, actually) but this doesn't detract from the point. Beyond this issue, TLG defines feminity with curves and makeup. This is a less severe issue, I suppose, but also speaks to their gender priorities as being misguided. Not all male minifigs have bears or brawny torsos or whatever male signifiers we could name. They are, on the whole, more varied and thus more representational to men and boys because they run a gamut. This is by virtue of a) there being a 2 or 3:1 ratio of male to female minfigs (higher in some themes, such as Ninjago) and b) TLG seems to think if they don't have lipstick and tits, we won't be able to tell they're girls.

The only sexualization I see is gender differentiation. Sure, you can argue (I dont know whether you are, Im just exploring different options here) that TLG should keep the minifigs as gender-neutral as possible and not differentiate, but this is the way TLG is going, with more and more detailed minifigs. At some point the combination of super-datailed prints with simple generic smiley faces would look weird or goofy. So gender differentiation is pretty much a given.

This is very far from sexualization as in "selling sex". The only instaces of this that Im aware of are licensed figs like slave Leia or the PotC mermaids, where the designers are restricted by the license. Other cases are figs like the CMF lifeguards, who naturally wear form-fitting swimwear, or historical figs (say female pirates or islanders, or even the CMF hula girl), where the designers give them clothing that are stereotypically associated with these characters, so customers can recognize instantly what the set is about.

So since all minifigs have the same body shape, there is no easy way for TLG to tranplant the subtle differences between real-life males and females onto minifigs. They have to do SOMETHING to differentiate, either through lipstick (and bear in mind that it doesnt have to be lipstick, just feminine fuller lips) or eyelashes or breasts or hips for females, or facial hair or cleft chins or bushier eyebrows for males. So how would you solve this? And why arent you protesting facial hair or cleft chins or prominent eyebrows on male figs as much as these secondary or tertiary sexual characteristics on female figs?

Edited August 8, 2014 by Ardelon