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

[tedbeard]

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.

I partly agree with you, feminism IS a crusade. What we disagree on is the purpose, the ideology behind the crusade which shows in your "unreasonable, exaggerated" comment.

Feminism is about equality - nothing more and nothing less. Radicals on both sides take it to extremes I will grant but the fact is that gender balance (a form of equality) has been absent from LEGO sets for decades. This set was proposed on LEGO Ideas and supported to try and make up some of that imbalance. That is not making , "a problem out of nothing." That is directly addressing a problem that exists independent of ideology.

What is making, "a problem out of nothing" is to suggest that somehow three minifigures in a small set being female is a threat to males everywhere and getting all worked up about it.

[mccoyed]

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?

You can "see" whatever you want. It goes further than gender differentiation. Not all the time, sure, but enough of the time that it's been frequently criticized. Are you going to say the critics are full of crap, as others have tried to say? Making a problem out of nothing? Mounting a crusade? rUsing wording like that to describe the discussion here is just strident and seems to be fear-driven.

I can understand dismissing them if they're like outsiders or something who "don't get it", but I'm a critic and I'm not an outsider. Are you going to dismiss my concerns? Why?

You say that TLG isn't selling sex and then list some examples where they clearly are. Case in point, eh?

I'm not protesting male figs because there's tons of variety in male figs which adequately represents the variety of that half the species. Females are the other half and they are not similarly represented. That's because of a few different factors. Please read my other comments on this thread if you want to know what I think about this because it's far easier than having me repeat myself or Autorazr's contributions.

In brief:

I think TLG is already taking steps to improve things. I think TLG is very responsive to fan and critic complaints and they want to make as many people happy as they can. That's awesome. They're one of the least sociopathic companies I know of.

To improve female minfigs they should make more in general and try to represent more variety. This is already seemingly their position as well. This is awesome and a big part of our discussion here (and on the other thread) has been praising TLG for their attention to this issue.

Male figs are already varied and represent a 2 or 3:1 ratio to female figs in most sets. This reflects that, currently, young boys get more Lego than girls in the standard themes.

Girls have Friends and the Disney Princess themes that are "for them". This is a kind of segregatory practice which Lego did as a business decision, to try and capture more of the female market. This makes sense from that perspective and it's not as if TLG is doing something bad. That said, they could pay more attention to the underlying reasons why boys prefer their general themes more than girls rather than perpetuating the general stereotypes that afflict both genders. Boys don't de facto prefer violence and robots and machines any more than girls de facto prefer pink, cute animals, and baked goods. These influences are encouraged and reflected. Boys and girls are told what boys and girls like based on tradition, the insecurities of their parents and society in general, and so on. This is a social problem that is much bigger than Lego but in which Lego has its part. Since we're on a Lego forum, we're discussing that.

Edited August 8, 2014 by mccoyed

[Hive]

What is making, "a problem out of nothing" is to suggest that somehow three minifigures in a small set being female is a threat to males everywhere and getting all worked up about it.

I'm fairly sure that noone has been doing that. I didn't get the memo that said this thread was about some kind of suggested set with 3 female minifigs, in fact I don't know what you're talking about.

[mccoyed]

I'm fairly sure that noone has been doing that. I didn't get the memo that said this thread was about some kind of suggested set with 3 female minifigs, in fact I don't know what you're talking about.

He's talking about the Research Scientist set... which is sort of the catalyst for this whole debate. And maybe you, personally, aren't threatened by the idea that TLG needs to get with the times in terms of gender representation (even TLG seemingly agrees with that anyway)... but plenty of people on EB are if the two threads on this topic are any indication.

[Ardelon]

You can "see" whatever you want. It goes further than gender differentiation. Not all the time, sure, but enough of the time that it's been frequently criticized. Are you going to say the critics are full of crap, as others have tried to say? Making a problem out of nothing? Mounting a crusade? rUsing wording like that to describe the discussion here is just strident and seems to be fear-driven.

Exactly the point. You also can see "whatever you want", that doesnt make it a valid point. You should explain exactly why it goes further than gender differentiation, i.e. why make-up, hips and breasts are more than just to distinguish gender and why they signify "selling sex".

And theres no need to get defensive. I believe feminism still has a positive role to play in righting plenty of problems, but this is not one of them.

You say that TLG isn't selling sex and then list some examples where they clearly are. Case in point, eh?

Making lifeguards in swimsuits and Islander in traditional wear isnt selling sex. Now THIS would be a concern worth dimissing. The Licensed themes maybe, but thats not really TLGs fault.

I'm not protesting male figs because there's tons of variety in male figs which adequately represents the variety of that half the species. Females are the other half and they are not similarly represented. That's because of a few different factors. Please read my other comments on this thread if you want to know what I think about this because it's far easier than having me repeat myself or Autorazr's contributions.

Yes, but how would you fix this? I fully agree with more female figs and more variety, as you say, but dont you also have concerns with the figs that exist? How would you address that? No lipstick, eyelashes, breasts, or hips? I personaly would gladly lose the hips, but if all this went, how would you distinguish female figs to know TLG is improving the ratios? Like I said, there must be SOME way for TLG to present a figs as clearly female, since the minifigs are getting more detailed. At least one characteristic. Or do you think gender-ambiguous figs are the answer?

[mccoyed]

Exactly the point. You also can see "whatever you want", that doesnt make it a valid point. You should explain exactly why it goes further than gender differentiation, i.e. why make-up, hips and breasts are more than just to distinguish gender and why they signify "selling sex".

And theres no need to get defensive. I believe feminism still has a positive role to play in righting plenty of problems, but this is not one of them.

Making lifeguards in swimsuits and Islander in traditional wear isnt selling sex. Now THIS would be a concern worth dimissing. The Licensed themes maybe, but thats not really TLGs fault.

Yes, but how would you fix this? I fully agree with more female figs and more variety, as you say, but dont you also have concerns with the figs that exist? How would you address that? No lipstick, eyelashes, breasts, or hips? I personaly would gladly lose the hips, but if all this went, how would you distinguish female figs to know TLG is improving the ratios? Like I said, there must be SOME way for TLG to present a figs as clearly female, since the minifigs are getting more detailed. At least one characteristic. Or do you think gender-ambiguous figs are the answer?

There's a lot of supporting arguments for how I see things. I offered those already, earlier in this thread and in the other. Are you too busy to backread? If so, I'll again summarize in brief:

It's sexualized because hips and breasts don't signify just feminity. There are other signifiers, like the lipstick and eyes, that work better to signify feminity without signifying sex. Like it or not, breasts and hourglass figures are major signifiers of sex. We can't hold our hands over our eyes and ears and deny this, much as we might like to for rhetorical purposes. Everything from food commercials to music videos and magazine covers sells this female image to us and while it'd be nice of breasts could be uncoupled from sexual imagery, that is not currently the case. It's an is/ought problem.

Also, instead of telling me not to be sensitive and then baldly stating your view as fact, maybe try and offer an argument about why this is not an issue where feminism has a role or claim.

Moving on. I don't think women in one-piece swimsuits or tropical indigenous garb qualifies as part of what I'm talking about. And I've already demonstrated that it is not just the licensed stuff where TLG's printing is potentially crossing the signifier/sex line we're discussing. Please have a look at some of the medieval garb, corsets, etc they've printed in recent years. I don't think "but that's how people dressed!" qualifies as a responsible excuse. Yes, licensed sets are more commonly feature this problem but how is this not TLG's fault?

The notion that I want to remove all feminine signifiers is a strawman. I've repeated many times that this is not my idea of a solution. In my last reply to you I clearly outlined what I thought would be helpful from TLG. I'm not going to repeat myself, man. It's all there already in my previous comments. I don't understand why you're asking me basically the same question twice. Perhaps you should be more specific.

Edited August 8, 2014 by mccoyed

[Hive]

Like it or not, breasts and hourglass figures are major signifiers of sex. We can't hold our hands over our eyes and ears and deny this, much as we might like to for rhetorical purposes.

Breasts and an hourglass figure signifies sex, you say? That's like saying the entire female body signifies sex. You want to solve the "problem" by outright banning female minifigs? If you cannot look at something entirely normal and an integral part of a female body without seeing sex, then your problem is obviously much deeper than LEGO minifigures.

A little anecdote: I have managed to get my girlfriend to (to a degree) share my interest in LEGO, building sets with me, helping decide what to buy, looking for good offers, etc. A big part of what helped get and retain her interest lies in exactly what you so despise: female minifigs with fascinating dresses, corset torsos and feminine hair. As a woman, she identifies with those things and sees appeal in them. Without them, she'd likely still share the builds with me - but she wouldn't care for minifigs.

[mccoyed]

Breasts and an hourglass figure signifies sex, you say? That's like saying the entire female body signifies sex. You want to solve the "problem" by outright banning female minifigs? If you cannot look at something entirely normal and an integral part of a female body without seeing sex, then your problem is obviously much deeper than LEGO minifigures.

A little anecdote: I have managed to get my girlfriend to (to a degree) share my interest in LEGO, building sets with me, helping decide what to buy, looking for good offers, etc. A big part of what helped get and retain her interest lies in exactly what you so despise: female minifigs with fascinating dresses, corset torsos and feminine hair. As a woman, she identifies with those things and sees appeal in them. Without them, she'd likely still share the builds with me - but she wouldn't care for minifigs.

Some of you guys love slamming words into other peoples' mouths, eh? I never said anything remotely close to "hey we should ban ALL female minifigs". Moreover, I'll thank you not to imply that I have some kind of psychological "problem" because I look at some female minifigs and note an emphasis and exaggeration of features that are highly commodified and sexualized in our culture. Note the differences between these two torsos:

Female barmaid.

Note the low-cut top and cleavage lines. You can't see it very well in this pic, but there are big ol' round titties in there too. Nice work, TLG!

Female pretzel girl.

Note an exceptionally similar torso piece. Oh look, feminine costuming and features without them big ol' titties. Nice work, TLG!

Now if you can't see a difference here, maybe you're the one with a problem. All I'm trying to do is talk about this and show why these complaints exist. You're super defensive over Lego and you seem very threatened by the idea that maybe TLG should do better at representing females. The fact that they agree with this and are already making moves in that direction doesn't really seem to register with you.

Hive, you're being very dishonest and rude in your treatment of me and my words. I never said I despise feminine minifigs. I've said repeatedly that I think TLG is already on the right track but could further improve things. I never said anything about hairpieces and, honestly, I could care less what your girlfriend thinks about this issue. Anecdotes don't really do much but show you can tell a story that demonstrates bias. You're misrepresenting me and taking my criticism much further than I am. I don't want to ban female minifigs, I don't want to have only gender-neutral minifigs, and I don't have anything against female hairpieces, feminine clothing prints, or anything your girlfriend seems to like. If you define femininity by tits, hips, lipstick, and cleavage then congratulations on your male gaze. Nice work, Hive!

Edited August 8, 2014 by mccoyed

[Meatman]

Lego is going out of their way to appease the small group of enthusiasts who are complaining about the equality of the female minifigure and now people are complaining that they are too feminine.

It's a shame The Lego group has to deal with these Greenpeace idiots causing uneeded drama, and now we have people complaining about feminine characteristics of the minifigs being too close to reality. And really, "selling sex"? C'mon people. They are just trying to differentiate between the male and female characteristics and give the people what they want.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Meatman

[mccoyed]

Lego is going out of their way to appease the small group of enthusiasts who are complaining about the equality of the female minifigure and now people are complaining that they are too feminine.

It's a shame The Lego group has to deal with these Greenpeace idiots causing uneeded drama, and now we have people complaining about feminine characteristics of the minifigs being too close to reality. And really, "selling sex"? C'mon people. They are just trying to differentiate between the male and female characteristics and give the people what they want.

Yeah, you've got it all figured out buddy.

[Meatman]

Yeah, you've got it all figured out buddy.

I sure do pal.

But you go right on and keep complaining over irrelevance.

Perhaps Lego should just do away with minifigures altogether. It sure would solve a lot of complaints from hips on minifigures to people mad because they didn't go to SDCC and get the latest Lord of the Rings exclusive.

[mccoyed]

I don't really understand why you think calling it irrelevant makes it irrelevant. If it were irrelevant, no one would talk about it. In a thread about female minifigs, what could be more relevant than talking about female minifigs?

Do you mean culturally irrelevant? Only if you live under a rock called The Past 50 Years of Social Progress on Gender. Is it dark under your rock?

Edited August 8, 2014 by mccoyed

[Meatman]

I don't really understand why you think calling it irrelevant makes it irrelevant. If it were irrelevant, no one would talk about it.

It's irrelevant to the majority.

I would be interested in seeing the results of an actual poll as to what the number actually is of people that care about the printing on a minifigures torso.

Why don't you start a poll up here and see what people actually think?

Edited August 8, 2014 by Meatman

[mccoyed]

It's irrelevant to the majority.

I would be interested in seeing the results of an actual poll as to what the number actually is of people that care about the printing on a minifigures torso.

Why don't you start a poll up here and see what people actually think?

Majority of who? People in this thread? Obviously not. People in EB? Maybe, but if so they don't have to (and aren't anyway) comment here. People on the internet? That seems debatable. People in the world? Now we're overshooting our scope a tad, eh?

No poll here would really make much of a difference as the sample size and demographics on EB are skewed. But you're welcome to try it. It won't prove anything to me, but go ahead man. No one's stopping you.

If you really think this is so irrelevant and you really don't care, why are you commenting here?

Edited August 8, 2014 by mccoyed

[Chocolatecake]

Sorry, women do have breasts, some have small breasts and some of us have very (naturallly) large breasts.

With large I mean: cleavage in almost everything that is cut lover than a turtleneck.

So that barmaid torso do represent some women, and I can't stop thinking, has bodyshaming hit another low?

Since female torsos are a bad thing, and female torsos with clearly large breast are very bad - selling sex bad?

Sorry, but I just felt that someone used my feet as a trampoline.

There are a difference between men and woman, why not show it in toys too? instead of that unisex crap.

[fred67]

Meh... I still agree with Meatman.

There are a difference between men and woman, why not show it in toys too? instead of that unisex crap.

Couldn't agree more. Sorry for the so-called "customizers," variety is the spice of life... the more figures, and the more they vary, the better, IMO. You want plain torsos, then order plain torsos from S@H or bricklink.

None of us are arguing that all female figures need large breasts or curvy hips, but that they exist doesn't prove anything negative. That they are not the only way TLG represents women, as mccoyed actually proved, shows that there is more to the side that argues there's nothing wrong here... a nice varied representation.

Edited August 8, 2014 by fred67

[Meatman]

If you really think this is so irrelevant and you really don't care, why are you commenting here?

To let you know this thread is a waste of everyone's time and Eurobrick's bandwidth. The person that created it obviously wanted input right?

Let us know when Lego starts printing nipples on their minifigs, then you'll have a better case to argue.

[Chocolatecake]

Meh... I still agree with Meatman.

Couldn't agree more. Sorry for the so-called "customizers," variety is the spice of life... the more figures, and the more they vary, the better, IMO. You want plain torsos, then order plain torsos from S@H or bricklink.

None of us are arguing that all female figures need large breasts or curvy hips, but that they exist doesn't prove anything negative. That they are not the only way TLG represents women, as mccoyed actually proved, shows that there is more to the side that argues there's nothing wrong here... a nice varied representation.

showing that the barmaid torso are bad and the dirdltorso is great gave me that trampolinefeeling.

It's the same with the male torsos, they have made torsos that shows a man with a good belly and others torsos looks very athletic.

It gives some variation to the minifigs.

[Hive]

Some of you guys love slamming words into other peoples' mouths, eh? I never said anything remotely close to "hey we should ban ALL female minifigs". Moreover, I'll thank you not to imply that I have some kind of psychological "problem" because I look at some female minifigs and note an emphasis and exaggeration of features that are highly commodified and sexualized in our culture.

If you honestly believe that LEGO is "selling sex", then yes, I think you have a problem. Sorry, pal. It's not me who can't look at a woman's body without thinking it's sexualized.

Note the differences between these two torsos:

Female barmaid.

Note the low-cut top and cleavage lines. You can't see it very well in this pic, but there are big ol' round titties in there too. Nice work, TLG!

Female pretzel girl.

Note an exceptionally similar torso piece. Oh look, feminine costuming and features without them big ol' titties. Nice work, TLG!

Now if you can't see a difference here, maybe you're the one with a problem.

Oh of course I can see a difference. It's variety, just like you appreciate in male minifigs. Right? Should the same variety that allows both bearded and non-bearded, muscular and non-muscular, hairy and bald (and so on) male minifigs apply to female minifigs, allowing both figures with featured breasts and figures without particularly featured breasts? Why can't both types be allowed to exist? What is your big issue with breasts, anyway? They're a natural part of the female body, in all shapes and sizes.

And I'd like to repeat: most of the minifigs you complain about represent a time where women did not dress in jeans and oversized shirts. Are LEGO exaggerating the looks of these figures? Perhaps, yes. Just like they exaggerate the looks of male pirates, for instance: it's a quite normal way to make them recognizable for what they represent. Whether or not it's a historically accurate replication is not really the point; as long as people *think* it is, it makes sense to do.

Hive, you're being very dishonest and rude in your treatment of me and my words. I never said I despise feminine minifigs. I've said repeatedly that I think TLG is already on the right track but could further improve things. I never said anything about hairpieces and, honestly, I could care less what your girlfriend thinks about this issue. Anecdotes don't really do much but show you can tell a story that demonstrates bias. You're misrepresenting me and taking my criticism much further than I am. I don't want to ban female minifigs, I don't want to have only gender-neutral minifigs, and I don't have anything against female hairpieces, feminine clothing prints, or anything your girlfriend seems to like. If you define femininity by tits, hips, lipstick, and cleavage then congratulations on your male gaze. Nice work, Hive!

My little anecdote was to show that female features on minifigures are actually appreciated by some females. I'm sorry that the opinion of non-feminist females does not interest you. I don't see how it's particularly biased just because it's an opinion that disagrees with yours, though.

There are a difference between men and woman, why not show it in toys too? instead of that unisex crap.

Exactly, couldn't agree more.

[mccoyed]

Sorry, women do have breasts, some have small breasts and some of us have very (naturallly) large breasts.

With large I mean: cleavage in almost everything that is cut lover than a turtleneck.

So that barmaid torso do represent some women, and I can't stop thinking, has bodyshaming hit another low?

Since female torsos are a bad thing, and female torsos with clearly large breast are very bad - selling sex bad?

Sorry, but I just felt that someone used my feet as a trampoline.

There are a difference between men and woman, why not show it in toys too? instead of that unisex crap.

I don't have a problem with TLG printing breast shapes. That's fair enough where appropriate. But look at the two very different torso prints I showed in a previous comment. Note the difference. If you, as a woman, want to see cleavage and so on in minfigs then that is a point of view we all have to consider but it by no means single-handedly erases my concerns or those of others who think TLG might have made some errors of judgment.

And anyway, this isn't a case of bodyshaming. No one is suggesting we remove female bodies from Lego or anything that ridiculous. I mean, there are some here who think the hourglass-figure printing goes too far. What do you think? Do you think all women should or do have hourglass-figures and big round breasts? Do you think that, if they don't, that they should and therefore TLG is right to represent women like this, as a sort of idealized version of feminity using commodified body parts and representations of them (low-cut tops and cleavage are commodified representations of breasts, I'd say)?

To let you know this thread is a waste of everyone's time and Eurobrick's bandwidth. The person that created it obviously wanted input right?

Let us know when Lego starts printing nipples on their minifigs, then you'll have a better case to argue.

You're just contributing to something you and the rest of EB could ignore. I dunno, your logic is all backwards to me.

showing that the barmaid torso are bad and the dirdltorso is great gave me that trampolinefeeling.

It's the same with the male torsos, they have made torsos that shows a man with a good belly and others torsos looks very athletic.

It gives some variation to the minifigs.

What trampoline feeling? I'm not sure anyone is clear on what you mean by that. Anyway, you're right that there's lots of variety in male figs. I disagree that there's lots of variety in female figs. It's weird that you don't see this since you'd have to be living in a dreamworld to not notice the ratios of female to male minifigs in sets and themes. By virtue of this if nothing else, there is way way less variety in female figs. TLG is taking steps to fix this so we're all happy about that element of the issue.

If you honestly believe that LEGO is "selling sex", then yes, I think you have a problem. Sorry, pal. It's not me who can't look at a woman's body without thinking it's sexualized.

Oh of course I can see a difference. It's variety, just like you appreciate in male minifigs. Right? Should the same variety that allows both bearded and non-bearded, muscular and non-muscular, hairy and bald (and so on) male minifigs apply to female minifigs, allowing both figures with featured breasts and figures without particularly featured breasts? Why can't both types be allowed to exist? What is your big issue with breasts, anyway? They're a natural part of the female body, in all shapes and sizes.

And I'd like to repeat: most of the minifigs you complain about represent a time where women did not dress in jeans and oversized shirts. Are LEGO exaggerating the looks of these figures? Perhaps, yes. Just like they exaggerate the looks of male pirates, for instance: it's a quite normal way to make them recognizable for what they represent. Whether or not it's a historically accurate replication is not really the point; as long as people *think* it is, it makes sense to do.

My little anecdote was to show that female features on minifigures are actually appreciated by some females. I'm sorry that the opinion of non-feminist females does not interest you. I don't see how it's particularly biased just because it's an opinion that disagrees with yours, though.

I've said before that I don't think TLG is "selling sex" per se. But that emphasizing sexualized depictions of female bodies amounts to that incidentally. TLG acknowledges this issue by improving on it. That's why they're a great company. In other words, their actions demonstrate that they are trying to find a happy medium on this issue. They don't agree with you that there isn't one.

I do think you may have a point about what the two different torsos demonstrate. To the purpose of arguing that there is sexualized vs. nonsexualized female imagery in female minifigs, I think the comparison works well. But it also demonstrats what you're saying: that there actually already is variety in female figs. That's not something I ever denied, but it's worthwhile to keep it in mind here so thanks for that.

But you have to stop putting words in my mouth, man. I never said I don't care what non-feminist women think. I just said anecdotes don't prove much and therefore I don't care what she thinks about this issue. If she were here speaking for herself and presenting a cogent argument, I'd care plenty. It demonstrates bias because it's your anecdote that supports your point of view. I haven't been using anecdotes because of that. I have them, same as anyone.

[Faefrost]

I am also a customiser that prefers gender neutral torsos (or male torsos as they are normally referred to, since if it hasn't got curves, then it normally isn't female officially).

There is also another benefit of gender neutral torsos - and that is possibly more females in a set. If we got away from males have straight torsos and all women have curved ones, then lego could introduce a two sided face. One side with make up, one side without. Then the child / AFOL could decide on the sex of each character, where appropriate. So a set might have 1 obviously male character, 1 obviously female and 2 down to choice by turning a head around. If they are hat-less, then it might cost lego an extra hairpiece or two. That set is then either as high as 75% male, or as low as 25% male depending on how the person playing with it wants it to be. I'm not suggesting doing away with all curved torsos, far from it. Use them where it makes sense. So a buxom pirate woman, or a woman in a dress would keep them, but a police officer or scientist wearing a lab coat wouldn't need them.

It's quite rare to find a printed female torso in which curves are not present in modern sets, but lego did let one slip through. Strangely enough, it is a scientist in a lab coat too.

Is she still identifiable as a woman despite not having the "necessary" curves? I'd say yes.

One other subtle thing to note in this particular case, and one that may drive customizes nuts regardless of negative space usage to generate a waist and hips. Look carefully at that scientist. Trying to use that torso as generic will not work. The eye will always perceive it as female. Because of the shirt collar. It is a subtle detail that our eyes pick up even if we don't realize it. Men's and Women's shirts button the opposite way, going back centuries. Go back and look at that Female Forrest Police figure compared to the male. There is more going on there than just boobs and hips. And there are more details that differentiate men and women than can adequately be covered in generic torsos. Attempting to do so just means we once again get no real women represented.

[mccoyed]

One other subtle thing to note in this particular case, and one that may drive customizes nuts regardless of negative space usage to generate a waist and hips. Look carefully at that scientist. Trying to use that torso as generic will not work. The eye will always perceive it as female. Because of the shirt collar. It is a subtle detail that our eyes pick up even if we don't realize it. Men's and Women's shirts button the opposite way, going back centuries. Go back and look at that Female Forrest Police figure compared to the male. There is more going on there than just boobs and hips. And there are more details that differentiate men and women than can adequately be covered in generic torsos. Attempting to do so just means we once again get no real women represented.

That's a solid, even-handed point about the subtle differences. That said, I would probably still use that torso as male if there's no breast lines on the sweater undershirt.

Edited August 8, 2014 by mccoyed

[Paul Boratko]

I didn't even realize that the female figs had that hourglass shape until I just seen this thread, which is amazing because I have 5 of my wife's modular buildings with figs sitting here staring me in the face all night long while I am on the computer or building...

Yeah, this is a prime example of a First World Problem if I have ever seen one...

[mccoyed]

I didn't even realize that the female figs had that hourglass shape until I just seen this thread, which is amazing because I have 5 of my wife's modular buildings with figs sitting here staring me in the face all night long while I am on the computer or building...

Yeah, this is a prime example of a First World Problem if I have ever seen one...

Yeah, this is a prime example of some guy who doesn't have anything useful to say trying to kill a discussion by trivializing it.

[Thetford]

I think the much moaned about, very common, business suit with scarf may perhaps offer a solution. Instead of black negative space, it instead has a black line, one could argue those are the seams to her jacket that conform to her body. Pinstripes and other patterns, creases, folds and shadows to suggest shape without dedicating parts of the torso to black.