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

[mccoyed]

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.

Totally. And torso prints like this one tend to demonstrate TLG's willingness to combat this issue. The hilarious part is how many people are arguing that this is a baseless, stupid, or irrelevant discussion (all of which are dudes) while TLG itself is way ahead of the game on tackling it in their own quiet way.

We're not so much talking about a bad situation that needs to change right now here. We're talking about an old situation that is already changing. Thanks to how socially responsible and awesome TLG is as a company. Too bad not all their fans are as enlightened about gender issues.

[Paul Boratko]

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.

What do you want me to say...? That I think anyone complaining about the printing on female fig torsos and claiming that Lego is selling sex needs to seek therapy...? Sorry, but I didn't want to come off as rude... I am going to have my wife check out this topic when she gets home and get her input...

Edited August 8, 2014 by Paul Boratko

[mccoyed]

What do you want me to say...? That I think anyone complaining about the printing on female fig torsos and claiming that Lego is selling sex needs to seek therapy...?

Sorry, but I didn't want to come off as rude...

If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything. That this thread exists does not require you to contribute to it. If you think this discussion is pointless, stupid, irrelevant, etc then why are you wasting your time telling us that? Seems like you must care on some level if you feel the need to comment.

If you want to go around making claims about others' need for therapy, you come off as more than rude. Please contribute something useful and avoid directly or implicitly attacking other members of EB on a personal level.

Edited August 8, 2014 by mccoyed

[Paul Boratko]

If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything. That this thread exists does not require you to contribute to it. If you want to go around making claims about others' need for therapy, you come off as more than rude. Please contribute something useful and avoid directly or implicitly attacking other members of EB on a personal level.

I did have something to say... I said that I never even knew that female torsos had the curves in them until I seen this thread... You attacked me first by saying that i contributed nothing, and that wasn't the truth...

Edited August 8, 2014 by Paul Boratko

[fred67]

If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything. That this thread exists does not require you to contribute to it. If you think this discussion is pointless, stupid, irrelevant, etc then why are you wasting your time telling us that? Seems like you must care on some level if you feel the need to comment.

And yet you keep repeating the same arguments over and over again, despite the fact that most of us don't seem to agree with you... to which you complain it's because we're all guys... when we're not. Maybe you should look through the last couple of pages, there's at least one woman who disagrees with you.

The fact of the matter is there's a bunch of variety in both male and female figures (an example of which you pointed out yourself). Where's the problem?

[mccoyed]

I did have something to say... I said that I never even knew that female torsos had the curves in them until I seen this thread... You attacked me first by saying that i contributed nothing, and that wasn't the truth...

It's the "first world problem" thing I took issue with. Saying you contributed nothing was not an attack. To attack you, I'd have to say something about you, not your post.

And yet you keep repeating the same arguments over and over again, despite the fact that most of us don't seem to agree with you... to which you complain it's because we're all guys... when we're not. Maybe you should look through the last couple of pages, there's at least one woman who disagrees with you.

The fact of the matter is there's a bunch of variety in both male and female figures (an example of which you pointed out yourself). Where's the problem?

There's another commentor here who didn't backread so I did have to repeat myself. Other than that, more people enter the discussion and quote me so I have to respond. Just like right now.

The merit of an argument doesn't rest with how many people agree with it. Is someone supposed to shut up just because people disagree with them? Besides, plenty of people in this thread have also argued the same side as I have. I don't think there's much point in playing a numbers game when it comes to ideas. Who believes something more, or how many people share the belief, doesn't make it more correct.

That one woman did disagree with some part of what I was saying, but also was targeting other comments others' have made. In any case, her posts weren't easy to follow...

And there are other problems besides variety. We've covered quite a wide array of related issues in this thread, all circling around how TLG prints female figs. There are some problems, but we've talked a lot about how things are improving. The discussion has long since moved away from discussing TLG directly and into arguments among ourselves about this or that point. Or you could, I dunno, read the thread.

[legoman19892]

I'm going to repeat this one more time.

It is VERY likely LEGO performed market research on torsos and detailed female torsos was deemed the winner. I'm sure people buying the sets are also are an indicator of people not caring as well.

Don't like it don't buy it. That will get LEGO's attention faster than anything.

[mccoyed]

I'm going to repeat this one more time.

It is VERY likely LEGO performed market research on torsos and detailed female torsos was deemed the winner. I'm sure people buying the sets are also are an indicator of people not caring as well.

Don't like it don't buy it. That will get LEGO's attention faster than anything.

Sigh. No one is trying to get TLG's attention or try to get them to "change their ways". They are already changing to be more representational and female friendly in general. No one is saying detailed female torsos are a problem, it's just which details and with what degree of emphasis that can be criticized. As for the "don't like it, don't buy it" attitude... that's completely trivial and simplistic. Severity matters. You can like and support something and have small reservations. Very little in life is all or nothing. Yes, it would make more sense for people complaining to quit supporting a product if their issue is severe enough. I don't think anyone on EB has that attitude. We're all Lego enthusiasts criticizing or discussing from an insider, friendly perspective. No one is being overzealous and no one is campaigning. Why is it that everyone in the "who cares?" or "everything's a-ok" camp is making it like those with concerns are waving torches and pitchforks? It's come up again and again in this thread and it's nonsense.

I would agree with you that most of the young people receiving or buying TLG themed sets aren't overly concerned with any gender debate around Lego. That said, AFOLs who are parents have a vested interest in how toys are marketed to their kids and what stereotypes or images those toys reinforce. In other words, people have every right to talk about this and to criticize if they feel that there are criticisms to be made.Trying to close down criticism the way you and others are is cowardly to the extreme. If there's no problem, TLG and its choice can hold up under scrutiny and critical analysis.

Edited August 8, 2014 by mccoyed

[Ardelon]

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.

I fully agree that lipstick and eyes would do the job better; IMO that would be enough and breasts and hips would be unnecessary. But it was you who complained that "ALL contemporary female minifigs that are not children have lipstick. Every one of 'em." (post 98 in this thread - yes, I re-read your posts), so I assume you arent happy with this solution either. Not that all of them do, though thats a matter of perception.

And yes, breasts and hips can signify sex, but dont necessarily have to. Women have breasts, hourglass figures (which i dont like in minifigs), and fuller lips, so naturally as minifigs get more detailed, so do these characteristics. Its the same for male figs: do you think the evolution from Norman_Osborn to the Surfer is a sexualization of the male minifig? Because I only see it as minifigs becoming more detailed over time. Not that they have to, as seen on the Bavarian girl, but when they are more detailed, like the pirate wench, its quite a big step to say it presents an overly or unduly sexualized image.

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.

I never stated my opinion as fact. No need for strawman arguments, or even to assume this if there is more than one interpretation. I think we all know this is all about opinions. And I simply think feminism has more important issues to deal with, and making this one of them devalues feminism. I would think the onus is on you to argue why this is such an issue. Do you have any evidence about the offending minifigs causing any emotional damage or self-esteem issues in kids?

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.

I never said you wanted to remove all feminine signifiers, just asking whether you thought that was a good solution. I asked about solutions again because your suggestions of more female figs or more varied figs dont address the problem you raised about sexualization of the female figs. More variety means that alongside minifigs with less makeup and no breast print, there would be figs with make-up and printed breasts. So the problem of sexualization as you see it would remain. Before that, you said "The eyes are always quite enough to identify a fig as female." (still post 98) I agree with this, and wouldnt mind if the designer dropped all other feminine signifiers. But thats a question of aesthetic for me, not a societal problem.

[legoman19892]

Sigh. No one is trying to get TLG's attention or try to get them to "change their ways". They are already changing to be more representational and female friendly in general. No one is saying detailed female torsos are a problem, it's just which details and with what degree of emphasis that can be criticized. As for the "don't like it, don't buy it" attitude... that's completely trivial and simplistic. Severity matters. You can like and support something and have small reservations. Very little in life is all or nothing. Yes, it would make more sense for people complaining to quit supporting a product if their issue is severe enough. I don't think anyone on EB has that attitude. We're all Lego enthusiasts criticizing or discussing from an insider, friendly perspective. No one is being overzealous and no one is campaigning. Why is it that everyone in the "who cares?" or "everything's a-ok" camp is making it like those with concerns are waving torches and pitchforks? It's come up again and again in this thread and it's nonsense.

I would agree with you that most of the young people receiving or buying TLG themed sets aren't overly concerned with any gender debate around Lego. That said, AFOLs who are parents have a vested interest in how toys are marketed to their kids and what stereotypes or images those toys reinforce. In other words, people have every right to talk about this and to criticize if they feel that there are criticisms to be made.Trying to close down criticism the way you and others are is cowardly to the extreme. If there's no problem, TLG and its choice can hold up under scrutiny and critical analysis.

So you think LEGO just decided to add boob shadow without testing it out first? That is the impression you gave me.

For, "Don't like it, don't buy it." At the maximum I was talking about not buying that specific set with the part in it, not abandoning LEGO as a whole. I come across plenty of people who love LEGO and dislike Simpson's. I am one of those people. Good for LEGO for catering to a market that helps them make profit.

Another thought here, the tone you are typing with screams "I am campaigning for change and will accept no other alternatives, why isn't LEGO listening?" to me. But that is just me. It sounds like you are also shutting down our views as well.

[mccoyed]

Ardelon,

I fully agree that lipstick and eyes would do the job better; IMO that would be enough and breasts and hips would be unnecessary. But it was you who complained that "ALL contemporary female minifigs that are not children have lipstick. Every one of 'em." (post 98 in this thread - yes, I re-read your posts), so I assume you arent happy with this solution either. Not that all of them do, though thats a matter of perception.

What I was complaining about was that all adult female figs seem to have lipstick and/or makeup. My solution to this would be to limit this a bit more. Do more female faces that have different facial features as well. Have you ever seen a female fig with a cleft chin? I haven't. TLG has the unenviable position of trying to figure out how to do "feminine lips" on yellow plastic and I understand the decision to use brighter colors (lipstick). I think, though, that people can tell a fig's head is female if they do the typical eyebrow/eye shapes with emphasized eyelashes. The solution isn't to be 100% inclusive (because some men wear lipstick and have long eyelashes too!) but to be as inclusive as possible. To this extent, representing women in as many ways as possible is the goal. TLG is trying to do that.

And yes, breasts and hips can signify sex, but dont necessarily have to. Women have breasts, hourglass figures (which i dont like in minifigs), and fuller lips, so naturally as minifigs get more detailed, so do these characteristics. Its the same for male figs: do you think the evolution from Norman_Osborn to the Surfer is a sexualization of the male minifig? Because I only see it as minifigs becoming more detailed over time. Not that they have to, as seen on the Bavarian girl, but when they are more detailed, like the pirate wench, its quite a big step to say it presents an overly or unduly sexualized image.

First off, my issue isn't with the breast and hip printing in and of themselves. My main argument was that yes, this stuff is sexualized. If we agree about that, then the discussion moves to whether or not this is actually a problem and if so, in what cases, etc. I'd say that sometimes the breast and hourglass figures are problematic but TLG has recently made great effort to add more variety to female figs so it's less and less a problem where all female figs are identified as such using these signifiers.

But having said that, I would say that adding muscle detail to a male torso is more tricky an issue than it may seem. We live in a world where there isn't equivalence in the sexualization or commodification of the male torso. Do people objectify men based on their nice torsos? Sure they do. Are nice muscular torsos used to sell lifestyle and products? Absolutely. But as a starkly sexual image, it's more difficult to pin it down that way simply because men are allowed to walk around bare-chested or with minimal torso clothing and are not immediately thought of as projecting sex the way similarly attired women inevitably are. This speaks to a double standard in the way we codify sex in terms of body parts and imagery. Now. With that out of the way, I'd certainly offer that TLG isn't merely making more detailed fig torsos but rather creating idealized models of the masculine and feminine image, which while appealing to their target demographic (boys for most themes), also reinforces pernicious stereotypes.

For another example of this same type of thing, look at how the animals in the Friends theme are modified to appear more soft-featured, cute, and exaggerated. This is meant to present an ideal of those animals, a cuteness maximum, to appeal to their target demographic (young girls). The idea here is that girls naturally like cute little animals more than more realistic ones, hence the stark difference between dogs in Friends and dogs in other themes. Note here that TLG has added a new Husky dog that nicely mixes both influences and thereby represents an animal fig that appeals to all kinds of people without underlining any stereotypes. The husky dog is a great example of why TLG is on the right track and cares about these issues.

I never stated my opinion as fact. No need for strawman arguments, or even to assume this if there is more than one interpretation. I think we all know this is all about opinions. And I simply think feminism has more important issues to deal with, and making this one of them devalues feminism. I would think the onus is on you to argue why this is such an issue. Do you have any evidence about the offending minifigs causing any emotional damage or self-esteem issues in kids?

You're right. You did say that you believe feminism has more important fights. At the time, I missed that and thought you were stating that as a fact.

I'd say that it's not just about opinions in the sense that "all opinions are created equal" or "everyone is entitled to their opinion". An opinion is only as good as the argument that supports it. I think you and I would agree to that much.

You may also agree that one of feminism's core interests is in limiting the amount of gender stereotyping and segregation that goes on in all walks of life. To this effect, the debate around Lego fits well both as a point of reference for the issues and a point of reference for a company that does well in facing up to them rather than brushing them aside or ignoring them as many do and would have TLG do in kind. Look at this thread for examples of hands on the ears, eyes closed, la-la-la I can't hear you type of thinking on this subject.

I haven't argued that this is such an issue. Only that it is one and that TLG has taken steps in dealing with it. What else can I offer? I need not submit evidence that Lego in itself causes harm when there's plenty of evidence to support the idea that reinforcing gender stereotypes and segregating play based on stereotypes is harmful with regard to equality. In this case, we've discussed equality in terms of equal representation and respect for women in minifigs, a subject TLG must take seriously given their recent behavior. We can also talk about equality in terms of changing our expectations and prescriptions. People don't understand that ideas like "this is what a woman looks like" or "this is what girls like to do" are constructed. As a result, they take these images and concepts axiomatically without realizing they are fluid and subject to evolution same as anything else. There is a demand that these stereotypes and models be abandoned or at least modified to better fit an equality-driven model of social good.

I never said you wanted to remove all feminine signifiers, just asking whether you thought that was a good solution. I asked about solutions again because your suggestions of more female figs or more varied figs dont address the problem you raised about sexualization of the female figs. More variety means that alongside minifigs with less makeup and no breast print, there would be figs with make-up and printed breasts. So the problem of sexualization as you see it would remain. Before that, you said "The eyes are always quite enough to identify a fig as female." (still post 98) I agree with this, and wouldnt mind if the designer dropped all other feminine signifiers. But thats a question of aesthetic for me, not a societal problem.

Forgive me, I've said a lot of stuff in this thread and answered more than just you in various posts. I do not think removing all feminine signifiers is a solution. When I discuss variety what I mean is, as someone else pointed out, that if you've got to have breasts and makeup, at least have other kinds of body types and other kinds of beauty signifiers than those two most basic and adolescent. So I don't mind if breast prints remain. I don't mind if TLG sexualizes some female minifigs so long as they represent more variety to show that women do come in all shapes and sizes. They've recently done a lot to do this. Most people are treating me like I'm calling TLG out for their current behavior when I'm doing anything but. Most of my criticisms have limited scope because it must always be remembered that TLG has made strides in course-correcting and representing more variety in female representation. So it seems unnecessary to present a solution other than what TLG have already taken it upon themselves to do.

Most of my responses in this thread that mention sexualization or try to demonstrate it were about whether or not that's what is happening. I haven't begun to talk about why it may be a bad thing if it is happening. It's more that it signals some underlying problems with TLG's gender policies that are in the process of being dealt with. I think I started off in this thread by agreeing with someone else that it's a thing and by saying it's occasionally inappropriate. But I know that not all female figs are printed with emphasizes breasts and curves. Some are, and others have breast lines but they are not emphasized in a sexualized manner. As others have pointed out, this speaks to the variety that I have mentioned as being crucial to improving the quality of representation in female figs vs. their male counterparts.

Anyway, thanks for taking this subject seriously and for taking the time to read my posts and treat me with respect. Sorry if I came off disrespectful at any point. You'll notice I've been holding up this side of the debate pretty much alone all day and it's taken a toll. You'll notice I've been having many different disagreements throughout the thread and most are not as fruitful as this has hopefully been.

I think what I'm gonna do here on out is ignore baiting posts and people just trying to shut down this discussion in general. I'll focus on people like you, Ardelon, who are actually interested in this subject.

Edited August 9, 2014 by mccoyed

[-Horizon-]

OK I think I phrased that wrong. Let me start over.

Women have breasts every woman has them. Some guys if they are fit have a six-pack. Why should breasts be taken out if all women have them? Why should they make men with six-packs? Not every man has them. I'm just saying that if Men get six-packs in LEGO why should women not have breasts?

Edited August 9, 2014 by lego3364

[mccoyed]

Annnnnnd that's where I bow out of this discussion.

[Ardelon]

@ mccoyed:

Well, we probably agree on most things - TLG moving in the right direction with better ratios and variety, less of a necessity on printed breasts and hips (for reasons we may not agree on) where eyes can convey gender, or the positive role of the feminist movement.

Anyway, thanks for taking this subject seriously and for taking the time to read my posts and treat me with respect. Sorry if I came off disrespectful at any point. You'll notice I've been holding up this side of the debate pretty much alone all day and it's taken a toll. You'll notice I've been having many different disagreements throughout the thread and most are not as fruitful as this has hopefully been.

Cheers. Yeah, I noticed you were rather outnumbered.

I, for, one, look forward to the next debate this thread brings.

[Hive]

Too bad not all their fans are as enlightened about gender issues.

I assume you mean "Too bad not all their fans are as over-zealous about trivial issues as myself."

What I was complaining about was that all adult female figs seem to have lipstick and/or makeup. My solution to this would be to limit this a bit more. Do more female faces that have different facial features as well. Have you ever seen a female fig with a cleft chin? I haven't. TLG has the unenviable position of trying to figure out how to do "feminine lips" on yellow plastic and I understand the decision to use brighter colors (lipstick). I think, though, that people can tell a fig's head is female if they do the typical eyebrow/eye shapes with emphasized eyelashes. The solution isn't to be 100% inclusive (because some men wear lipstick and have long eyelashes too!) but to be as inclusive as possible. To this extent, representing women in as many ways as possible is the goal. TLG is trying to do that.

So emphasized eyelashes are okay, because "all women have them", while outlined breasts, lipstick and hourlgass figures are not - because not everyone has those? Well not every woman wears mascara, either, or wear long eyelashes.

For another example of this same type of thing, look at how the animals in the Friends theme are modified to appear more soft-featured, cute, and exaggerated. This is meant to present an ideal of those animals, a cuteness maximum, to appeal to their target demographic (young girls). The idea here is that girls naturally like cute little animals more than more realistic ones, hence the stark difference between dogs in Friends and dogs in other themes. Note here that TLG has added a new Husky dog that nicely mixes both influences and thereby represents an animal fig that appeals to all kinds of people without underlining any stereotypes. The husky dog is a great example of why TLG is on the right track and cares about these issues.

I think you got something wrong here: LEGO didn't make those extremely cutesy animals because they have some weird idea of what young girls like; they made those animals after extensive testing, because the testing showed them that it was what girls like.

[Ardelon]

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.

I wouldnt have a problem with overlooking the collar. Same as I never a problem with the flat-chested Paradisa figs you mentioned earlier, not even when placing older figs next to newer ones. A matter of personal perception, I guess.

[klinton]

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.

This pretty much underlines this entire 'debate' quite accurately. I know it was intended as a reply to a specific poster, but it's all I can think when I see people up in arms about feminine detailing.

These are Lego people. No one, in the history of sanity has ever looked at a Lego minifig and decided it was 'sexy'. Ever.

Decidedly female shapes and designs are simply to distinctly point out that "this figure IS a female". It litterally cannot convey 'sex' nor 'sell sex to children'. It's a blocky little cartoon figure.

I can almost understand the hardcore custom builders who want to swap out bodies on the fly and decide 'this cop body is a woman/man in this build'. I get that desire. I think the trade off of having more visible women in the lines vs having to hunt a little harder for the perfect torso for your MOC tends to fall heavier on the side of pro-female specific prints. It just seems more in the interests of a larger feminist ideal to me.

This entire debate is odd to me though. The sheer variety of unique minifig designs and options available these days is amazing! I seriously had no idea how far they'd come until I fell in love with the Lego Movie and started actively collecting Lego.

With so many options on the table, with the perfect face/hair/body out there somewhere...more specialized pieces are completely welcome, imho. :D

[BrickG]

Women don't really have fuller lips they just more often make them stand out. My man lips are full and luscious as ever. Naturally red too. Sometimes when I look in the mirror I get the sudden urge to kiss myself.

[fred67]

Decidedly female shapes and designs are simply to distinctly point out that "this figure IS a female". It litterally cannot convey 'sex' nor 'sell sex to children'. It's a blocky little cartoon figure.

I can almost understand the hardcore custom builders who want to swap out bodies on the fly and decide 'this cop body is a woman/man in this build'. I get that desire. I think the trade off of having more visible women in the lines vs having to hunt a little harder for the perfect torso for your MOC tends to fall heavier on the side of pro-female specific prints. It just seems more in the interests of a larger feminist ideal to me.

This entire debate is odd to me though. The sheer variety of unique minifig designs and options available these days is amazing! I seriously had no idea how far they'd come until I fell in love with the Lego Movie and started actively collecting Lego.

With so many options on the table, with the perfect face/hair/body out there somewhere...more specialized pieces are completely welcome, imho. :D

Exactly! I agree 100%... it's what we've been saying here and in other threads - people just feel the need to complain about stuff, and who do they complain about? The company that's doing well.

First people complained there weren't enough females in sets, so TLG added not just more females to sets, but created an entire new theme. Now the females aren't to somebody's liking because they created a huge variety, one that is fairly representative of real life (which, excuse me, includes some buxom women). And you certainly aren't limited to those "hourglass" figures to represent women...

There is NO problem here, just much-ado about nothing.

And I'll repeat - every time a company like TLG capitulates to some vocal minority, they show other whiners that they can be easily manipulated.

[ummester]

Do LEGO leaves look exactly like every possible combination of real leaves that occur in nature? Do LEGO tyres accurately represent real life tyres? What about the LEGO animals? Is every animal represented and are those that are represented accurate?

A curved torso with breast shadows is a closer approximation of a human female torso then what the LEGO rat is to a rat - the LEGO rat looks like a possum and is the relative size of a cat or small dog to a minifigure. If we can be ok with an oversized deformed rat, why can't we be ok with female minifigs the way they are?

[obsidianheart]

Do LEGO leaves look exactly like every possible combination of real leaves that occur in nature? Do LEGO tyres accurately represent real life tyres? What about the LEGO animals? Is every animal represented and are those that are represented accurate?

A curved torso with breast shadows is a closer approximation of a human female torso then what the LEGO rat is to a rat - the LEGO rat looks like a possum and is the relative size of a cat or small dog to a minifigure. If we can be ok with an oversized deformed rat, why can't we be ok with female minifigs the way they are?

The rat-enthusiast community will probably now descend upon Eurobricks like a swarm of... small, hairy, pestiferous animals, I dunno, demanding more inclusive representation for vermin in themes.

[GregoryBrick]

The rat-enthusiast community will probably now descend upon Eurobricks like a swarm of... small, hairy, pestiferous animals, I dunno, demanding more inclusive representation for vermin in themes.

A joke, yes, but it makes clear why minifig representations might be a concern where tyres and leaves wouldn't be - one's a representation of a category of person (which has been politically marginalized and poorly represented in popular media and children's toys) and the other two are representations of objects.

[obsidianheart]

A joke, yes, but it makes clear why minifig representations might be a concern where tyres and leaves wouldn't be - one's a representation of a category of person (which has been politically marginalized and poorly represented in popular media and children's toys) and the other two are representations of objects.

A joke is all it was meant as. I'm not trying to marginalize anyone's opinion on this subject, and I've made my belief that LEGO faces a no-win situation in this arena clear, but I figured that the thread could use some levity.

Apologies if the comparison was offensive.

Edited August 11, 2014 by obsidianheart

[ummester]

A joke, yes, but it makes clear why minifig representations might be a concern where tyres and leaves wouldn't be - one's a representation of a category of person (which has been politically marginalized and poorly represented in popular media and children's toys) and the other two are representations of objects.

Tyres are a manufactured (so an object), though leaves and rats are a naturally occurring. Rats are even mammals, exactly the same as us. My point was that humans are so human centric and marginalise other life because of it and that the LEGO community seems so minifig centric that it marginalises other aspects of the toy.

Edited August 11, 2014 by ummester

[GregoryBrick]

A joke is all it was meant as. I'm not trying to marginalize anyone's opinion on this subject, and I've made my belief that LEGO faces a no-win situation in this arena clear, but I figured that the thread could use some levity.

Apologies if the comparison was offensive.

No, no apologies needed, the levity was fine. I didn't find it an offensive comparison, rather I thought it got at the central point - not everything demands the same moral consideration, and a focus on one element doesn't preclude or require a focus on another.