So I just saw this blog article:

 

Link

 

And I took offense in her saying "**** you lego" as I personally do love LEGO.

 

Another thing is I am strongly against feminism. To me this is no longer a female enpowering movement that is needed but rather a terrosist group.

 

It's true that there are more male minifigures but to be fair right from the start LEGO actually did have female minifigures as well.

Keeping in mind that the main target group have been boys (I would say).

 

And yeah like one of the comments said: There actually is a lack of strong male characters in BARBY as well but nobody gives a damn about it.

 

I feel that LEGO gives their customers a high flexibility when it comes to design the minifigures as you can exchange most of the parts.

 

My little sister likes Harry Potter LEGO and she also loves her FRIENDS sets. She is okay with them talking about stuff and eating cupcakes, why should I bother? I tell you something: I shouldn't!

Of course I would like those Friend Sets to have cool canons and knights and warriors and stuff if I had to buy them for me but I don't have to!

It really bothers me that people feel the urge to cry out "sexism" whenever they are not satisfied with something where you could somehow include GENDER.

Where are the LEGO sets for transgender people I ask you? There are none but still... if they want to create them LEGO provides them with the means to do it.

 

To me LEGO offers a wide variety off sets and figures and there might have been a time when they really had to few female minifigs but I feel that that time is over.

 

Maybe there are some female Brickvestors here, I'd really appreciate their opinion on the topic.

As far as I know there are more male Brickvestors here (and maybe some transgender Investors who knows... I don't mind).

And since I have the feeling that the LEGO community (KIDS and Adults!) is male dominated (not in a bad way though) it is only natural that there are more male minifigures.

 

Also the themes just call for it:

Knights, Pirates, Constructionworkers, Star Wars, LOTR, Hobbit, Superheroes (It's not up to LEGO to create new characters for those...)

 

When it comes to sets that call for a fairer share of female characters like City or Creator for example I would say that it is well satisfying.

 

Thoughts, opinions, etc.???

I'm the father of 3 daughters.  Here is my perspective:

 

First, I'll grant LEGO that Friends is a well thought out line for girls. It does lean a little overboard on the pinks and purples, but the playsets are generally something that my girls like playing with and it is much better than previous attempts (Belville, Paradisa, Clikits, Scala).

 

When my daughters got to LEGO age it was easy to start them.  The Duplo sets and basic LEGO sets are pretty unisex. I augmented that with loose bricks in a variety of colors I bought from Bricklink and they were pretty happy. As they got older and were ready for more advanced set we started running into how heavily boy-themed the mainline sets are once you get beyond basic bricks.

 

This was before Friends so I tried researching the prior girls sets. Clikits was a nice idea but really not "LEGO". Both Scala and Belville were too much like "LEGO with dolls". I did buy a few Old-Stock NIB Paradisa sets. They were nice but the theme really wasn't inspiring (tropical vacation)?

 

Friends is pretty damn good. I do have a few criticisms but that isn't the point of this article, the point is whether mainstream LEGO should include more female minifigs.

 

My answer to that is yes. I don't think it would reduce the popularity at all of the mainstream City LEGO if there were more females thrown in. To the credit of TLG, I notice that the current "big" Police and Fire sets (60047 and 60004) both include a female minifig.

 

But there is one thing that TLG has refused to do over the years that I think would really help.

 

There should be some new molds made for female minifigs that are distinctly female (not just printing boobs and hips on the standard torso). I'm not asking for Friends minifigs - they have distinct pros and cons - I'm asking for legs and/or torso that are identifiably female to young builders.  The closest TLG has ever come to this is using the 65 2x2x2 slope (which is just a generic part) to represent a skirt.  But anybody who has ever tried playing with these knows that they have miserable play value. Regular minifig legs have extended studs which give extra clutch to the body/leg joint, making the minifig a distinct whole.  The 65 2x2x2 slope has standard studs. When you click your "female" minifig to the floor in a house and then go to pull her out, 9 times out of 10 she will pull apart at the body/leg join instead of coming out whole.  Miserable.  Even worse, the part doesn't have any sort of articulation.

 

I would love it if TLG had a slightly altered mold which created a female minifig that was:

1. Identifiably female without printing.
2. Had decent clutch between body and legs.
3. Had at least some degree of waist articulation (to sit down to drive).
4. Perhaps stood one plate shorter than standard.

Anyway, despite this gripe, I'll give them mostly kudos for friends and applause for appearing to be including more females in City sets.

I cleaned up this thread and unlocked it to see if there can be a mature discussion. Personally I think this topic has been beaten to death when the Friends theme came out.  We will see what happens here.  If it goes downhill, thread will be locked and or deleted.  Comments of poor taste will be deleted immediately.

I cleaned up this thread and unlocked it to see if there can be a mature discussion. Personally I think this topic has been beaten to death when the Friends theme came out.  We will see what happens here.  If it goes downhill, thread will be locked and or deleted.  Comments of poor taste will be deleted immediately.

 

I was just in the process of finding some threads for good reading, but we'll see where this goes.

@Mods: Thanks for the answer, clearning and unlocking. The intention of this thread still is to discuss the topic, my original post also comments on my opinions about things related to the Link I posted. 

I still hope for a good discussion about the topic.

 

 

I'm the father of 3 daughters.  Here is my perspective:

 

First, I'll grant LEGO that Friends is a well thought out line for girls. It does lean a little overboard on the pinks and purples, but the playsets are generally something that my girls like playing with and it is much better than previous attempts (Belville, Paradisa, Clikits, Scala).

 

When my daughters got to LEGO age it was easy to start them.  The Duplo sets and basic LEGO sets are pretty unisex. I augmented that with loose bricks in a variety of colors I bought from Bricklink and they were pretty happy. As they got older and were ready for more advanced set we started running into how heavily boy-themed the mainline sets are once you get beyond basic bricks.

 

This was before Friends so I tried researching the prior girls sets. Clikits was a nice idea but really not "LEGO". Both Scala and Belville were too much like "LEGO with dolls". I did buy a few Old-Stock NIB Paradisa sets. They were nice but the theme really wasn't inspiring (tropical vacation)?

 

Friends is pretty damn good. I do have a few criticisms but that isn't the point of this article, the point is whether mainstream LEGO should include more female minifigs.

 

My answer to that is yes. I don't think it would reduce the popularity at all of the mainstream City LEGO if there were more females thrown in. To the credit of TLG, I notice that the current "big" Police and Fire sets (60047 and 60004) both include a female minifig.

 

But there is one thing that TLG has refused to do over the years that I think would really help.

 

There should be some new molds made for female minifigs that are distinctly female (not just printing boobs and hips on the standard torso). I'm not asking for Friends minifigs - they have distinct pros and cons - I'm asking for legs and/or torso that are identifiably female to young builders.  The closest TLG has ever come to this is using the 65 2x2x2 slope (which is just a generic part) to represent a skirt.  But anybody who has ever tried playing with these knows that they have miserable play value. Regular minifig legs have extended studs which give extra clutch to the body/leg joint, making the minifig a distinct whole.  The 65 2x2x2 slope has standard studs. When you click your "female" minifig to the floor in a house and then go to pull her out, 9 times out of 10 she will pull apart at the body/leg join instead of coming out whole.  Miserable.  Even worse, the part doesn't have any sort of articulation.

 

I would love it if TLG had a slightly altered mold which created a female minifig that was:

1. Identifiably female without printing.
2. Had decent clutch between body and legs.
3. Had at least some degree of waist articulation (to sit down to drive).
4. Perhaps stood one plate shorter than standard.

Anyway, despite this gripe, I'll give them mostly kudos for friends and applause for appearing to be including more females in City sets.

 

Thanks for the insight! I do agree that they should be studs at the skirts and the should be bendable like the legs (those bother me as well ^.^). Otherwise I think that the printing is a nice solution to it without altering the LEGO-Minifigure-design too much (which I would not appreciate).

 

As for any other opinions to this topic I'd appreciate it if we could not let this thread go downhill.

1. Had at least some degree of waist articulation (to sit down to drive).

This is also my complain number 1 about the friends minifigs - the legs. Why on earth did they change the generally good design of regular minifigs? If they sit (like in a car), they are generally "loose", and they cannot move one leg without the other. This is so - unLego somehow.

 

I would so much love a move like this:

 

Thanks to the mods for allowing this discussion.

Our daughter Is five years old and LOVES the Friends set. As a Father I find the toys to be fun- and importantly- wholesome. After seeing other toys, such as Bratz dolls and a whole host of others, the dress, make-up, and body image portrayals of these figures targeted at girls are not welcome in our home.

I think TLG deserves kudos for high-quality sets themed for girls, and presented in a way that is without question appropriate (to get my point fully, simply peruse the doll aisle of any toy store).

To Locus: I believe more information on the issues modern feminism is addressing may alter your opinion. Most front-line "feminist" work is now being done in third-world and developing countries, addressing issues for women such as the right to choose whom they marry, the right to divorce, the right to work, the right to show their faces, protection from forced assault, the right to an equal education, the right to freedom from religious persecution- the list goes on and on. The American/European perception of feminism, generally speaking, is no longer accurate.

I say all of this respectfully and free of judgement. These are important issues, and May or may not be appropriate for this forum. If a mod agrees, I take no offense at this being pulled.

As somebody who has very archaic and religious views on gender roles. I think LEGO is spot on in what they are doing.

The problem with society today is that we are so scared to adhere to defined gender roles because of the negative aspects of such old world views. In short, both men and women today are lost with no clearly defined role. There are no ladies and gentlemen anymore. I think the friends line does a nice job of allowing girls to emulate the natural female traits in an appropiate way while the more traditional lines allow the same for boys. If somebody disagrees with that then don't buy the sets. I dislike how most traditional and wholesome things today are being ruined and destroyed in the name of political correctness. Heaven forbid we offend anyone and every line needs to pander to everyone...no matter the minority it represents. Our differences are what define us. And if things keep going the way they are I see a very bleak future full of bland neutral things.

I think the friends line does a nice job of allowing girls to emulate the natural female traits in an appropiate way while the more traditional lines allow the same for boys.

 

What are these "natural female traits" you speak of? 

What are these "natural female traits" you speak of? 

 

sensitivity, caring, support, motherly tendencies, social grace, modesty, etc.

sensitivity, caring, support, motherly tendencies, social grace, modesty, etc.

 

You forgot Jet Skiiiiiiinnnnggg!!!!

 

You forgot Jet Skiiiiiiinnnnggg!!!!

 

 

 

I believe that may just deserve a Bazinga.....

I see that people got me wrong.

To put it short (it is difficult to put that short so if anybody wants to discuss this matter feel free to PM me):

I am against discrimating people because I grew up believing in equality. I am okay with fighting for the rights of people who are oppressed and mistreated.

What I am against is discriminating other people to do so, not caring about their needs etc.

To me we should not talk about men and women but about people. I've been to Africa and Japan and other countries and I am not okay with what most women there are treated only because they are women (Japan is at a turning point though).

And if I do have the feeling that men are being mistreated only because they are men, then it is my right and duty to criticize this (and any movement that is supporting the idea that they should be mistreated).

Feminism is about women and women alone, that's the hole problem about the concept from the start. I know where it is coming from but I don't agree with where it went. Nowadays an equality-movement would be more in place.

Okay I hope that puts it clear and short. If you cannot accept that I am against a movement that is willing to discriminate other people because of certain traits then don't. If you want to discuss this matter then PM me.

 

When it comes to criticize others because they don't think the same way that you do then it gets difficult in this world.

And I think a lot of people feel lost amongst all this polictical correctness. I know it is a strong thing in the U.S. and there might be cultural differences when it comes to it.

But the main reason I started this topic was to discuss if there really is a need for LEGO to change their policies when it comes to gender-equality.

I don't like the way the poster adresses LEGO and criticizes like everything. To me it felt like "You should produce more LEGO for girls! ... Oh wait you did that... but I don't like how you made it all pink and purple and "girlish" forcing girls into a stereotype!... you say there is other LEGO that is pretty neutral? I don't like that most of the characters are not female and the point that minifigures and bodyparts are widely interchangeable does not appease me!"

 

I don't have the feeling that LEGO is missing anything (or at least I didn't) but spanky for example pointed out to me that his daughters are missing something.

My little sister never gave the impression that something was amiss. And she also enjoys playing wih knights. There are bigger epic battles than most boys will ever imagine and at the end you still can see how darth vader is drinking tea with luke and leia. She also likes to include her Friends theme a lot. I mean where is a better place to have ice cream???!!! ;-)

She really likes the colors and obviously a lot of other girls also like them. There is nothing wrong with it if you ask me.

So now I see the need of some more female characters and themes where I did not see it before.

I think when it comes to LEGO they are doing a pretty good job though.

Next year we get the new Elves theme and besides all my hopes for it to be a cool LOTR-like theme... it is a Friends-like theme. But I know for sure that my little sister already is pretty excited about it and I will have to strongly abuse my LEGO-VIP-card to get her some when it finally finds its way into the stores.

BTW: You know this Boba Fett minifig? Or the headhunter princess Leia? So Leia can still be Leia, but Boba Fett became Mona Fett (for some reason ^.^) and those two female head hunters fight against sea monsters and the evil sorceress to rescue their friends! It's pretty cool when you watch her haha.

Did you know that you can exchange the hair of the Friends theme with the other themes? You might have known but I learned that thanks to my sis. (Though I do not like Vaders new hair...).

 

I'm not a big fan of "natural female/male traits" and I do not believe that much in them. (@ivncevaughn: Sounds like a description of me "sensitivity, caring, support, motherly tendencies, social grace, modesty, etc." you only need to add the beard and the manly muscles *****

I guess in a lot of ways I'm more "female traited" than my girlfriend ;-) But in the LEGO store she still was most excited about not the VW bus or the EWOK village... but those Disney Princess sets (and here it was Ariel with Fabius she really liked).

The GF of her brother loves EWOKs because they are so cuuuute ^.^

No.

I see that people got me wrong.

To put it short (it is difficult to put that short so if anybody wants to discuss this matter feel free to PM me):

I am against discrimating people because I grew up believing in equality. I am okay with fighting for the rights of people who are oppressed and mistreated.

What I am against is discriminating other people to do so, not caring about their needs etc.

To me we should not talk about men and women but about people. I've been to Africa and Japan and other countries and I am not okay with what most women there are treated only because they are women (Japan is at a turning point though).

And if I do have the feeling that men are being mistreated only because they are men, then it is my right and duty to criticize this (and any movement that is supporting the idea that they should be mistreated).

Feminism is about women and women alone, that's the hole problem about the concept from the start. I know where it is coming from but I don't agree with where it went. Nowadays an equality-movement would be more in place.

Okay I hope that puts it clear and short. If you cannot accept that I am against a movement that is willing to discriminate other people because of certain traits then don't. If you want to discuss this matter then PM me.

 

When it comes to criticize others because they don't think the same way that you do then it gets difficult in this world.

And I think a lot of people feel lost amongst all this polictical correctness. I know it is a strong thing in the U.S. and there might be cultural differences when it comes to it.

But the main reason I started this topic was to discuss if there really is a need for LEGO to change their policies when it comes to gender-equality.

I don't like the way the poster adresses LEGO and criticizes like everything. To me it felt like "You should produce more LEGO for girls! ... Oh wait you did that... but I don't like how you made it all pink and purple and "girlish" forcing girls into a stereotype!... you say there is other LEGO that is pretty neutral? I don't like that most of the characters are not female and the point that minifigures and bodyparts are widely interchangeable does not appease me!"

 

I don't have the feeling that LEGO is missing anything (or at least I didn't) but spanky for example pointed out to me that his daughters are missing something.

My little sister never gave the impression that something was amiss. And she also enjoys playing wih knights. There are bigger epic battles than most boys will ever imagine and at the end you still can see how darth vader is drinking tea with luke and leia. She also likes to include her Friends theme a lot. I mean where is a better place to have ice cream???!!! ;-)

She really likes the colors and obviously a lot of other girls also like them. There is nothing wrong with it if you ask me.

So now I see the need of some more female characters and themes where I did not see it before.

I think when it comes to LEGO they are doing a pretty good job though.

Next year we get the new Elves theme and besides all my hopes for it to be a cool LOTR-like theme... it is a Friends-like theme. But I know for sure that my little sister already is pretty excited about it and I will have to strongly abuse my LEGO-VIP-card to get her some when it finally finds its way into the stores.

BTW: You know this Boba Fett minifig? Or the headhunter princess Leia? So Leia can still be Leia, but Boba Fett became Mona Fett (for some reason ^.^) and those two female head hunters fight against sea monsters and the evil sorceress to rescue their friends! It's pretty cool when you watch her haha.

Did you know that you can exchange the hair of the Friends theme with the other themes? You might have known but I learned that thanks to my sis. (Though I do not like Vaders new hair...).

 

I'm not a big fan of "natural female/male traits" and I do not believe that much in them. (@ivncevaughn: Sounds like a description of me "sensitivity, caring, support, motherly tendencies, social grace, modesty, etc." you only need to add the beard and the manly muscles *****

I guess in a lot of ways I'm more "female traited" than my girlfriend ;-) But in the LEGO store she still was most excited about not the VW bus or the EWOK village... but those Disney Princess sets (and here it was Ariel with Fabius she really liked).

The GF of her brother loves EWOKs because they are so cuuuute ^.^

 

 

They are only natural traits and are not exclusive.  I feel, be it male or female, that a equal balance of those traits is a good thing.  It leads to a well rounded individual.  I too describe myself as sensitive and god knows I love to dress up in suits and match colors on my accessories but on the other side of things I am possessive, protecting, providing, and can anger easily.  It is the balance of masculine and feminine traits that makes us who we are.  When one leans completely one way or the other is the problem.

Locutus I enjoyed your response and thank you for posting it. Some great perspectives from all thus far on this thread.

Edited October 1, 201411 yr by Cross

I think that they should do what comes naturally and not force it.  Yeah, some roles are stereotyped in various themes, but sometimes that's life.

Females are covered in the Friends theme but, I'd like to see say, a male hairdresser or vet minifig.  Also I'd like to see policewoman minifigs and various skin coloured minifigs in other sets.  After all we are a dual gender multi-racial planet, right?  But, Lego are no doubt playing it safe.

"According to LEGO.com, most minifigures are coloured yellow to display equalization in ethnic society. The use of different tones of colour came about when LEGO decided that minifigures should look "authentic" to the way they were portrayed, this later expanded into licensed themes such as Star Wars to display correct characterization. Although, yellow coloration is still used in unlicensed themes, such as Ninjago, for purposes of equalization in ethnic society"

 

(http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/Minifigure)

 

"Standard LEGO Minifigures () are yellow because when they originally started being made, yellow was cheaper to produce. As time went on, and all fabrics were all the same cost, they decided that they would keep yellow as the standard color (Brit. colour) because LEGO thought that if they changed the skin to pale it would be raisist to black people. Well done LEGO!"

 

Actually I like the new "skin colours" and prefer my minifigs that way.

It will be interesting if LEGO sticks to the original yellow in the future or brings out more and more "skin coloured" minifigs.

Since there will be more movies etc. I bet there will be more "skin coloured" minifigs as well.

I guess LEGO will become more colourful every year and I like the idea of it because everybody can decide for himself what they want their LEGOs to look like.

 

By the way:

I really like the new female characters they have. They look so much better than the first ones ^.^

I've only just noticed that the modulars have a pretty fair amount of female minifigs included. And the modulars seem to stick to the original smiley faces. Also the Winter Village Market has got a good share of female minifigures (maybe even more than male ^.^).

I think they should come up with more faces for the female minifigs though. I guess you can just put nice hair on the neutral faces but as I pointed out I really like the new female faces (princess Leia or Padme for example) but they definetively need more expressions.

 

As for skirts:

I never had a big problem with the normal legs but I have to admit that I never liked those brick-skirts very much.

As spanky said, they are difficult to remove from the groundplates and you will end up with the torso in your hand (can be a traumatic experience for children!!!).

Anyhow LEGO has come up with a lot of new designs especially in the minifig collectable series. Here we can see a lot of new leg designs where a print is used as skirt.

I really like this approach though I also like the brick-skirt since it somewhat looks more authentic...

And then we have those new things... they use on the new snow-troopers or on clone troopers. Don't know what to call it.

As for me I do not really like those things and cannot imagine them as a skirt for female minifigs (or male...) but I still like the capes ^.^

 

(see pictures... oh and there's batwoman just because it's cool!)

Hahaha )  It's not the 1st  time this question appears on Lego forums.

"Do you feel LEGO should include more female characters?" Shortly - No/it doesn't bother me.

 

Why?  Let's see.  

1) I think classic Lego is for everyone.  Those "special girlish" colors of Friends make me sick.   

2) Collectible minifigures provide a lot of female characters.  Go get them if you need more females. 

3) Themes follow the books/movies.  How many female characters are in Hobbit and LOTR?  Harry Potter? Lone Ranger?  POTC? Star Wars?

4) Classic Lego themes - say, Castle and Pirates.  How many female characters are in classic books like Ivanhoe or Treasure Island?  (2/sorta 1 - Jim's mother).  Don't create a problem where there is none))  You wouldn't criticize Marx Toys for not including female characters in their famous toy soldiers sets

5) Large sets from Modulars or City normally include several female figures, I don't see a problem there.

6) Smaller sets - here we are.  Well, you really want a cute girl to drive a huge truck?))  You can always find a set with a female if you wish, for example 60017.

 

Edited October 3, 201411 yr by Ronda

I'm not impressed or indeed even comfortable when corporations try their hands at social engineering.

 

I'd much prefer they concentrate on market trends (which will tag along after social trends) and let the common folks, who are more likely to be a bit purer in motive, concentrate on women's rights, *** rights, racial equality, etc.

I'm not impressed or indeed even comfortable when corporations try their hands at social engineering.

 

I'd much prefer they concentrate on market trends (which will tag along after social trends) and let the common folks, who are more likely to be a bit purer in motive, concentrate on women's rights, *** rights, racial equality, etc.

 

Sigh, and I wish the commonly accepted, non-slur word for homosexuality wasn't considered a bad word in these forums.

was it a *** word? (okay I checked it ^.^)

Doesn't it also mean jolly? So actually a synonym for jolly is banned.

 

Doesn't bother me *****

Though it's only ONE opinion I wanted to thank "Ronda" for her point of view.

Some of my stormtroopers already are female ^.^ but they wear a helmet so you won't see it anyways ;-)

Edited October 3, 201411 yr by Locutus001

For anyone who actually gets this reference, I thank you.

My personal opinion is yes I feel that Lego should include more female characters and they should be different than how they are currently being made.

 

Most of the female minifigures I see either have boobs and cinched waists printed on them or don't match regular Lego because they're "Friends" type which look like polly pocket doll type figures. They're also all so... girly. Like they wear skirts or dresses, have cleavage showing, include flowers, are in shopping or beauty parlor sets, aren't adventurers, are a halloween witch, or are in bright (usually pink) colors. Often a combination of those things. The male figures look cooler, have more variety in colors, have weapons and armor, and other cool stuff. Where's a girl in armor or a space suit or whatever printed like the males, but with a female head? Doing something adventurous and exciting like the males do?

 

I personally use the cooler male bodies and put a female head on them. But I don't see why I should have all these headless female bodies and bodyless male heads piling up, except that Lego still needs more female characters.

 

Also, the part here:

"Also the themes just call for it:

Knights, Pirates, Constructionworkers, Star Wars, LOTR, Hobbit, Superheroes (It's not up to LEGO to create new characters for those...)"

 

I disagree with Knights (or Castle or Kingdoms) and Pirates there. Knights/Castle/Kingdoms could have girls in them (that aren't the princess) that are female warriors. There absolutely have been female armor-wearing sword-swinging horse-riding women in the past and even if there weren't, why not include women warriors anyway because they're cool. There were also female pirates in real history, yes less common than men, but they existed. And again, even if they didn't - who cares? Female pirates are cool and there should absolutely be female pirates in their sets.