Brickipedia News:Outside discussions - Girls girls girls

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki

User:CJC95 0:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

by CJC95
August 10, 2014

Welcome to a new feature I'm trying, where I link to the discussions related to LEGO being had at other places.

The main story being discussed is 21110 Research Institute - well, not really, its sexism and feminism and presumably any other "-isms" you can throw in. The first stop is the BBC, who ask "How did Lego become a gender battleground?". It answers the question, and that is about that. Meanwhile, Quartz suggest that it could help the US get more people into STEM (or, as the news app on my phone put it "Lego's female scientist toys could transform the economy). I'd argue that one set won't change much, but places like The Guardian may disagree.

There are lots of other pieces on this, but they are all rather dull, so I'll leave you with a different view: Katie Hopkins joined the debate by slamming the feminist agenda and the idea that pink affects kids. I don't know whether to trust her, but Brickfanatics summaries it here.

On to slightly less dull pastures, and the Guardian have a comment piece on the Shell-Greenpeace fiasco. It makes some silly arguments ("But over the last few decades child’s play has been turned into big business"), and focuses on the idea that they should be less focused sets on films and more like the sets of bricks back in the old days - a ridiculous idea from a business sense, but also because there have been "themed" sets since the 70s, and also because kids are still creative - just now they are creative with Darth Vader and a Ninja and Batman instead, and not all kids are creative in that way - I never was. I built the model, and played with the model. Simple. The article is rubbish and the author no doubt knows it, and you can read it here.

Wired have done some data analysis on how much each brick cost - like most data analysis its interesting, though has its flaws. The limited sample affects the data (no Star Wars to drag up costs, for example), suggesting they could have used say, Brickset's price per piece data instead of calculating it from the LEGO store, but it still raises some points: For example, train sets are more expensive per piece (due to motors), and DUPLO brick prices are more than 3 times as much (due to size). So, if you enjoy data, have a look.

I had more links for this, but its already too long so I'll save them for next week, providing people like this.
Tags: 2014

Comments (33)

Enable comment auto-refresher

PufflePalAmateur

126 months ago

Score 1

LEGO is never going to please everybody no matter how hard they try. It's ridiculous.

Permalink | Reply

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 0

I agree.

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

Yeah, they should just stop paying attention to the fans. I for one am disgusted that they would even think about giving away free sets to LUGs and fansites.

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

(My point is that you shouldn't just ignore what people are saying when you are in TLG's position. There are a lot of ridiculous complaints against the LEGO Group, but there is nothing wrong with them agreeing that something can actually be improved. That is the point of constructive criticism, which the scientist set was, and I for one am extremely grateful that LEGO is willing to listen to us here and elsewhere. :) )

CJCBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 1

But they need to appeal to the most people possible because they are a business and want all the money. If they ignore complaints many people have, then they are "freezing out" that part of the market.

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score -1

I think what he's saying is things like groups saying: "we want this" but then when they do it another group says: "no we dont want that". It's hard to please everyone.

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

Are they doing that though? The feminist articles I have seen are championing the set (perhaps a little too much...), and then complaining about other things like women wearing lipstick in a lab (which is frankly kind of stupid) and hourglass figures. Those are new topics they have moved on to.

And then you have people complaining about the set getting made at all, that's two different groups.

No, LEGO can't listen to everyone, but they can agree with people and listen to some of them. And there is nothing wrong with that, otherwise nothing would change.

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 1

Honestly, I think is is all stupid. We don't need to push for female characters in LEGO or stop them from doing it. It doesn't matter. What we should ask for is better characters overall. Most of LEGO's characters are terrible. We need some good characters, not mattering whether they're male, female, etc.

Permalink | Reply

Stormjay RiderAmateur

126 months ago

Score 0

Toa Mata/Toa Nuva

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

It does matter though. More than the characters being good, actually, since aside from story driven themes like BIONICLE, Ninjago, Chima, and maybe Hero Factory (which are successful at making good characters to various degrees), they are basically blank slates for creative play, so I would say that representation is more important than characterization in 9/10 or so cases.

And even when themes do have good characterization, like BIONICLE and Ninjago, the gender ratio is often lacking (BIONICLE's usually floated around something like two females per 18 sets, and that is not factoring the larger ones in which would make it worse). Yes, doing good things with the characters that are there is probably the most important part of storytelling, but keeping the women out of it and deliberately making them less interesting to attract more boys is a really bad move to make. I'm not accusing LEGO of it (Cartoon Network, actually), but if children's stories are not going to show that women are more than capable of being equals, where are they going to learn? Their parents and real life, I would hope, but it would be nice if their entertainment isn't telling them differently. Which, honestly, BIONICLE did with its stupid gender-element rule, and I don't think Ninjago has done too much better; even if Nya has grown into a warrior who can hold her own, she still isn't as cool as the ninja because she doesn't have superpowers. And then there was that lovely "Men are too violent for this element, better give it to the gentle women" issue that came up in BIONICLE's last days. It seemed as if the entire core of the theme was built on sexism towards both genders. Ninjago will be getting new ninja next year, so hopefully at least one is a woman, and when BIONICLE comes back it is nearly universally agreed that the gender rule should abolished, so it would be nice to see LEGO take a few more steps here and there....

0.02

CJCBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 0

Part of better characters is to make them seem more like actual people, and for that to happen, there no doubt does need to be more females - or well, more people in general - Having a "token" female in every group makes things seem less realistic - Ninjago has one female, I'm assuming Hero Factory has that one, that each Chima tribe probably has one female, etc.

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 0

I think there's a difference between making it so women can't be involved and most of the main characters happening to be male. I still think characters being good is more important. If there's an equal amount of men and women but the characters are annoying and terrible, it isn't a good thing. I don't think it really matters if there's this amount of women or this amount of men, just as long as they're good characters. Do you think a female character can be "cool" without being an interesting character? Of course not. Female characters should be treated like any character. Complain about them if they're not good characters. I also think it's bad to say that a character is only cool if they're a warrior. Wise characters who have the power of science or magic with them are definitely cool as well. Look at Gandalf. He's the best of the Fellowship of the Ring. I sort of agree with Nya. :P She's annoying and has no magical powers like the other ninja. I think it would be cool if she was one of the new ninja with the new magical powers. Don't try to focus on her too much, though. It ruins characters, I'd say. Like with Lloyd. And BIONICLE elements specifically for women because it's less violent is silly. Women can be violent, too, and LEGO shouldn't make women only in the non-violent elements. Anyone is violent. But mainly, my point is that focusing mostly on a character's gender is useless compared to focusing on a character's personality, story, skills, etc.

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

"Female characters should be treated like any character."

And not representing them at all is not treating the same as other characters.

I didn't say that characters are only cool if they are a warrior. If anything, I might have implied the opposite, but that was unintentional. Again, I haven't seen much Ninjago but it seems that what differentiates Nya from her friends is that she is 1) a woman and 2) more mundane.

And we are in agreement with the BIONICLE thing. I know you aren't a big fan, but there are about almost a dozen elements for male Toa (Fire, Ice, Air, Earth, Stone, Plasma, Gravity, Iron, Sonics, Magnetism, The Green), three for women (Water, Lightning, Psionics), and only two that are shared by both (Light and Shadow). And then, to make matters worse, at the end of the story they implied that the creators of the Toa chose which elements would be male and which would be female based on stereotypical qualities.

And I am sorry that you think representation is unimportant. Considering that most of these themes are toylines and not novels, I'm still going to say that representation is more important than good writing. Actually, if writing is going to be used at all, part of its purpose should be to sell more women. Actually, it has been the themes without much of a story as of late that seem to have more than just one female, looking at Ultra Agents and Monster Fighters, while most story driven ones do usually resort to tokenism, like CJC said. We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but understand this isn't an either-or situation. You can have a theme like BIONICLE which does kind of segregate against them but they are still used fairly well (most of the time), or you can have Chima where there are a good amount but they are written awfully (as are the men). But you can also improve both. BIONICLE might be more enjoyable because the story is immersive and unique, but that doesn't mean that it is perfect nor that its gender issues (not just the exclusion of women in the Fire tribes, but also the lack of inclusion since they could have made female Piraka or Barraki or introduced a Toa of Lightning as a Titan, but they chose otherwise) nor am I saying that Chima is better just because it is more representative.

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 1

Well, usually it's hard to make sure a character is like this or that. Representation is good and I support it, but not to be pushed a lot. And yes, I agree that having just one female character is pretty dumb. At least two, just so it isn't female that's the personality. And elements specifically for genders is stupid. I mean, come on. That's like choosing a type of a weapon for a woman just because she's a woman. But yeah, my main point is I support more female characters than one, but I think pushing on it too hard is not a good idea. And Friends needs more male representation, am I right? I mean, they're all just love interests. They're treated just as how female characters are sometimes treated as when they're the only one.

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

I don't think they are love interests, (other than one who was advertised as Stephanie's crush, I can't remember which), but are just friends. But yeah, they are tokens I guess, so it would be nice if one or two of them were developed as having their own personalities, but the point of LEGO is that kids can do that themselves.

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

Also, (:P) I thought your point was that actual character matters more than representation. But if you are changing your argument, I don't think that anybody is pushing on it two hard, at least not right now. Feminists weren't knocking down the doors demanding that LEGO release a set with female scientists or die, a fan who happens to be a feminist did it through a platform in a gradual and natural way, so I don't think there is an issue with it, nor is there one with asking for more women so that it is more than tokenism. Those both sound reasonable to me.

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score -1

I still think representation isn't a big deal. Because it's not like they're trying not to put more than one female character in sets, it's that they're not trying to put more than one female character in, which I don't find wrong, as I think it's ridiculous to actively try to put a character of some kind into something. The whole female tokenism thing is still slightly ridiculous. We don't consider Groot of the Guardians of the Galaxy a tree token, now do we?

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

We could consider Groot a tree token if saplings actually did uproot from their groves to go see Guardians of the Galaxy like people would. But they don't, so Groot doesn't actually represent any groups that I'm aware of, unlike Gamora. If anything, since the character is (as far as I know) male, (there must be some awful puns in that...) he just stacks the ratio against Gamora. I'm not saying that Groot should not have been included, but you clearly don't understand.

The thing about tokenism is that it only gives girls or minorities one character to identify with, and one character cannot possibly represent billions of people. Let's take the Avengers for example; when kids roleplay, boys can choose from Captain America, Iron Man, Hawkeye, Hulk, and Thor, whereas a girl is going to be stuck with Black Widow, who is cool in her own respect, but if you were a kid, do you think it would be more fun to roleplay as a rage monster, a Norse god, a man in a mech suit, or a woman who just has a pair of guns? Heck, even a bow and arrow sounds more fun than that to me. Nothing against Black Widow, since it really isn't her fault (and Wonder Woman has the same issue being the only woman on the Justice League, Gali with the Toa Nuva, Nya with the Ninjago characters, etc.), so when you bring in more characters, you introduce a Scarlet Witch to help things out. Of course, that doesn't help the ratio because Quicksilver and Vision seem to be joining at the same time, but it's a start. You do not want kids, boys or girls, to think that women have to be like Black Widow, cool, but not as cool as Captain America or Thor.

With tokenism, you essentially say "This is politically correct because there is a girl character, see?" You are right that it is holier to write good characters, but the writer is either sexist (this could be a product of time period) or not a very good writer if they cannot find a good way to include women who are good characters. To reiterate, if a writer is actually good, introducing more women does not come at the cost of shallower characters. How does that even equate? You did say earlier that female characters should be treated the same way as the male characters, and again, that is not treating them the same way.

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 0

This exactly goes to what I'm saying, rather than just focusing on making tons of female characters along with males, make them interesting and awesome. I think Wonder Woman is as cool as Thor, really. They both are modern versions of European mythology a bit. And again, if there's one female character, but she's obviously the coolest it wouldn't matter if there were more male characters. Relating to a character does not have to do with gender. I think Scarlet Witch is also a good addition to the Avengers not just because she's female, but she has awesome magic powers. I'm not saying introducing more female characters make shallower characters, but focusing mostly on having the character be female rather than focusing mainly on whether a character has awesome powers or personalities is better. Now, back to the Guardians of the Galaxy. I, nor does anyone else, look down upon Gamora because she is a woman. I don't even look down upon her at all. She's an awesome assassin person, and adopted daughter of the evil warlord of space Thanos. Also, what you said about a writer being sexist by not including many female characters isn't true. It's only sexist if they make sure that there aren't.

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

I'm not going to reply linearly because I didn't read your comment that way, but I still think I got everything. :P

Who said anything about focusing on a character's gender? I would say that that usually isn't good writing because it is objectifying the character, but gender is still an important part of identity so it needs to be handled carefully. You clearly missed my point if you think that is what I was saying. You said that writers should not worry about writing women, that they should worry about writing good characters regardless of gender, and that they should treat women the same as males. And I pointed out how those three statements contradict each other, mostly the first and last, since, for what I hope is the final time, writing only male characters as interesting is not good writing. So if you can write both female and male characters well, what reason is there to not write both? And if you can write both, why not do it? Telling women to be content with one or two archetypes, even if they are good characters, is not treating them the same. Please do not make me say that again. :/

I said that excluding women either makes them sexist, which would be actively making sure to not include them like you said, or bad writing. If they cannot pull off writing a female character, then they simply are not a good writer. I don't see what part of that you are missing. Usually I don't deal in absolutes, because ~~Sith~~ there are exceptions, of course. Lord of the Flies comes to mind because there is a logical reason for why women are not featured in the narrative, but that is the type of book you read for the philosophical value and not when you are looking for relatable characters or epic stories. And even then you have to consider that it was written in the 50s, so I suppose there might be an underlying sexism now that I think about it, but it's a product of its times for sure. If Lord of the Flies was written today, it would not take too much working around to include some girls, and chances are the author would have at least integrated a token. It's the same situation with another Lord. I've seen people criticize Tolkein for not including any women in The Hobbit, but if you look at the time period he came from, it's not that surprising. And, of course, the modern cinematic take has updated this by introducing Tauriel.

I also never said anything about people looking down on Gamora or Wonder Woman or whoever because she is a woman. I haven't seen GotG, so I'll have to focus on Diana. Wonder Woman may be mine or your favorite member of the Justice League, but Batman and Superman certainly overshadow her (just look at the amount of books they get compared to her), and then of course there is the possibility that Cyborg, Green Lantern, Flash, or even Aquaman can too. But it doesn't matter if she is the coolest or has the most and/or best character moments (which, for the record, she usually does not). Sorry, I got a bit ahead of myself, it does mater, that means that they have likely crafted a good character. So why should they not do that again? Why should women be content with being depicted as only the hardened assassin, or the powerless spy, or the disgusted immigrant, or the caring den mother when they can be all of those and much more? The men that get to be in those movies do. You have the dark detective and the witty everyman and the guy whose creativity knows no bounds and the rejected loner and the kind but conflicted man who has to live up to an unattainable ideal.

Sorry, but relating to a character does have to do with gender. As I said in chat when you decided to mock this, yes, I am able to relate to women as characters, but on the playground, if a boy decides that he wants to play as Batgirl, well, nobody is going to want to play with him and he will probably be called gay for it (I swear I am not speaking from experience :P ), so he better choose Captain America or Green Lantern instead. Same thing vice versa for a girl. That is why characters like Batgirl and Supergirl were created, so that girls could have their own Batman and Superman since the male versions weren't working out for them. Now, there are issues with just creating a female Superman for girls because she will always be in his shadow, but who are we to tell a girl or boy who they can and cannot relate with? If they have an issue with connecting to a character of the opposite gender, that might be a bit of an issue, but it is understandable and they should not be punished for it. Yes, imaginative kids can change things, but a lot of them are sticklers for the rules, and if they aren't, they probably have at least one friend who they will upset by playing with canon. I was one of those kids, and now that I am grown up I do question things like "Why can't there be a female Green Lantern, and why are all of them American?" Kids are impressionable, and tokenism can send an often unintentional message that women are not as important or interesting. It is the same concept as accidental learning.

This isn't to say that tokenism will corrupt children, I've been exposed to it and I thought it was unfair that there was only one Toa of Water as a kid, so now I am against it, but there are people who through seeing media after media where women play second-fiddle that they subconsciously developed the idea that real life ought to be that way. And then of course, the largest group of people are the ones who are apathetic I-turned-out-alrights. Well, someone isn't turning out alright, so it would be nice if we could all acknowledge the problem and move on with the next step (don't worry, I like introducing change gradually. :P )

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 0

(Finally, some excellent arguments. :P ) First of all, it is not just actively excluding females or is not a good enough writer to handle a female character, there is also not thinking about genders. They just make characters, then when they're done, people criticize them for not including many female characters or something, and it's not their fault, as they didn't think about it. With the Lord of the Rings and stuff, I think it's not only because of the time Tolkien came from, but also what time period his fantasy stories are based off of. In medieval times, women didn't have the same rights as men, especially in becoming a knight. When they chose what race the extra female character would be in, they chose elves, as elven culture in fantasy usually has less masculine males and women being their archers. Though I do think it still might be sexist to add her in only as a love interest. A not that well written love interest.

I think Wonder Woman isn't as popular as Batman or Superman because she hasn't really gotten her own movie to show she's a badass like Batman or Superman has, making her less popular to the mainstream audiences. I am 100% in support of a Wonder Woman, as she's a pretty awesome character, having all that Greek Mythology stuff in her backstory. I'm a fan of the Thor movies, so I'd be a fan of the Wonder Woman movies, obviously. It would work how the Guardians of the Galaxy did. No one really liked them until the movie, where they got to prove themselves to the mainstream audiences. And for adding more female characters, it's usually hard for comics to do that, as new characters are not as popular. And most super heroes were introduced in times that were mostly sexist. And as for the many types of female characters, yes, there are many types of characters that happen to be female that were in Guardians of the Galaxy. Along with Gamora, there's also the leader of Nova Corps, who is a strong leader that has to make the decision to have those criminals help them get rid of Ronin. It's a hard decision to make. Then there's also Nebula. She's also a daughter of Thanos, but she likes Thanos, unlike Gamora. She's a main villain and puts a theme of sisterhood between her and Gamora. It's put there in a way that works.

As for gender and relating to characters, I think it's the kids themselves that's the problem and in an issue that is mostly different than this. They would call the kid who wanted to be Batgirl gay because those kids grew up in a homophobic household. So it's better to stop homophobia for that problem to be fixed. And the reason why Batgirl and Supergirl are in the shadow of Batman and Superman is because they're versions. The originals are always what are most remembered. If someone made Wonder Man, he wouldn't be as popular as Wonder Woman.

I might seem like a misogynist, but I am not at all. I believe that women are people and deserve rights. But I do not support people who act like society is still sexist in the western world, where it is not. And at the end of the day, you are judging characters based off of gender and not what defines a character, characteristics. Judging characters based off of gender is the virtually the same as judging people off of gender, which would be classified as sexist. Characters are characters in the same way people are people. Think about them in their characteristics and not their gender.

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 1

Also, Aquaman overshadowing Wonder Woman? Aquaman? That's a joke, right?

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

(Sorry, my thoughts get jumbled and I'm not always too coherent. I'll try to be better, and answer in order. :P )

A good author really should be thinking about those things. How do you not notice if you make every character male? And why would you think that is a good idea in this day and age, unless you are either parodying (and then, look before you leap), or indeed sexist? (Not accusing anyone of that, though if you happen to be doing that with your comic series, think about it.)

LOTR is set in a fantasy world, not medieval Scotland or whatever, so historical accuracy is not important, since the only history he had to be accurate to was his own. I'm not saying Tolkein was a bad person (I like what little I know about him), I was just giving an example of how perception has changed since he was a writer. I am not condemning past works, I am just saying that the future can be better. That's the point of history, and arguably literature, to make a brighter tomorrow....

I don't disagree about Wonder Woman. I'm not talking about how the public perceives her or any female character though (for the most part, I have been hypothetical and generous with how they are depicted as individuals, assuming that they are written well). The issue with a Wonder Woman movie (and her in the comics and on TV, really) are that feminists and fanboys are breathing down Warner's neck so that every detail is exactly right, and if not, they will tear them apart. If she loses a fight to Ares or Superman, someone is going to accuse the writer of being sexist, as ridiculous as that is. I would say that part of it is probably because she is the only iconic female superhero who isn't derivative of a male (Supergirl, Batgirl) or a femme fatale (Catwoman). I think we'll probably agree here though, and I'm probably veering off topic, so sorry. :P

It's not that nobody liked the Guardians, is that nobody knew who they were. They weren't like Aquaman where everyone has this idea that they are a joke. No, they just kind of came out of nowhere, and people accepted them with open arms, which is fantastic. Wonder Woman they know though, and she is either this symbol of holiness that is impossible to get right, or a joke like Aquaman. To be fair: Invisible jet, boomerang tiara, bondage games, and then her costume isn't doing many favors.... Most of that has been phased out though, not that I mind nods to them (except the bondage games, her creator was a sick man).

Yes, you are right that it is difficult to add new characters and get them to gain new followers, unfortunately, and I did think you would say something of that sort. But the point (or one of them, anyway) that started this debate was that people should focus on writing good characters, and I thought that might trump business in your book, but I guess not. It is a point I would bring up myself. Anyway, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't stop trying though. The new Ms. Marvel has been received very well, and hopefully Guardians is another example of the mold being broken and they will see an increase of popularity in the comics. It can be done. I've been disappointed with some of the ways DC has failed to inject diversity when chance is staring them in the face. Justice League was a popular show, and while Hawkgirl and John Stewart did receive fairly moderate pushes because of it, they have both been dropped. The problem is that a lot of readers and even comic writers are afraid of change; it's pretty obvious that DC do not want John upstaging Hal Jordan. But we aren't talking solely about comics, but also movies, books, and pretty much everything else. Recent movies and books have shown that strong female leads can be successful with both audiences, such as The Hunger Games, Divergent, and even Twilight. Even though I really disliked The Amazing Spider-Man, I am also really happy that Sony is looking into producing a female led spin-off and I hope that Warner and Marvel follow suit with Wonder Woman and Ms. Marvel (or Black Widow, but I'm not too sure about that one being too interesting, myself).

Again, yes, you are correct that most superheroes were introduced in times that were racist and sexist, and transitioning out of that has been a really big issue for them, because they reflect society. That's why I love them, because I can look back and see all sorts of different interpretations of Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman; each generation has put their own touch on characters and I love seeing and connecting what might have influenced a grittier Superman or such. That's what makes them our mythology. It's kind of the closest thing we can get to folklore and oral storytelling now.

You seem to think I am accusing that movie of being sexist (I have been careful to accuse anyone or anything in particular of that because I really hate when people just throw it around; I've honestly only done it three times in my entire life), but I have not intentionally done so. If it seems like I had, that is because of bad wording. Anyway, I guess what happened was I said something (a lot of somethings) about movies and teams failing to give women a variety of personalities to choose to identify with? Well, I'm mostly referring to the heroes, though I guess that if Nebula is a complex and nuanced character (which, sorry, but I seriously doubt that from Marvel Studios), Gamora is probably the only real option. To me, Nova Corps Lady sounds like a plot device (nothing against the movie, they all need them) and from what I have heard, Nebula is little more than a henchwoman. This is difficult for me to speak of though because I have not seen it for myself. Please choose something else in future examples if you have to. :P And again, I'm not accusing the movie of some heinous crime, I am just observing that a lot of things which could be unisex resort to tokenism instead. Tokenism does not necessarily mean (at least to me) that the women that are there are bad characters, just that they are inadequately represented when compared to their male counterparts.

I'm not going to lie, this second to last paragraph really bothers me. "Gay" was just an example of what they could be called, there is a whole and eternally growing dictionary of nasty slang playground children know and can create. Maybe I should have used a different term than "relate to"? What about role model. That can be a bit more unisex, of course, but when the world has belonged to men for centuries (and do not think about denying it, since you acknowledged it with your statements about Tolkein) I think that it is more than fair if little Suzy can look up to a pantheon of role models in characters like Wonder Woman, Katniss, and Hermione Granger rather than looking to screens and only seeing Bella Swann, Snow White, or Mary Jane getting rescued by the big muscular hero. Men have enough with Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Will Turner, Wolverine, Buzz Lightyear, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Phineas and Ferb, and pretty much every lead in every movie/TV show/book that gets mainstream attention. Gender is an important part of identity to most people and that is not going to go away too soon since it has been for pretty much the existence of the Earth. Maybe a lot of men don't notice it, but pretty much every woman in my life has made reference to her weight or body shape being insufficient, when most of them look healthy to me. If they could look at the screen and say, "Wow, George Costanza sure has had attracted a lot of beautiful women, even though he is fat and bald. I guess that means that men will accept me and my body." Unfortunately, that isn't the way the world works. And this is one of the reasons I do support Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. If you do not believe sexism still exists in the Western world, look at some of the reactions her casting got. I will say it is fair to comment that she was too skinny and her acting is questionable, but look at some of the other complaints. It boils my blood as a fan of film, a fan of Wonder Woman, and a proponent of equality. People wondered what she meant when she said she was the Wonder Woman of the new world, and I am pretty sure she meant that she would overcome all of that garbage and prove them wrong by gaining a solid body and giving a performance to match. I'm not overly fond of a model being cast in a role like that, but I support her because she is in a plight against those awful attitudes. Now to see if she delivers....

And if you do not believe that a good deal of young children are not sexist, and it really isn't their fault, it is just a phase that most of them will grow out of, then I suppose you just have not spent a lot of time around them. Accidental learning, man, accidental learning. It's simple psychology.

Yes, it is true that anyone who is named Batgirl will always be in Batman's shadow. Spider-Woman has virtually no connection to Spider-Man, but for me at least, the first instinct is to connect her to him. They are all good characters (or have had good incarnations, at least) but Barbara Gordon is my favorite in part because she has escaped her mentor's shadow by becoming Oracle, making her an excellent role model. The only reason I brought that up was to say that people deserve an Oracle and not a Supergirl, but I guess I never made that point when I meant to in my last comment. My disorganization, sorry. :P

Please do not think for a second that I am condemning any story because it doesn't have a very good gender ratio. I am only looking for improvement in the future. I enjoy plenty of things with primarily male casts and I am looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy whenever I am able to see it. Earlier I mentioned my love for mythology, folklore, and fairy tales. Let's pretend it was to segue into this: they reflect their society and I would rather that when people look back on our age, they see a time of positive change in the way that we depict women and minorities rather than not making any headway because Hollywood, comicdon, etc either do not want to change or because their audiences don't want them to.

You are playing a weighing game, and you think that good characters in general weigh higher than their gender. I actually agree, because what good is a story if the characters are rubbish? But at the same time, if you can have both quality and quantity when it comes to characters, why would you just choose one or the other? A good writer should be able to provide both. I have not caught many reasons you have actually written down for why equality should not be phased in aside from "they are homophobic" and "girls should be content without having many role models of their own". Have I missed one or more? I am only looking for improvement in the future, and you know what, LEGO agrees. Attitudes are changing, so our toys and entertainment will reflect it whether you like it or not.

tl;dr Just because there were problems in the past does not mean that we should try to make the future better.

Now, if you could just answer this so I can easily find it, what is actually wrong with females being depicted equally? And if you did say it somewhere and I just forgot or missed it, feel free to copy and paste. :P

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

No, that was not a joke. Aquaman has received an influx of popularity among comic fans recently, and the guy who writes Justice League certainly writes him better than her.

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 0

I agree with a lot of what you've said just now. I especially agree with the relating to Bella Swan and stuff. I don't think she's only not a good role model because she's captured or stuff, I think the main problem is her personality and intelligence. She's boring and dumb! Also, yes, young kids are usually sexist. :P That's the only time in life I think one doesn't get a role model from an opposite gender character. I can find some female characters to be good role models to me. (Except I can't think of any at the moment.) And I don't think people saying Wonder Woman's too thin is sexist, but I still think it's dumb. A lot of people also say that Ben Affleck is taller than Superman's actor. Apparently Superman is supposed to be taller. And I think that's stupid as well. And with Tolkien, a lot of the culture in LOTR is based off of Medieval culture, mostly the dwarves and humans, so sexism depicted in those races is understandable. Think about Eowyn and stuff. Rohan didn't allow women to be warriors, like in medieval times, so she had to disguise herself. The medieval times reflected that little plot point. With the elves, however, they're seen as being majestic creatures that and moral and intelligent, so it was the best race for a female character to be added from. Though with the dwarves, maybe some of them are female. 'Cause you can't tell with dwarves. :P And yes, quantity and quality for characters should be equal, but quality should still be a bit higher, as having many female characters doesn't make good role models without them being good, too. Don't think I'm wrong with change in media. Change is good. I just hope we also come into an era of good stories again, because looking at most movies, they're pretty bad or they're adaptations of great stories.

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

"I especially agree with the relating to Bella Swan and stuff. I don't think she's only not a good role model because she's captured or stuff, I think the main problem is her personality and intelligence. She's boring and dumb!"

:P That's true, a woman being captured isn't what is important, but most of those characters I listed are constantly damsels in distress, which gets old. That trope is never going to go away, it couldn't if people tried, but they need to be something beyond that, which I am sure MJ is in the comics, and I have seen and read good depictions of Snow White which make her a developed character and not just a girl who takes sweets from strangers. And I'm not talking about that version which was played by Bella Swann. <_>

I was actually referring to the comments about Gal Gadot's body shape, not size, and then of course there are people who take that to further levels and say she has the face of a whore (whited out for language) or continue to call her anorexic. She might not look like what people would except from an amazon, but if you actually look at images of anorexic women, she was never even quite there. I know girls who are naturally extremely slender, and perhaps she is like that (though she is a model, so you probably wouldn't know. :/ )

Again, I wasn't calling Tolkein sexist and I really admire the man, especially in relation to his times. I will admit I forgot about Eowyn when I typed that up, and that was a wonderfully visionary move he made. "I am no man," is one of my favorite book/movie quotes (though part of that might be that it is simple enough for me to remember it exactly. :P ) Tolkein was just an example of the time period, and since his name sounds like Token, it's what I thought of, and for the record I was talking about The Hobbit not The Lord of the Rings. My point was, and I thought I tried to make this clear, that when a book is written, society is going to imprint it. The book can respond to society and try to imprint it, and I think that Tolkein did do that with Eowyn. Eowyn, Arwen, and Galadriel are all memorable characters, but there are a lot of memorable characters in his trilogy and most of them are male, so the ratio still isn't too great. Yes, the human parts of LOTR might mimic medieval attitudes, but last I checked, The Hobbit has a cast mostly made up of dwarves, and then of course there are the hobbits, whose societies does not need to be based on realism, like the elves weren't. And if you can't tell with dwarves (:P) then it would be even easier. He probably could have even gotten away without giving some of them genders, since a couple were only mentioned like three or four times in The Hobbit. :P Anyway, just a reminder, I'm not saying that Tolkein is sexist garbage, since it is something that pretty much anyone can find something to enjoy, just that times are different now. Tolkein didn't include more women because of the time, not the setting, but he did what he could and I respect him for it.

Quantity and quality does require balance, but it's not a trade off. I agree that we should worry more about quality storytelling, but that also means not being afraid to shake things up a little and to be a leader, not a follower. If you have all quality and no quantity, nothing gets done.

All stories are adaptations of something else, but I see what you are saying and I agree that we are in a bit of a slump (two Spider-Man trilogies in 15 years comes to mind) but studios do need to produce blockbusters so that they can afford to fund smaller artistic films that often go unnoticed. I think it is a fine tradeoff, since I don't have to pay to see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles nor Trans4mers, but if someone does, great, supply and demand. But maybe I'm crazy, because I do like a new take in a reboot, since a reboot that actually changes things up is, again, the closest thing that we have to oral storytelling this side of the locker room, and it grows our mythology. But good reboots are rare in cinema. :P There will always be good books as long as authors can write what they want, so I'm not too worried about that.

I'm glad this argument has worked itself out. :)

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

(By "so you wouldn't know :/" I mean nobody would know. :P )

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 0

Finally, we can agree with something. But yeah, I loved that "I am no man" scene. Even though that's not what the Witch King meant. :P

AwesomeknightBricktastic

126 months ago

Score 0

I probably think my main thing about representation is: Do it appropriately. Try to make it so it doesn't feel forced or preechy, and make sure it makes sense in the setting.

Stormjay RiderAmateur

126 months ago

Score 0

I actually heard about that little girl's letter just today -- from someone who had no idea that the FMS set had been in the works since last year, or that I played a small part in bringing its existence into being (no doubt if I hadn't voted, the surge of supporters would have taken that role.)

Bringing more girls on the LEGO scene is a move that I agreed with (otherwise I wouldn't have supported it) and obviously at least 9,999 other people agree with me. The LEGO universe needs more "real" female characters, not just females who live in an idyllic utopia somewhere that's shaped like a heart, or where my first impressions of all the female characters in a wave are "eye candy" (which, if you wanted to know, were my thoughts on Chima's first wave.) I've been working hard to introduce more female characters into my own MOCs, not only for the sake of "equality" but also because female characterization brings a different mindset, something beyond "I need to work on my hair" or "look at me, I'm hot." I would advise LEGO to do the same.

(And please, LEGO, please don't make the "Water Defender" male and no other Defenders female...)

Permalink | Reply

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

+1 (I know we have a button for that, but meh. :P )

I think it is okay if the first impression is that a woman is "eye candy" since that just means they are attractive, and I don't think anything is wrong with that. It's more how the characters are written. Eris may be sexualized, but she also looks like a warrior. Crooler on the other hand.... Chima's writing isn't doing the characters any favors. I haven't watched much Ninjago, but while Nya isn't ugly (I'm not going to call most minifigures attractive :P ) she has proven that she is capable of holding her own. As an outside observer I'm not entirely content with how she is always depicted, but I've seen much worse.

(I was confused when I found out that Tarix and Berix were male. I don't want to go through that again, because it just reflects badly on them. :P )

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

I've decided that "The article is rubbish and the author no doubt knows it" is true in a lot of cases. LEGO is popular right now because of Star Wars, Ninjago, TLM, and things like that, so it is easy for them to get into the news by finding a controversy. Some of them I do agree are actual issues, such as the gender ratio in themes like Ninjago or BIONICLE, but then "too many minifigure heads are angry" and to a lesser extent "LEGO prohibits creativity" strike me as either putting the blame on toys for societal issues when the roots lie elsewhere, bad parenting, or are just ignorant and silly (like the angry head one). That includes this Greenpeace stuff too, where it seems pretty obvious that they are attacking LEGO because it is more controversial (and therefore more likely to be reported) than directly attacking Shell.

Just my 2¢, and as Wired can tell you, that's basically worthless.

Permalink | Reply

BerrybrickLegendary Brickipedian

126 months ago

Score 0

Oh, and I only partly agree with Katie Hopkins. I'm not a mother nor a woman, so I have a different point of view naturally, but I think that it is important for toys, cartoons, etc. to depict women in respectable and interesting roles so that boys and girls alike can understand that it isn't abnormal for a woman to be strong while still being a woman. I guess she is right that it shouldn't be a toy company's first concern to change perceptions, but it sort of seems like she is complaining that they do.

And as for what LEGO "thinks" they are giving, I don't "think" they are giving fans anything more than what they want. It is the news and the press outlets that turned it into "LEGO responded to that letter from the 7 year old girl who was disappointed with Friends. Feminists rejoice!"

Though I don't think that toy companies or art outlets or whatever should be bullied by social and political groups to push a certain agenda, at least here the agenda was pushed respectively. In the debates about female minifigures having lipstick and why they shouldn't, or that LEGO should just release brick boxes, no, they aren't since they attack the company, but this project was proposed by a LEGO fan who saw an imbalance, and a lot of us agreed with her, so we voted. She didn't attack the company, she suggested a realistic way to change it. The effect might only be marginal, but I don't see why anyone thinks it would be a bad thing? They would receive more hate for passing it, after all....

Anyway, I do agree with her that I would like to see all of these political, social, and environmental groups to stop looking for violent and unrealistic change. They should know that isn't how change works, considering that is what they are supposed to be doing. Now, if it were a stage with President Obama delivering a speech or something along those lines, I could understand, but I think that depicting women as scientists, not matter the reason, is perfectly fine and should be encouraged....

I guess that the rest of what she says makes sense, and I sort of tapped that in my other comment (but didn't expand because I didn't want to be too controversial).

Ciao?

Retrieved from "https://en.brickimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickipedia_News:Outside_discussions_-_Girls_girls_girls&oldid=893462"

Facts

... more about "Outside discussions - Girls girls girls"

2014 +

12:35:00, 10 August 2014 +

Outside discussions - Girls girls girls +