Subject:
|
Re: Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jul 2007 16:49:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
12745 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
| |
Building equality one female minifig at a time. (My apologies in advance for
those of you that have already heard this rant.)
|
Surely we fans have lamented about this before, but like all classic topics, it
is worthy of bringing up again every now and then so newer members of the
community can share their thoughts. I also feel you presented yourself well,
and the replies have some new ideas. So there is no need for you to apologize!
| |
Frankly, bringing female figs into a few choice sets, such as some of the new
(non-emergency type) “town sets” really isn’t enough.
|
-snip-
Wow, very interesting reading this thread! I personally felt that TLC has been
doing a far better job in recent years than they used to - my collection is
weighted heavily toward the male/generic figs because so much of it is from the
1980’s. By comparison to those days, there are a lot of female figs. But this
discussion made me pause to think about it, and you are correct, it is not
perfect.
One gripe I feel is valid is that so many of the “cool” female figs are in rare
or expensive sets. I think it was Bruce who pointed out the SW females came
mostly in pricey sets. And I am reminded of some of the earliest female figs -
Pirate Wench, Ice-Babe - which came only in the largest sets of their themes at
the time. The result has been that budget-concerned buyers only end up with the
male or generic figs in their collection. Or, if like me, they do buy the
bigger sets sometimes, but cannot get more than a single copy. Either way, the
female figs remain rare. As a result of this hard-to-get situation, buying them
on resale (e.g. BrickLink) means paying a lot for just a single fig. (Ever try
to price the Ice-Babe?) ...So I agree with the general suggeston herein that it
would be nice to see both genders represented more in sets of all sizes - not
just the big ones.
The idea mentioned about including hair pieces (male and female) to give the
builder the decision of gender is a novel one. It would be nice to see this
used to some extent - almost like how old sets with flowers often included a few
extra ones to cover loss. But I would not want this strategy to completely
eliminate the inclusion of full female figs. Further, as indicated elsewhere in
this thread, the hair piece idea would only be effective in themes like Town or
Train where a fair amount of minifigs have hair instead of helmets, hoods, or
hats.
On that issue, we should realize that a generic smiley under a space or castle
helmet is only assumed to be male by most people. This assumption is just a
sign of our individual gender bias (the source of which I could only guess).
Who’s to say that redsuited space pilot isn’t female? Or that a castle guard
with only a smiley isn’t the niece of the king?
As for themes like Castle and Pirates, such sets are used for fantasy as much as
historical realism. If the builder leans towards the fanstasy, then it would be
appropriate to have female knights and soldiers. And even with the historical,
Joan of Arc-types, and female pirates were not unheard of.
Granted, I have that same bias mentioned above, wherein I think of generic
smilies as male. I personally don’t have issue with the red-lipsticked faces.
I feel they simply “symbolize” a female, the way unrealistic facial hair
“symbolizes” an unshaven male. Since it is only represntative, I have come to
love the use of the lipsticked faces under my Space and Castle helmets.
One idea I just had, which could work for all themes, but might seem awkward,
would be if sets always included the “two-sided heads”, but have one side be
female and one be male. This, mixed with the hair piece idea, would again put
the gender choice in the hands of the builder. (Though having a single figure
be both male and female could perhaps have some confusing social connotations.)
...Meanwhile, the original post here hinted at another issue - that of TLC
attracting girls to their products. Historically, TLC has tried to do this by
way of girl-centric themes (Homemaker, Belville, Paradisa, my sister used to
love Fabuland as a kid). It seems those kinds of themes never have staying
power, and fewer girls have never taken to the themes that us AFOLs prefer
(minifig/system themes, trains, robotics, etc.) While I love the ideas of this
thread to get more female figs - to make my displays more “real” (heck more dark
skinned figs would be good too!) - I’m not certain that more of such figs would
be enough to attract girls to the hobby. Maybe I’m wrong? ...Whether I’m right
or wrong, I suppose it would be cheaper for TLC to add a few female faces than
to design and produce another doomed pastel-theme...
Well, that was more than my 2 bricks worth. Thanks for the thread!
-Hendo
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
| (...) That has indeed been the case in some themes, but not all. The Ninja Princess (white ninja, for those who aren't familiar with that excellent, but short-lived line) came in the third-largest set (Emperor's Stronghold: $40), and one of the (...) (17 years ago, 2-Jul-07, to lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
| Building equality one female minifig at a time. (My apologies in advance for those of you that have already heard this rant.) Dear Lego, I have always been impressed with TLC's ability to provide quality products as well as sustaining valuable input (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego) !!
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
