LEGO Builds Representation With Female Scientist Set

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

LEGO Builds Representation With Female Scientist Set

research institute 350

LEGO promotes diversity in science with this fan-designed, all female "Research Institute" minifigure set.

Back in early 2012, LEGO revealed a lineup of toys called "LEGO Friends". This was the first set LEGO directed towards girls and focused on shopping, beauty, and decorating. Dissatisfied, LEGO fan Ellen Kooijman (who also goes by Alatariel Elensar), submitted her concepts for minifig sets based on women in science. Similarly, people took to blogs and social media to complain about the stereotypical "Friends" line. LEGO announced last month that it would mass produce a set of three minifigs based on Kooijman's design.

Kooijman, a geochemist and fan of LEGO, discovered LEGO CUUSOO (now LEGO Ideas) in 2012, a platform for submitting LEGO concepts. Once an idea received 10,000 votes, it could potentially be produced as an official LEGO product. Kooijman started with creating a minifig based on her profession and eventually created a dozen sets that covered everything from paleontology to courtrooms, but all represented professional women. Kooijman fianlly settled on a set which included a paleontologist, an astronomer and a chemist, and was comparable to the research institute where she worked.

LEGO approved, and nearly two years later Kooijman has received the final prototype of the "Research Institute" set, which she revealed and reviewed on her blog (as a scientist, she does her best to be "critical and objective"). The figures look great, and only one wears a "scientist uniform" (in other words, a lab coat). "It was important for me to convey the message that most scientists wear casual clothing," Kooijman says on her blog, "only a few institutes have strict dress codes." This also promotes the idea that careers in science are open to anyone, not just the "nerdy scientist" stereotype.

research institute scene

Most importantly, these are toys. They are directed at children and the sets include telescopes, labs, and large dinosaur skeletons. The figures offer multiple facial expressions, to help convey those stressful moments. Kooijman gives an example of a story children may create as her astronomer "spotted an asteroid plummeting towards Earth, the impact of which caused the T-rex to come alive."

Kooijman posted a number of images of the minifig set on her blog, which you can also check out in the gallery below.

Permalink

This is not a step into the right direction.

Gendering Toys to appease "the gender people" is not the way to go. Here is a crazy idea: Produce Lego sets with roughly equal distribution of genders across professions. Stop making "Girl" and "Boy"-Sets. Then we might get rid of these silly gender stereotypes like "Women inheriently bad at math, because of brain stuff" or "Boys like engineering more than girls because of brain stuff!"

I understand the gesture, but it is executed poorly since the marketeeing folks behind it clearly don't understand the issue. The core problem is not that women are poorly represtented in children's toys (though that is a problem). The core problem is that markeeting folks pick and choose gender and profession combinations for Toys in order to meet certain boardroom-demands without realizing that Toys can have an enormous effect on a child's mind and the way it views the world as an aduld.

Right now I see a certain danger of society putting pressure on women that do decide to become a Vet, a Nurse or a Teacher, because more and more sources keep bombarding women and girls with messages like "It is unenlightened to not puruse a career in sciences/engineering/buisness". Of course I am not saying that people should stop encouraging women to do that, I just think switching from one extreme form of gendering to the reverse extreme form is a poor way to go about that.

I disagree with the notion that creating one playset will lead to replacing every single playset with that one playset which leads to the other notion that they should never have made this playset.

If you have issues with how the world is portrayed to children, you should take that up with the parents that decide to give their children extremely skewed representation in either direction.

In addition, I also ask you to write a note of complaint about every single playset which has only men characters in it.

Exterminas:
This is not a step into the right direction.
*snip*

Except this decision, like all decisions, was not made in a vacuum. LEGO spent decades making all-male sets that featured figures in a variety of roles, and then an all-female set was made with the focus on gendered roles. Basically, LEGO had a problem, and releasing a couple all female sets before going into the "equal representation" area. Hell, right now it's not equal representation. Look at the LEGO line-up. If they want to get to "equal" then they have a lot of all-female sets to go.

Mike Hoffman:
...

You just proved Exterminas' point. Lego shouldn't be working to "right the past wrongs" of gendered playsets, they should just include male and female characters in future ones to create that ideal gender equality. This isn't a game to keep track of score or make tally marks for one side or the other until the scales are balanced, just start doing the right thing.

Mike Hoffman:
was not made in a vacuum.

This phrase is so condescending, I'm sick of it. What you're trying to explain is not that "it didn't occur in a vacuum", you're explaining that there is a context. No one assumes a decision is made in a literal vacuum of space, especially not when they spend three paragraphs establishing their rationale based on that same context.

I'm not too sure how an all white yellow female cast promotes diversity...Besides that, I've dressing most of my lego when I was young as if they were female because you can totally do that as they are more or less non-sex/gender specific. They all look like transvestites no matter how you look at it.

Some joke this is.

Mike Hoffman:
The figures look great, and only one wears a "scientist uniform" (in other words, a lab coat). "It was important for me to convey the message that most scientists wear casual clothing," Kooijman says on her blog, "only a few institutes have strict dress codes." This also promotes the idea that careers in science are open to anyone, not just the "nerdy scientist" stereotype.

Yeah, most scientists wear casual clothing, but this isn't real life - It's a Lego set. And given the number of minifigs Lego has, it would be nice to see that the ones in the Science set looked specifically 'sciencey' even if that was stereotypical. There are plenty of lines where I could get random casually dressed minifigs (both male and female). If you're going to design new minifigs for a focused product I personally would prefer ones who look dressed like they were made specifically for it.

That's really just a personal opinion from somebody who likes ridiculously over-the-top excessive outfits for Lego minifigs though.

I like how they're all flat

Well this just isn't right! why do all of these females have to adhere to the patriarchal standards of beauty?! lipstick, beauty marks, and even their bodies are painted on to look like they have an hour glass figure!!

SMASH THE PATRIARCHY!!

FogHornG36:
Well this just isn't right! why do all of these females have to adhere to the patriarchal standards of beauty?! lipstick, beauty marks, and even their bodies are painted on to look like they have an hour glass figure!!

After a second glance....yeah, they do all have that hourglass figure going on. It looks really silly. It also unnecessarily gender-codes the torsos. You ought to be able to re-use the same "lab coat" torso if you wanted to have a male scientist.

Some heads can have lipstick; that's fine. There's plenty of real-life lipstick users. Just not all of them.

The only thing that really ought to be significantly different is the hair. And that's just to have more variety in general. The only thing that really makes a fig male or female is the imagination.

kind of redundant considering LEGO's girl oriented playsets

NuclearKangaroo:
kind of redundant considering LEGO's girl oriented playsets

Which all have the minifigs that are almost completely incompatible with the standards figs.
Also they have no scientists. They are all princesses or kids with hobbies.
What was your point?

Veylon:

FogHornG36:
Well this just isn't right! why do all of these females have to adhere to the patriarchal standards of beauty?! lipstick, beauty marks, and even their bodies are painted on to look like they have an hour glass figure!!

After a second glance....yeah, they do all have that hourglass figure going on. It looks really silly. It also unnecessarily gender-codes the torsos. You ought to be able to re-use the same "lab coat" torso if you wanted to have a male scientist.

Yes, I'm sure I saw a much better version of this set without that. Was it a prototype?

I hate that hourglass-figure thing just for purely aesthetic reasons.

Nothing will ever beat the old original pirate sets. Knights were pretty cool too. And the underwater set... and the ninja set. Christ. LEGOS were fucking awesome.

Yeah that's kinda cool and - LEGO T-REX SKELETON!? TAKE MY MONIES!

Of course they're all YELLOW.

Wow! The misinformation is strong with this article.

Friends were NOT the first sets Lego made for girls. in fact Lego has made a variety of girl targeted themes and projects over the years. Most have faired badly in the marketplace. Scala, Beville, Paradisa to name a few. Not to mention much of the first three waves (2 years) of their Harry Potter license.

In fact much of the older Lego products from the 70's was really as requested gender neutral or leaning slightly more towards girls. But the truth is the boy target market grew more and faster and grabbed up the product. The girls just weren't interested. Friends was the first Lego line for girls that was an actual commercial success. As far as Friends being dedicated to 'Shopping Beauty and Decorating"? Ummm? The main Friends sets include a Vet Clinic, a Farm, a Bakery, a Cruise Ship, a School, a Riding Stable, etc. oh... and an Engineering and Robotics Lab. Aside from being more than a bit small animal and pony focused, it's not exactly the epitome of bad influences for girls.

Alatariels set is nice. It's a fun little set. Yes it does help even out the gender representations among the more traditional minifigs. (Something that really is nowhere near as bad as some seem to feel.) But it's not exactly anything groundbreaking.

...and how many children are just going to make the scientist ride the skeleton T-Rex into battle regardless of gender or profession?

Exterminas:
This is not a step into the right direction.

Gendering Toys to appease "the gender people" is not the way to go.

Which is why adding a single set dedicated to women is nice to have against a majority of sets having only men.

Here is a crazy idea: Produce Lego sets with roughly equal distribution of genders across professions. Stop making "Girl" and "Boy"-Sets. Then we might get rid of these silly gender stereotypes like "Women inheriently bad at math, because of brain stuff" or "Boys like engineering more than girls because of brain stuff!"

That would be a good argument if there weren't already an overwhelming majority of "boy"-sets.

I understand the gesture, but it is executed poorly since the marketeeing folks behind it clearly don't understand the issue.

Though I don't intend this as insulting, I honestly don't think you do either.

The core problem is not that women are poorly represtented in children's toys (though that is a problem). The core problem is that markeeting folks pick and choose gender and profession combinations for Toys in order to meet certain boardroom-demands without realizing that Toys can have an enormous effect on a child's mind and the way it views the world as an aduld.

...so, why are you against a Toy set that portrays women in oft-underrepresented roles if those toys have an enormous effect on children's minds? We certainly have many similar sets for boys.

Right now I see a certain danger of society putting pressure on women that do decide to become a Vet, a Nurse or a Teacher, because more and more sources keep bombarding women and girls with messages like "It is unenlightened to not puruse a career in sciences/engineering/buisness".

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. You're basically saying that, somehow, encouraging women to pursue careers in normally male-dominated career paths is a bad thing because women who choose to not do that are somehow being devalued, which I just can't see as being true in any way. It is not devaluing to encourage women to pursue careers that they are often systematically, societally, and culturally excluded from by virtue of their gender. It's like saying that encouraging men that it's okay to be stay-at-home dads is devaluing to those who pursue work in the military, its insulting to all genders frankly.

Of course I am not saying that people should stop encouraging women to do that, I just think switching from one extreme form of gendering to the reverse extreme form is a poor way to go about that.

But you're expressing concern over a company encouraging women to pursue career paths that are not normally filled by women, or at least not as represented. That, to me, sounds like you're saying that Lego shouldn't be doing that because "oh no, it's extreme gendering by encouraging women to go for the opposite career of what society generally tells them! Don't do that!" which is faulty logic.

I honestly can't quite fathom why you'd be so intensely against a single Lego set that happens to want to focus on women in less commonly portrayed roles in our media as a method of encouragement to girls.

Lieju:

NuclearKangaroo:
kind of redundant considering LEGO's girl oriented playsets

Which all have the minifigs that are almost completely incompatible with the standards figs.
Also they have no scientists. They are all princesses or kids with hobbies.
What was your point?

Actually, they did have a scientist set - Olivia's Invention workshop. Out of production now, because nobody bought it apparently. There are also vets, teachers and so forth. Basically the standard 'lego profession' line, except with different minifigs, and a more pastelle-ish sort of colour choice.

As another poster mentioned, they have done female oriented lego sets before a few times, they just tend not to do well - except for the friends line. Paradisa was your basic 'people having fun in different ways' sort of lego set that was ubiquitous across nineties lego except it had a light pink colour scheme, but there were also a couple "pretty princess" lines.

I think the key thing to think about is what Lego fans think will be fun to play with and build. When I was a kid, I loved the cars, trucks, speedboat and ocean based sets. Why not simply add female Lego characters to such sets?

If I saw this as a kid I'd probably only want it for the T-rex skeleton :/

EvilRoy:

Lieju:

NuclearKangaroo:
kind of redundant considering LEGO's girl oriented playsets

Which all have the minifigs that are almost completely incompatible with the standards figs.
Also they have no scientists. They are all princesses or kids with hobbies.
What was your point?

Actually, they did have a scientist set - Olivia's Invention workshop. Out of production now, because nobody bought it apparently. There are also vets, teachers and so forth. Basically the standard 'lego profession' line, except with different minifigs, and a more pastelle-ish sort of colour choice.

As another poster mentioned, they have done female oriented lego sets before a few times, they just tend not to do well - except for the friends line. Paradisa was your basic 'people having fun in different ways' sort of lego set that was ubiquitous across nineties lego except it had a light pink colour scheme, but there were also a couple "pretty princess" lines.

Why is this female scientist set 'female oriented' in itself, though?
Boys can't want female minifigs?

And that Friends-set didn't have a scientist minifig (it was a girl dressed in casual clothing), so how does it make these redundant?

EDIT: I do say this for LEGO, as far as female minifigs go, they have done good job with the collectable minifigs line, where we also got monster ladies, like a vampire bat and a gorgon.
And cavewomen and lady liberty, all kinds of diverse female figs.
(But I guess those too are 'just for girls', why would a boy want a badass female viking or a vampire?)

Stabby Joe:
...and how many children are just going to make the scientist ride the skeleton T-Rex into battle regardless of gender or profession?

xD You say that like it's a bad thing. Also, the answer is; :D ALL THE KIDS!

Anyway, neat figure sets. Good to see they made them compatible with the other sets this time. :)

Risingblade:
I like how they're all flat

HA!

Why is everyone getting worked up over children's toys. If anything we should all be upset about the fact their going to charge $30 for this underwhelming playset.

The facial expressions on these are great.

Both faces on the astronomer look like she's totally misusing her equipment to spy on her sexy neighbor.

The Chemist's "neutral" face is, I'm sure meant to be one of deep concentration...but it kinda looks like she's one bad day away from turning full supervillain.

Exterminas:
*Brevity Snip

^this
I do not ask for the "girls" or "boys" toy for my son when I get a Happy Meal. I ask him what toy he wants to play with and I ask for that toy. He wanted the some MLP stuffed animal on an end cap the other day, and I was like sure buddy. Then the lady at the register asked him if that was for his sister and he (2 year old) got pissed of at her and said "it mine!"

So to the OT if it were a step toward "promoting diversity" then it would be 50% M/F, like life, not 100% Female or 100% Male, like nowhere. Instead it is just a toy set with only women, just like the ones before it only had men.

beef_razor:
Nothing will ever beat the old original pirate sets. Knights were pretty cool too. And the underwater set... and the ninja set. Christ. LEGOS were fucking awesome.

My favorite was the alien space bug sets with the neon yellow everything.

And then there was the set with Rock people who lived underground and had giant chrome drills oneverything.

Remember that weird anime inspired set with the flying robots? That was great.

Point is, I'm more concerned with stuff being cool rather stuff being PC.

Exterminas:
This is not a step into the right direction.

THANK YOU!

In my eyes, the solution to there not being enough female Lego characters in playsets is to mix-up the genders to be something closer to 50/50 - maybe even include an extra figure or two if needed - not to release all-new "girl" Legos. All that does is lead to additional segregation.

Mike Hoffman:

Exterminas:
This is not a step into the right direction.
*snip*

Except this decision, like all decisions, was not made in a vacuum. LEGO spent decades making all-male sets that featured figures in a variety of roles, and then an all-female set was made with the focus on gendered roles. Basically, LEGO had a problem, and releasing a couple all female sets before going into the "equal representation" area. Hell, right now it's not equal representation. Look at the LEGO line-up. If they want to get to "equal" then they have a lot of all-female sets to go.

That's like saying that the solution to slavery is that blacks should have been allowed to enslave whites for a century or two; or that we should still have "whites" and "blacks" bathrooms, but now the blacks will have the nice bathrooms, then eventually when we've "evened-out" we can start sharing bathrooms. As the old idiom states: Two wrongs do not make a right. "Girls-only" Legos is not the answer to the notion that Lego playsets are too male-oriented.

BlumiereBleck:

Risingblade:
I like how they're all flat

HA!

Why is everyone getting worked up over children's toys.

Basically because of this:

All toys are educational, whether they are intended to be or not.

WhiteTigerShiro:

Exterminas:
This is not a step into the right direction.

THANK YOU!

In my eyes, the solution to there not being enough female Lego characters in playsets is to mix-up the genders to be something closer to 50/50 - maybe even include an extra figure or two if needed - not to release all-new "girl" Legos. All that does is lead to additional segregation.

Mike Hoffman:

Exterminas:
This is not a step into the right direction.
*snip*

Except this decision, like all decisions, was not made in a vacuum. LEGO spent decades making all-male sets that featured figures in a variety of roles, and then an all-female set was made with the focus on gendered roles. Basically, LEGO had a problem, and releasing a couple all female sets before going into the "equal representation" area. Hell, right now it's not equal representation. Look at the LEGO line-up. If they want to get to "equal" then they have a lot of all-female sets to go.

That's like saying that the solution to slavery is that blacks should have been allowed to enslave whites for a century or two; or that we should still have "whites" and "blacks" bathrooms, but now the blacks will have the nice bathrooms, then eventually when we've "evened-out" we can start sharing bathrooms. As the old idiom states: Two wrongs do not make a right. "Girls-only" Legos is not the answer to the notion that Lego playsets are too male-oriented.

I think you are being hyperbolic. Making all female sets with female scientists won't take away from the all male lego moon bases, pirate ships and other sets aimed at boys; if a boy wants sciencey lego, those sets still exist. Boys aren't being discriminated against because of the existence of these lady scientists, but girls were being discriminated by the lack of lady scientists. If you've got pro science/pro-technology/pro-action sets aimed at boys and girls, you aren't doing any harm.

I would however like to see more lego sets encouraging boys to be stylists, pony riders and florists.

Lieju:

EvilRoy:

Lieju:

Which all have the minifigs that are almost completely incompatible with the standards figs.
Also they have no scientists. They are all princesses or kids with hobbies.
What was your point?

Actually, they did have a scientist set - Olivia's Invention workshop. Out of production now, because nobody bought it apparently. There are also vets, teachers and so forth. Basically the standard 'lego profession' line, except with different minifigs, and a more pastelle-ish sort of colour choice.

As another poster mentioned, they have done female oriented lego sets before a few times, they just tend not to do well - except for the friends line. Paradisa was your basic 'people having fun in different ways' sort of lego set that was ubiquitous across nineties lego except it had a light pink colour scheme, but there were also a couple "pretty princess" lines.

Why is this female scientist set 'female oriented' in itself, though?
Boys can't want female minifigs?

And that Friends-set didn't have a scientist minifig (it was a girl dressed in casual clothing), so how does it make these redundant?

The spellchecker is driving me up the wall but I'm not adding minifig to the dictionary.

Anyway, I never claimed it makes them redundant, just that lego has, in the past, totally done things that aren't stereotypically girly for sets aimed at girls, contrary to the claim you had made.

I did have to do some research to figure out when this whole 'lego people with jobs' thing really started though. It wasn't like this when I grew up, it was 'car' or 'castle' or 'space-something', plus some yellow people, most of whom didn't even have drawn on hair. This whole legoes with jobs thing seems to be relatively new outside the old fireman/policeman standby.

EDIT: I do say this for LEGO, as far as female minifigs go, they have done good job with the collectable minifigs line, where we also got monster ladies, like a vampire bat and a gorgon.
And cavewomen and lady liberty, all kinds of diverse female figs.
(But I guess those too are 'just for girls', why would a boy want a badass female viking or a vampire?)

I imagine from the perspective of lego the friends sets are as 'just for girls' as everything else is 'just for boys'. Its not like they discourage girls from buying any of the other sets, parents just apparently don't do it. I seem to remember reading an interview that the whole 'pink' sets were a reaction to the fact that the otherwise gender neutral sets were only selling to boys and lego - like most companies with a near monopoly - really like money.

maninahat:
I think you are being hyperbolic. Making all female sets with female scientists won't take away from the all male lego moon bases, pirate ships and other sets aimed at boys; if a boy wants sciencey lego, those sets still exist. Boys aren't being discriminated against because of the existence of these lady scientists, but girls were being discriminated by the lack of lady scientists. If you've got pro science/pro-technology/pro-action sets aimed at boys and girls, you aren't doing any harm.

It's not about these sets "taking away from" the "male Legos", it's that these sets don't do anything to address the fact that they ARE "male Legos" in the first place. The solution to segregation isn't to introduce more segregation. Meanwhile, what if girls want to play with these moon base Lego sets, but are turned-off by the fact that all of the characters are male? Or what if a male wants to have a modern-day scientist to go with his city set, but doesn't want it to be just women scientists?

We haven't solved a problem; we've just created a new one while leaving the old problem intact.

Slash2x:
I do not ask for the "girls" or "boys" toy for my son when I get a Happy Meal. I ask him what toy he wants to play with and I ask for that toy. He wanted the some MLP stuffed animal on an end cap the other day, and I was like sure buddy. Then the lady at the register asked him if that was for his sister and he (2 year old) got pissed of at her and said "it mine!"

Good for your son, and good for you for being supportive over that.

I'd imagine it would be better to have more opportunities to choose "girl" toys 'cause toys are toys.

So to the OT if it were a step toward "promoting diversity" then it would be 50% M/F, like life, not 100% Female or 100% Male, like nowhere. Instead it is just a toy set with only women, just like the ones before it only had men.

That would be a valid argument if there weren't already a huge majority of male versions already. It's a false equivalency. When one person wants a 100 meter bridge, and the other doesn't one a bridge at all, the solution is not to make a 50 meter bridge. Adding a toy set that's dedicated to a historically underrepresented group of people is not being unfair to the group of historically overrepresented people, it's simple representation.

WhiteTigerShiro:
In my eyes, the solution to there not being enough female Lego characters in playsets is to mix-up the genders to be something closer to 50/50 - maybe even include an extra figure or two if needed - not to release all-new "girl" Legos. All that does is lead to additional segregation.

Again, this would be valid if there weren't already a huge skew in representation towards men.

Lets take a mathematical approach to this, switch things up. Lets say there are 75 male figures, and only 25 female ones. We could have sets that are now 50/50 male:female figurines, but that still leaves male figurines in the majority. The only way to get a proper 50/50 representation is to provide female-only sets. Especially considering that there are already a plethora of male-only sets, I don't see the issue. I do not assume malicious intent by Lego, it's just what it is.

That's like saying that the solution to slavery is that blacks should have been allowed to enslave whites for a century or two; or that we should still have "whites" and "blacks" bathrooms, but now the blacks will have the nice bathrooms, then eventually when we've "evened-out" we can start sharing bathrooms. As the old idiom states: Two wrongs do not make a right. "Girls-only" Legos is not the answer to the notion that Lego playsets are too male-oriented.

It is not the equivalent at all. Slavery is not equivalent to representation in most any sense that I can think of, they're two widely different topics. Slavery involves one group dominating itself over another, and ideally would be better with less representatives. Segregation involves disenfranchising already underrepresented minorities, it works opposite of representation.

Really think about what you're saying. You are comparing a toy set intended to bring more representation to a historically underrepresented group to the act of slavery and the arbitrary segregation of people based on factors they cannot control (an act that, as I said before, limits representation). You're saying it is unacceptable for women to have more representation in a medium that is dominated by male representation. The only solution is to arbitrarily go 50/50, still giving men the dominant supply of representation.

If you really wanted to keep with your slavery/segregation analogy, a better version would be to say that, say, back in the 1960s we should have emphasized great black teachers in our school systems to show that minorities could achieve greatness, or show black kids in segregated and low-quality schools that they can be just as successful and hard-working as their supposed better whites.

This toy set is intended to highlight an underrepresented group of people because they shouldn't need to in the first place. That's why it's important.

I see the female astronomer is running away from the T-Rex instead of defending herself - that's pretty sexist, yo.

FogHornG36:
Well this just isn't right! why do all of these females have to adhere to the patriarchal standards of beauty?! lipstick, beauty marks, and even their bodies are painted on to look like they have an hour glass figure!!

SMASH THE PATRIARCHY!!

Alright Foghorn but make sure you pack away all the bits of the Patriarchy: I don't want to stand on any misogyny when I've just woken up.

WhiteTigerShiro:
It's not about these sets "taking away from" the "male Legos", it's that these sets don't do anything to address the fact that they ARE "male Legos" in the first place. The solution to segregation isn't to introduce more segregation. Meanwhile, what if girls want to play with these moon base Lego sets, but are turned-off by the fact that all of the characters are male? Or what if a male wants to have a modern-day scientist to go with his city set, but doesn't want it to be just women scientists?

We haven't solved a problem; we've just created a new one while leaving the old problem intact.

1) I think you are giving excitable 5 to 10 year old kids way too much credit in what they actually care about.

2) We should probably teach kids that it doesn't matter whether or not a minifig is a woman or not, which leads to...
-2a) If the same child didn't want a playset simply because it had a black minifig, I'd hope you'd be quite uncomfortable with that notion and question what his/her parents are teaching them.

3) Even if we do accept your hypothetical, young boys would have much more variety of options regarding whether or not they want their Lego people to be women or not. There are plenty of male scientist minifigs, several of which carry around badass whips and go on adventures from what I understand.

4) Again, you are comparing segregation, a social policy meant to reduce representation in minorities (See: Apartheid in South Africa), to actual representation.

Jumplion:

Mike Hoffman:
That's like saying that the solution to slavery is that blacks....

Hey could you fix that quote? :D

Also, since I'm here, I've noticed all the counter-arguments in this thread. I don't care to engage in arguments, which is why I haven't responded directly to anyone and I don't intend to. I would like to share an image I'm sure we've all seen before.


If the first thing you want to do is poke holes in that, fine. Otherwise, consider how it applies to this situation.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here