Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Davor wrote:
I wonder if the OP takes offence of the Blood Angels having Nipples on their armour.

He'd probably throw a fit if he saw pBorka.




Dat codpiece.

 Ailaros wrote:

Oh my goodness, yes.

Look at the tragic case of Lego right now. They figured out that 80% of who plays with their toys are male, so their solution was to come out with a line of ridiculously over-the-top female stereotype lego sets. You can almost hear the painfully awkward "Well, uhh, I guess we need to make some kits around shopping and ponies" conversation that had to have taken place at a board meeting.

I'm not a woman, but even I'm grossly offended by the idea that girls can't like science, or astronauts, or the middle ages, or under-the-sea, or star wars, or any of their existing kits. No, they need to be pandered to horribly with things like this:

Spoiler:

I'm going to jump to LEGO's defense here.
LEGO tried for decades to both launch "girly" type/color sets and to get more girls to buy the "regular" LEGO sets. They were unsuccessful at every turn. The most recent line of "Friends" sets is one of LEGO's most successful lines EVER, for boys or girls. I've got a buddy who works at the LEGO store and they have a hard time keeping them in stock.

It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.

Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).

 Eilif wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Oh my goodness, yes.

Look at the tragic case of Lego right now. They figured out that 80% of who plays with their toys are male, so their solution was to come out with a line of ridiculously over-the-top female stereotype lego sets. You can almost hear the painfully awkward "Well, uhh, I guess we need to make some kits around shopping and ponies" conversation that had to have taken place at a board meeting.

I'm not a woman, but even I'm grossly offended by the idea that girls can't like science, or astronauts, or the middle ages, or under-the-sea, or star wars, or any of their existing kits. No, they need to be pandered to horribly with things like this:

Spoiler:

I'm going to jump to LEGO's defense here.
LEGO tried for decades to both launch "girly" type/color sets and to get more girls to buy the "regular" LEGO sets. They were unsuccessful at every turn. The most recent line of "Friends" sets is one of LEGO's most successful lines EVER, for boys or girls. I've got a buddy who works at the LEGO store and they have a hard time keeping them in stock.

It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.

Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).

Eilif nails it, actually. If you actually look into the history of this issue, everything Eilif says is 100% true and the massive popularity of the Friends lines had a big push that ensured them the #1 Toy Company slot. Friends had been a long time in development after a lot of very careful research into why girls weren't buying. And they're STILL listening to the market, hence why there's now things like scientists and the like in the line.

Regarding my comment about IG Israeli, IG Nazi, or IG taliban forces.

If you would please notice I did not actually say they are equal or morally the same.

Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.

but rather its obvious given the amount of responses it generated that the mere existence of things that mirror real world social/political/religious issues whether you think its okay or not is an issue for some people as either an antagonistic or reactionary protaganistic expression that is not needed in what is essentially a game designed for 12+ year olds.

the responses both "why are you bothered" or "of course I am bothered" by that obviously show that its not something that should be on the table top in public play.

Which is why i stated some people are bothered by them, which is true, just like some people would be bothered by a slaaneshi marine that's noise blaster was his penis.

Most people are playing to have fun, and don't want real world issues injected into the game.

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's also not saying that said Batman is what all women find attractive.

Well actually the comic does say "It has jack to do with what a female such as myself finds attractive", which implies the end result is something a female such as her would find attractive.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Willis(through Amber there) is simply using the Batman as an example of how he may be designed by a female is he was to be an objectified fantasy for females.

Yeah but I don't think that is an accurate representation of what an objectified fantasy for females would be anyway The image looks like a bug eyed freak... maybe I've totally underestimated women but I just don't see it as something that would be a positive fantasy for a female, which makes the point of the cartoon somewhat lessened.

It might be a fantasy for someone, and I tend to think that someone could be either male or female, but I don't think it works as a generalised gender vs gender thing. I think if you made something that was generally what a female envisioning of Batman was (not just an attempt to make it freakish to prove a point) it would be something most men wouldn't find so disgusting (other than the fact it's specifically batman and so you're playing with fire regardless of what the interpretation is ).

At the end of the day, people are going to make art of what they want to make art about. It's something they want to create and it should be their right to create it.

If there is a lack of female focused art (in the forms of comics, video games, miniatures) it's because there's a lack of female focus in the design level and a lack of female desire at the community level. I'm not saying that's not necessarily a problem, it may be a problem it may not be a problem, but whether it is or isn't a problem, the answer isn't to tell someone they must create something different to what they want to create. Nor is it to tell people they aren't allowed to enjoy something.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's also not saying that said Batman is what all women find attractive.

Well actually the comic does say "It has jack to do with what a female such as myself finds attractive", which implies the end result is something a female such as her would find attractive.

Yes. Note the bolded part, which implies personal preference. It's not worded "what a female finds attractive", which is how you're reading it.

 Platuan4th wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's also not saying that said Batman is what all women find attractive.

Well actually the comic does say "It has jack to do with what a female such as myself finds attractive", which implies the end result is something a female such as her would find attractive.

Yes. Note the bolded part, which implies personal preference. It's not worded "what a female finds attractive", which is how you're reading it.

Sorry for the ninja editing of my previous post.

But if it's simply what that specific person who happens to be female finds attractive... what exactly was the point of the cartoon? I look at that bug eyed batman and think "creepy bug eyed freak", and I tend to think there would be plenty of females who look at it and think "creepy bug eyed freak". It's just a personal like and dislike thing rather than a gender thing. There are also dudes who are bronies

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Willis(through Amber there) is simply using the Batman as an example of how he may be designed by a female is he was to be an objectified fantasy for females.

Yeah but I don't think that is an accurate representation of what an objectified fantasy for females would be anyway The image looks like a bug eyed freak... maybe I've totally underestimated women but I just don't see it as something that would be a positive fantasy for a female, which makes the point of the cartoon somewhat lessened.

You keep saying this stuff about "bug eyed freak", but larger eyes =/=bug eyed(bug eyed would be much more like Looney Tunes styled Peter Lorre eyes that bulge), and I'm not seeing the bug-eyes here, more a yaio style of eyes. Larger eyes convey more emotion, which is what she's aiming to convey, and many women DO find larger, more expressive eyes to be more attractive on a man.

So shall we start a poll on what females find attractive?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But if it's simply what that specific person who happens to be female finds attractive... what exactly was the point of the cartoon?

I already explained that.

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's showing that the argument that things that are a Male Power Fantasy(which superheroes are designed to be) are sexually objectified for women is a False Equivalence because it's not designed to be a sexually attractive fantasy for the average female. In contrast, female superheroes and villains ARE designed to be sexually objectified fantasy for the average male.

 Platuan4th wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But if it's simply what that specific person who happens to be female finds attractive... what exactly was the point of the cartoon?

I already explained that.

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's showing that the argument that things that are a Male Power Fantasy(which superheroes are designed to be) are sexually objectified for women is a False Equivalence because it's not designed to be a sexually attractive fantasy for the average female. In contrast, female superheroes and villains ARE designed to be sexually objectified fantasy for the average male.

But then what would a superhero that is sexually objectified for women actually look like? Because I don't think it'd look like that Batman. I tend to think it wouldn't look like something a man would find creepy or disturbing like that cartoon shows. But I'm not a woman so I can't really speak to what objectively would be a sexually attractive superhero/villian (and just because I am a man doesn't mean I'd presume to think what I find attractive in a woman applies to all men either).

blaktoof wrote:
Regarding my comment about IG Israeli, IG Nazi, or IG taliban forces.

If you would please notice I did not actually say they are equal or morally the same.

Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.

but rather its obvious given the amount of responses it generated that the mere existence of things that mirror real world social/political/religious issues whether you think its okay or not is an issue for some people as either an antagonistic or reactionary protaganistic expression that is not needed in what is essentially a game designed for 12+ year olds.

the responses both "why are you bothered" or "of course I am bothered" by that obviously show that its not something that should be on the table top in public play.

Which is why i stated some people are bothered by them, which is true, just like some people would be bothered by a slaaneshi marine that's noise blaster was his penis.

Most people are playing to have fun, and don't want real world issues injected into the game.

The problem, which many people have pointed out, is that you're basically validating a heckler's veto: at a certain point, the onus is on the extra-ordinarily sensitive viewer to endure the assault on their rarefied senses.

Consider this somewhat puzzling argument advanced by Weeble;

weeble1000 wrote:
But that's not what you wrote, was it? Unless your sole point of disagreement was that there is no possible way for a variable interpretation to have an objective basis. Were you really only arguing that because someone can interpret something in a way that is different than someone else's interpretation, no one can possibly have an objective opinion about it? That's rather postmodern of you. ...

Which ties into what he mentioned earlier,

weeble1000 wrote:
... There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.

The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. I do not personally have much of a problem with the model, but fair is fair. As the OP pointed out, one could look at the female miniatures in the model as being subordinated or sexually objectified. And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object suggests, on its face, that the women are being objectified. If someone has a problem with objectification of women, there is an objective basis on which to consider the model to objectify women.

The problem with making the IDF controversial, or Weeble's odd usage of "objective" in this discussion is the shifting of responsibility: under Weeble and your construction, a person that responds to a kippa on a Imperial Guardsman (or whatever they are called now) with "What is that, some kinda F'in Christkiller?" has an "objective basis" for their outburst. After all, you've brought "real world nonsense" into the game, and you know there are some people that like to get their Judenhass on.

Let's use a different, less charged example: you start setting up for a random game, and when you take your SoB army out, the person on the other side of the table says "oh, sorry, I don't play against Sisters, because X". X could be a load of things: perhaps it's a fellow that won't play against army of unveiled women. Or a woman that objects to fighting a female army out of gender solidarity. Or a chivilrious fellow that won't hit a girl. Or a thousand other reasons, each bearing the same signature quality: it is a characteristic of the opponent that is creating the controversy, not the items on the table.

Outside of certain well defined groups, a person may reasonably expect that they are not going to run into people that react badly to an IDF themed army, or to gratuitous sexuality with Chaos forces.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But I'm not a woman so I can't really speak to what objectively would be a sexually attractive superhero/villian

And now you understand the point of what she's saying.

 Platuan4th wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But if it's simply what that specific person who happens to be female finds attractive... what exactly was the point of the cartoon?

I already explained that.

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's showing that the argument that things that are a Male Power Fantasy(which superheroes are designed to be) are sexually objectified for women is a False Equivalence because it's not designed to be a sexually attractive fantasy for the average female. In contrast, female superheroes and villains ARE designed to be sexually objectified fantasy for the average male.

The problem here is that the available evidence is that... what you're saying just doesn't seem to be supported.

That is to say, men's power fantasies generally correspond to what women find attractive, and female power fantasies generally correspond to what man find attractive.

An earlier poster made the point quite plainly: when women chose their sexual fantasies, the marketplace for square jawed, muscular men, and powerful, cruel, dark men, are what women choose to buy.

The problem with that comic is it implies there is some unmet demand by women for men that look like they should be on the cover of Tiger Beat... and it just doesn't seem to be true.

 Platuan4th wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But I'm not a woman so I can't really speak to what objectively would be a sexually attractive superhero/villian

And now you understand the point of what she's saying.

But her point is largely wrong...

Sure, there are those girls who go for the feminized form that you find in actors like the Twilight movies...

However, larger portions of objectively available data show that they go for something more like the main character of Arrow.

It also ignores that the drawings are, as I said before, not objectifications - but idealizations. Again, backed up by objective data in spades. How people view it subjectively is a different matter, and says more about the viewer than it does the work or the artist who creates the work.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

However, larger portions of objectively available data show that they go for something more like the main character of Arrow.

Who, incidentally, matches that Batman by being an athletically built, thinner, lithe male with expressive eyes.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Regarding my comment about IG Israeli, IG Nazi, or IG taliban forces.

If you would please notice I did not actually say they are equal or morally the same.

Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.

but rather its obvious given the amount of responses it generated that the mere existence of things that mirror real world social/political/religious issues whether you think its okay or not is an issue for some people as either an antagonistic or reactionary protaganistic expression that is not needed in what is essentially a game designed for 12+ year olds.

the responses both "why are you bothered" or "of course I am bothered" by that obviously show that its not something that should be on the table top in public play.

Which is why i stated some people are bothered by them, which is true, just like some people would be bothered by a slaaneshi marine that's noise blaster was his penis.

Most people are playing to have fun, and don't want real world issues injected into the game.

The problem, which many people have pointed out, is that you're basically validating a heckler's veto: at a certain point, the onus is on the extra-ordinarily sensitive viewer to endure the assault on their rarefied senses.

Consider this somewhat puzzling argument advanced by Weeble;

weeble1000 wrote:
But that's not what you wrote, was it? Unless your sole point of disagreement was that there is no possible way for a variable interpretation to have an objective basis. Were you really only arguing that because someone can interpret something in a way that is different than someone else's interpretation, no one can possibly have an objective opinion about it? That's rather postmodern of you. ...

Which ties into what he mentioned earlier,

weeble1000 wrote:
... There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.

The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. I do not personally have much of a problem with the model, but fair is fair. As the OP pointed out, one could look at the female miniatures in the model as being subordinated or sexually objectified. And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object suggests, on its face, that the women are being objectified. If someone has a problem with objectification of women, there is an objective basis on which to consider the model to objectify women.

The problem with making the IDF controversial, or Weeble's odd usage of "objective" in this discussion is the shifting of responsibility: under Weeble and your construction, a person that responds to a kippa on a Imperial Guardsman (or whatever they are called now) with "What is that, some kinda F'in Christkiller?" has an "objective basis" for their outburst. After all, you've brought "real world nonsense" into the game, and you know there are some people that like to get their Judenhass on.

Let's use a different, less charged example: you start setting up for a random game, and when you take your SoB army out, the person on the other side of the table says "oh, sorry, I don't play against Sisters, because X". X could be a load of things: perhaps it's a fellow that won't play against army of unveiled women. Or a woman that objects to fighting a female army out of gender solidarity. Or a chivilrious fellow that won't hit a girl. Or a thousand other reasons, each bearing the same signature quality: it is a characteristic of the opponent that is creating the controversy, not the items on the table.

Outside of certain well defined groups, a person may reasonably expect that they are not going to run into people that react badly to an IDF themed army, or to gratuitous sexuality with Chaos forces.

I think the difference in our discussion is that if someone finds a standard army that is produced by GW controversial, is one thing.

However someone going out of their way to model / paint their army to be a certain real world theme that is not present overtly in the game, is another.

One is injecting a real world personal bias against something that is already produced by the company, GW.

The other is taking a real world issue some people have bias with, and modifying product sold by GW in a way to inject that bias directly into the game as the person across from you, or beside you if its a team game.

I played in a tournament once against an ork player who had a "nazi" ork army, they weren't blood axes[not that this really matters...]. They were just painted all in SS uniforms with swastikas everywhere. The TO okayed it, and honestly I felt awkward playing against the guy. When I politely asked him about his army paint scheme and why he chose it, he just laughed and said it looked "badass".

There are depictions of female models I don't really like, because they are overtly sexualized in a way that is more like silicone than natural in some cases, but overall I was never bothered when seeing them on the table. I am also very aware of the "fascist" type iconography which is thrown about among the imperial factions, but there is something much different when its the player across from you overtly injecting a real world issues onto the table top, then when its something done by the game company. Perhaps it is that there is the person right there infront of you overtly making the statement, who you can see and identify and are more or less forced to interact with if you choose to play the game with them. And then there is the GW company, whos injection of real world issues is present, but not overtly often, and is not right there infront of you playing with you.

 Platuan4th wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But I'm not a woman so I can't really speak to what objectively would be a sexually attractive superhero/villian

And now you understand the point of what she's saying.

But for the point to be a meaningful point you actually have to show what a male superhero sexualised for females would look like... and I don't think it's the representation of batman shown in the cartoon.

I've never really gotten in to these conversations before because my level of caring is very low***, so forgive my ignorance But I've heard this argument before and it's never really made sense to me because for it to be valid there has to be some sort of vision of a male superhero that is sexualised for females. The argument seems to go like this...

"females in comics (or whatever) are just an unrealistic idealised sexualised male fantasy" ---- true

"but males in comics are also an unrealistic idealised fantasy" ---- true

"yeah but it's still a male fantasy" ---- true (though it does seem to me a lot of female heroins appeal to women too, having a strong commanding personality in your hero/heroin seems to appeal to both genders)

So where do we go from here? What does the male hero who is sexualised specifically for females look like? Are we saying it's like that picture of batman... coz I tend to think it's not. That's a caricature of what it might be, not an actual idealisation of what it would be.

I think once you dial it back from the absurdity of that huge eyed batman cartoon and look at what would be a male superhero that would appeal to women (whether sexually or not) it would, at least physically, look much the same as the male superhero that men want, which is what a lot of male superheroes already look like. Muscular, chiselled facial features, chiselled body. The same idealisation that men want to be. Maybe slightly less like Arnold Schwarzenegger and slightly more like Hugh Jackman, but still very similar and not something that many men would find creepy like that batman caricature.





*** my caring is very low because I think artists should be able to create whatever the hell they want, if there's a lack of a specific type of art it's because there's a lack of artists and/or people who want that type of art, and that's not a fault of the artist nor the people who enjoy the art.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

However, larger portions of objectively available data show that they go for something more like the main character of Arrow.

Who, incidentally, matches that Batman by being an athletically built, thinner, lithe male with expressive eyes.

Yeah, those guys, so... non-muscular...



Making light of things a bit there, but the point (which I also made above and I notice you haven't even attempted to dispute) is that women really do like masculine, powerful men. Put another way, women are attracted to male power fantasies.

There is a pretty big difference in absolute mass between Bruce Lee and Hugh Jackman (Hugh is like 8 inches taller),

But it's indisputable that both represent idealized male physiques that are deeply attractive to women and, in a very different way, to men.

So having caught up on the rest of this thread, the one thing that stands out to me and makes me shake my head a little is the repeated "well, if it were Slaanesh, it'd be okay!"

Let's look at a few things, shall we? The first girl is leaning on a great big fething axe. If it were a male figure, with all the covering of a set of furry speedos, people would think it were A-OK. if it were a nude male with that axe, some people would be ok with it as Khornate still, while others would be bleating on about Slaanesh. The other figure doesn't appear to have a weapon, and instead has stripper heels, but still, it's not a far cry from the Cult of Khaine. And lest we forget who Khaine is - and sometimes even referred to as an Aspect of Khorne (depending on who's writing that bit of the fluff at the time, the weather, phase of the moon, etc...)

So yeah. Blood-spattered, naked chicks with great big fuckin' axes fit pretty well with Khorne to me. Certainly as much as a male would.

Eilif wrote:It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.

Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).

But they could have easily achieved these objectives without horrible pandering. Girls want to role play? Fine, but do the characters need to be the "drinking margaritas in the hot tub", "shopping till I drop", "barrista babe", and "I finally got a pony!"? Of course not. They could have made all sorts of characters. They still executed their idea in an awful way, no matter how many people have been buying them over the past few months (probably a one-time bump from "repressed" girl lego fans).

You can make it about characters without pandering. You can make it about building without pandering. You can have accessories and have interactions without pandering. You can even change the color of the blocks without pandering. There were plenty of ways they could have achieved their objective, but instead they chose that way. On purpose.

Popularity doesn't validate their chosen way of doing things any way more than basic economics. I mean, if I did market research and found out that the people in my town were horrible racists, sexists, or bigots would it be appropriate for me to sell T-shirts with certain slogans on them?

In any case, there's a difference between making money off of a fantasy-genre work, including a facet of "lawl, bewbs!", and something that's clearly sexist from the outgo (how can make a different version of our product just for females), executed in such a blatantly stereotyping way, targeted specifically at young kids. Lego friends is about as tasteful as a blackface version of legos to sell to "little colored children".

At least the khorne slutraider has an attempt at some artistic quality, rather than just genderbaiting for a quick buck.

 Ailaros wrote:

Trondheim wrote:I actualy quite like the model and dont see anything offensive about it, and may I ask if it would be offensive if the two models where replaced with two naked men?

Some day, far, far into the future, I'm going to make a dong-based slaanesh army. Forget the patriarchy fearing female sexuality, let's see how offended people get when the army lead by the great chaos lord Phallatius Fellatius hits the table...

I wouldn't be offended mostly I would rather not have to look at a bunch of dicks all game long I think most women would agree as well, I remember reading something a few years back how most women would rather not stare at dicks and male strippers are better off just stripping down to their shorts to appeal to women.

While I have no problem with the Land Raider, when it comes to actually bringing it to the table top for a game, I wouldn't do it unless the gaming group was entirely adults. I don't think it's socially acceptable in our culture to expose kids to sex and such and so I'd respect that it's up to the parents whether or not they want their kids exposed to such things (or in some cases up to the kids to subvert their parents desires either way, not up to me).

In a group of adults I don't really see a problem with it though.

 Ailaros wrote:

Eilif wrote:It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.

Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).

But they could have easily achieved these objectives without horrible pandering. Girls want to role play? Fine, but do the characters need to be the "drinking margaritas in the hot tub", "shopping till I drop", "barrista babe", and "I finally got a pony!"? Of course not. They could have made all sorts of characters. They still executed their idea in an awful way, no matter how many people have been buying them over the past few months (probably a one-time bump from "repressed" girl lego fans).

Yes they could have made all sorts of characters.

Not just this sexist gak like a scientist/engineer or, a fashion designer, or a Vet! Its so sexist to think of women as business owners, let alone home owners, auto owners, or and girls never want to play in trees.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


"females in comics (or whatever) are just an unrealistic idealised sexualised male fantasy" ---- true

I wouldn't put it so simply though.

http://www.treadclimber.com/bowflex-treadclimber-us/homepage.jsp

Take a look at that page (just one example of a few thousand to choose from). The women want to look like the idealized woman as well. It may be an ideal form for men...but it also is an ideal form for women. They generally do not want to be the shape of a bowling pin...or carry around the muffin top. If anything, women are even more critical than men of their appearances (both their own - and that of other women...they are vicious creatures).

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

However, larger portions of objectively available data show that they go for something more like the main character of Arrow.

Who, incidentally, matches that Batman by being an athletically built, thinner, lithe male with expressive eyes.

Yeah, those guys, so... non-muscular...

Spoiler:

Making light of things a bit there, but the point (which I also made above and I notice you haven't even attempted to dispute) is that women really do like masculine, powerful men. Put another way, women are attracted to male power fantasies.

There is a pretty big difference in absolute mass between Bruce Lee and Hugh Jackman (Hugh is like 8 inches taller),

Spoiler:

But it's indisputable that both represent idealized male physiques that are deeply attractive to women and, in a very different way, to men.

Quite so. They have much more in common with the comic book characters than with the comic strip character. What the strip portrays is a form like the Twilight character (can't be bothered to recall his name) or other twiggy types like DeCaprio.

http://foxhoundstudio.com/blog/fitness-lifestyle/the-ideal-male-physique-%E2%80%94-what-girls-want-want-guys-want-to-be/

or this one:

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/here-is-the-perfect-male-and-female-body-according-to-m-1562492498

While they are not on the Lou Ferrigno side of things - they are not far off from most modern comic book characters...and the women, well - look at that, women want to look attractive too.

 Ailaros wrote:

Eilif wrote:It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.

Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).

But they could have easily achieved these objectives without horrible pandering. Girls want to role play? Fine, but do the characters need to be the "drinking margaritas in the hot tub", "shopping till I drop", "barrista babe", and "I finally got a pony!"? Of course not. They could have made all sorts of characters. They still executed their idea in an awful way, no matter how many people have been buying them over the past few months (probably a one-time bump from "repressed" girl lego fans).

You can make it about characters without pandering. You can make it about building without pandering. You can have accessories and have interactions without pandering. You can even change the color of the blocks without pandering. There were plenty of ways they could have achieved their objective, but instead they chose that way. On purpose.

Popularity doesn't validate their chosen way of doing things any way more than basic economics. I mean, if I did market research and found out that the people in my town were horrible racists, sexists, or bigots would it be appropriate for me to sell T-shirts with certain slogans on them?

In any case, there's a difference between making money off of a fantasy-genre work, including a facet of "lawl, bewbs!", and something that's clearly sexist from the outgo (how can make a different version of our product just for females), executed in such a blatantly stereotyping way, targeted specifically at young kids. Lego friends is about as tasteful as a blackface version of legos to sell to "little colored children".

So...

To get things straight...because women (or girls in the case of Legos) like girly things...they are wrong and need to go to reeducation camps so that they learn that they shouldn't like girly things?

I've been hearing that same line from people for decades now - and to be perfectly honest, it is about as messed up as you can get. Comparing girls wanting to play with girl toys to racists or bigots is the true definition of false equivalency and ignores things like biology and evolution which span cultures, generations and continents (including matriarchal societies...).

I have no problem with sexually explicit models I miss the old metal daemonettes that had their boobs out, over the fugly crab hammer ones.

Cyporiean wrote:Not just this sexist gak like a scientist/engineer or, a fashion designer, or a Vet! Its so sexist to think of women as business owners, let alone home owners, auto owners, or and girls never want to play in trees.

In general? No, of course not. In the way they chose to do it? Well...

Plus, why do there need to be gender-based legos in the first place? What's wrong with:



And even if you did want to do genders, what's wrong with:



A woman can be a car owner without the car being purple and with a tiny dog and a bunch of cosmetic products in the back seat.

Sean_OBrien wrote:To get things straight...because women (or girls in the case of Legos) like girly things...they are wrong and need to go to reeducation camps so that they learn that they shouldn't like girly things?

So let me get this straight, because racists (or young racists in this case) like racist things, it's okay for me to make a "jews must die" onesies and children's toys?

Even if you want people to be able to sell such products (which I do), doesn't mean that racist products aren't racist or sexist products aren't sexist or bigoted products aren't bigoted. You can buy a shovel from Home Depot, but it doesn't mean the tool's not a spade.

If you take a sexist product and put it on sale, it doesn't magically become non-sexist. You can both condone free trade AND disagree with sexism at the same time. Just because lego friends sells well doesn't make it okay, and just because a person disagrees with sexism doesn't mean they want to take merchants who hawk sexist swag and lock them up in concentration camps. There is a reasonable alternative to both of those viewpoints.

Which is what this whole thread is really about, really. The OP thinks that something is not okay for them, and many other people are saying that they should be allowed to do it anyways. Both of those statements are true. The conflict comes in that the OP is saying that something shouldn't be okay for everyone else as well and that people shouldn't be allowed to do things anyways.

There's room for a genuine difference of what defines sexist here, of course. I'd argue that the OP is way too restrictive with their definition, but that there are other things (like lego friends) that count. There isn't a point complaining about what I'd consider fake sexism in miniature toys when there is what I'd consider real sexism in miniature toys. Of course, I don't think that lego should be forced to stop making friends, just like I don't think that the person making the khornemobile should have been prevented from doing his thing either.

But you can still argue about the definition of vague subjects without instantly becoming a social justice warrior. Even if other people in the debate are.

Firstly, racism in the form of nazism where you actively desire the death/torture/etc of people is very different to giving your child a pink tshirt instead of a blue one.

Secondly, sexism from my understanding is either being derogatory toward someone based on their sex or reinforcing a stereotype of specific gender roles. I'm not all that familiar with the lego line being discussed, but it doesn't seem to fit either of those criteria for being sexist.

Marketing specifically to girls with a different aesthetic is not sexist. Marketing specifically to girls in a way that reinforces a stereotypical gender role is sexist advertising. The only one of those "friends" things that looks sexist might be the beauty parlour one, because you could argue that is pushing a specific gender role. The others are just tailoring the aesthetic to match the desired customer.

Unless you want to say that suggesting boys and girls might find different things appealing is in and of itself sexist, which I think is debatable.

So Lego is being condemned in this thread for giving the customer what he/she wants?

 Ailaros wrote:

Cyporiean wrote:Not just this sexist gak like a scientist/engineer or, a fashion designer, or a Vet! Its so sexist to think of women as business owners, let alone home owners, auto owners, or and girls never want to play in trees.

In general? No, of course not. In the way they chose to do it? Well...

Plus, why do there need to be gender-based legos in the first place? What's wrong with:



And even if you did want to do genders, what's wrong with:



A woman can be a car owner without the car being purple and with a tiny dog and a bunch of cosmetic products in the back seat.

But little girls won't want to buy them.

That is quite simply what is wrong with what you linked to. Men and Women are different. Boys and Girls are different. They like different things - they like those things to look differently.

Lego has had (for a very long time) gender neutral Lego sets (which regular Lego is) with male and female minifigs. Girls didn't want them.

That isn't sexist - that is reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So Lego is being condemned in this thread for giving the customer what he/she wants?

Yes...

and Little Girls are equated to little Nazi's because they like purple.

My Little Nazi... maybe there's a market for that. Ukraine perhaps.