Lego boy/girl response
marlin john c
heavily armed knights on the table. The leader had a horse
with all the decorations possible including two lances with flags
on the red saddle. The minifig on the lead horse was the only one without a helment. Closer observation revealed that it wore what she refered
to as the "long black girl hair." My daughter then said "Thats the queen,
she's the boss."
Since then I have always taken opportunities to ask Lego to include
more "girl" accessiries like hair which can give a smiley face a touch
of gender. Needless tosay I am not at all impressed by all of the
hair and makeup on the new figs heads, but thats another story.
My wife subsequentl WROTE LEGO asking why their ads (circa1990)
featured essentially no female children playing with bricks. A
thoughtful response was received 2/28/91 from Lois B. Ritchotte
the consumer affirs manager. Pertinent parts follow:
"First, regarding your comments that our catalogs and products are
biased against girls, I would like to explain that as a company, LEGO
Systems has always tried to develop and market toys that will appeal
to both sexes. In fact, construction toys are ofter cited as one of
the most non-sexist toys available today. However, although the same
toysdo appeal to boys and girls up to approximately 4 years of age,
as children mature male and female preferences in toys begins to
differ greatly. Research for the overall category of construction
toys, regardless of brand, indicates that MOST construction toy
purchases for children in the 6+ age group are intended for and
are used by boys...enclosed is article "guns and dolls" from
newsweek 5/28/90....This article provides some interesting
perspectives on gender differences and discusses how they are
exhibited in girls' vs boys' toy preference. As far as LEGO Group
is concerned, however, our, product staff will continue to work toward
introducing new products that broaden the appeal of ...(our products)
of both sexes and all ages.
Close the quote.
Anyway they think about these things enough to respond.
A
D
D
to children o
Dave A. Lartigue
In a previous article, jma...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (marlin john c) says:
>"First, regarding your comments that our catalogs and products are
>biased against girls, I would like to explain that as a company, LEGO
>Systems has always tried to develop and market toys that will appeal
>to both sexes. In fact, construction toys are ofter cited as one of
>the most non-sexist toys available today. However, although the same
>toysdo appeal to boys and girls up to approximately 4 years of age,
>as children mature male and female preferences in toys begins to
>differ greatly. Research for the overall category of construction
>toys, regardless of brand, indicates that MOST construction toy
>purchases for children in the 6+ age group are intended for and
>are used by boys...enclosed is article "guns and dolls" from
>newsweek 5/28/90....This article provides some interesting
>perspectives on gender differences and discusses how they are
>exhibited in girls' vs boys' toy preference. As far as LEGO Group
>is concerned, however, our, product staff will continue to work toward
>introducing new products that broaden the appeal of ...(our products)
>of both sexes and all ages.
So in other words, we don't think that Legos appear to girls, so we don't
market them for girls and thus the research that girls don't play with
legos is proved true.
Does anyone else see a flaw in this reasoning?
Dave
--
=============================================================================
Opinions expressed above are strictly my employer's.
=============================================================================
dulc...@cats.ucsc.edu
>So in other words, we don't think that Legos appear to girls, so we don't
>market them for girls and thus the research that girls don't play with
>legos is proved true.
>
>Does anyone else see a flaw in this reasoning?
>
>Dave
The article you quote is pretty far out of context (having been quoted
from a letter received from a manager who was explaining the policy in
normal terms, as opposed to salespeak or legalese), so taking the
quote as LEGO Systems gospel is stretching the reasoning a bit.
More to the point, as I read the quote, I don't get the impression
that that was said at all.
[Edited slightly for spelling]
First, regarding your comments that our catalogs and products are
biased against girls, I would like to explain that as a company, LEGO
Systems has always tried to develop and market toys that will appeal
to both sexes.
This is Ms. Ritchotte speaking for LEGO Systems, Inc. specifically.
In fact, construction toys are [often] cited as one of the most
non-sexist toys available today. However, although the same
[toys do] appeal to boys and girls up to approximately 4 years
of age, as children mature male and female preferences in toys
begins [sic] to differ greatly.
This isn't LEGO speaking, she's drawing from a vague second-hand source.
Research for the
_overall_category_of_construction_toys,_regardless_of_brand_,
indicates that MOST construction toy purchases for children in
the 6+ age group are intended for and are used by boys..."
[emphasis mine]
This isn't LEGO either. Why would they do research for all
construction toys? They attention to such research, sure, but I don't
think they do that. Their main concern is how boys and girls of various
age groups react to the plastic bricks they make, not anyone elses toys.
I would imagine they look at the results of other toys appeal for ideas
on how to extend the line (most notably dolls and Playmobil), of course.
...enclosed is article "guns and dolls" from Newsweek 5/28/90...
This article provides some interesting perspectives on gender
differences and discusses how they are exhibited in girls' vs
boys' toy preference. As far as LEGO Group is concerned,
however, our, product staff will continue to work toward
introducing new products that broaden the appeal of ...
(our products) [to] both sexes and all ages.
Here, she cites a source, and speaks for LEGO again, saying that they're
working towards introducing new products that they believe will broaden
the product range appeal to both sexes.
I'd say that this says precisely that they're targeting girls, and in
practice, it's quite obvious that they ARE doing so with the Paradisa
line, the Belville line, and the pastel colored bricks in the DUPLO
and LEGO System Buckets.
The real argument here is whether THOSE measures are helpful and
proper to attract the "female" audience, or if they're rather buying
into traditional (and to some, insulting) stereotypes about what girls
want and respond to. I tend to believe that they're working on market
research that indicates that they need to follow the course they are.
Time and the market will tell if they're right or not. Those who like
the pastels (for whatever reason) can get them, and those that do not,
can ignore them. From what I've seen (especially in the Paradisa
line), pink doesn't dominate the color scheme of a given set, only a
balanced number of elements in the set. It's the boxes that are
predominantly pink. I've been in enough toy sections and heard enough
aisles referred to as the "boy section" or the "girl section" to
believe that LEGO did the right thing, making some of their boxes
pink.
-- joshua
P.S. I found out recently while visiting home from college that my 10
year-old sister, while she enjoys the Pirate and Space LEGO sets I've
gotten her in the past, would just KILL for the 6419 Rolling Acres
Ranch set. She is now into horses in a big way, and although I could
try to force the issue and get her some nice Castle sets with horses
in them, it's the 6419 RAR set, with it's trailer and horse jump and
stables, that REALLY appeals to her. I got no problem with that.
David Karr
>Since then I have always taken opportunities to ask Lego to include
>more "girl" accessiries like hair which can give a smiley face a touch
>of gender. Needless tosay I am not at all impressed by all of the
>hair and makeup on the new figs heads, but thats another story.
When you say "not impressed by the hair", do you mean facial hair?
Or is there some other problem with hair in the new sets?
There really are two obvious alternatives to the current profusion of
bearded minifigs. One is to return to "genderless" smiley faces. The
other is to continue to make gender-specific parts, but offer a lot
more females.
One caveat about "girl accessories" is they could be role-limiting.
Mainly I see a problem with the hair. The hair I've seen is smooth on
top, so you can't put a hat on top of it. This makes it more
difficult to have female construction workers (with hard hats) or cops
(with police hats)---unless you take off the hair to put the hat on,
but in that case you apparently didn't need the hair in the first
place. I've also seen torsos with female features (either subtle,
such as necklaces, or not-so-subtle), but then again you have a
possible problem---will it be believable along with the hard hat or
police hat?
Personally, I have a lot of other difficulties with hair, hats, and
other similar accessories for the minifigs. But I suspect that if the
people at LEGO put their minds to it, they could at least come up with
"girl accessories" that wouldn't interfere with other accessories.
Of course this is begging the question of why not just use genderless
minifigs and let them be male or female as needed? I can think of two
possible reasons, though I'm not convinced. One reason might be that
we are trained to recognize figures without gender cues as male, and
to expect gender cues of all female figures. I can think of popular
cartoons that seem to bear this out, also the fact that my daughters
are sometimes mistaken for boys. Another reason might be that if
children have a lot of female minifigs, it will encourage them to
create active female roles in their play. Of course for this you need
figures that are irreversably female (e.g. lipstick), not ones with
features like hair pieces that can be set aside.
As for the letter from LEGO, it's easy to see the company's point of
view on this, if you limit the domain of discourse narrowly enough.
And I certainly don't object to pink bricks per se---any objections
I'd have to Paradisa would apply to Town as well, and Bellville is,
well, something else entirely.
My remarks on the quoted passages:
>["] In fact, construction toys are ofter cited as one of
>the most non-sexist toys available today. ["]
This begs the question of the degree to which LEGO is still a
construction toy, but that's a debate for another day.
>["] However, although the same
>toysdo appeal to boys and girls up to approximately 4 years of age,
>as children mature male and female preferences in toys begins to
>differ greatly. ["]
Depending on exactly what this is supposed to mean, it seems to be
getting into a very difficult area of research. As with many topics
that have strong social or political implications, it can be really
hard to tell whether researchers in sex-based differences have found
real phenomena or just "discovered" what they wanted to see. (I
realize this is a controversial statement, but the controversy, and
therefore the doubts cast, are still substantial.)
>["] Research for the overall category of construction
>toys, regardless of brand, indicates that MOST construction toy
>purchases for children in the 6+ age group are intended for and
>are used by boys ["]
Now this is a much more specific statement, and I find it much more
credible. But now we have to ask what causes this phenomena. I can
think of several things:
(1) The child's own natural inclinations. Someone who hates reading
won't buy books.
(2) Peer pressure. Kids want to have the toys their friends have.
(3) Parents and other family members' decisions. LEGO sets make
great presents for birthdays or holidays, but then you have a
bunch of adults asking themselves, "What's a good present for a
little girl (or boy)?"
Number (1) is really a big question mark as far as I know. But the
other two phenomena seem very real, and LEGO didn't create them.
On the other hand, does LEGO help perpetuate the phenomenon by showing
girls mainly playing with the "girl" sets, not the "boy" sets, as
someone suggested? The response to this was that marketing studies
must (presumably) have shown that try to change this wouldn't work,
but how could they know? Have the construction toy companies ever
tried a massive campaign to sell their general lines, not just the
"girl" sets, to girls? Did they really try it well, for example by
telling parents that their daughters' success in life depended on
having the "right" building toys, the way computer makers claim a home
computer is essential? (Whether the claims are true or not is
irrelevant.) I don't remember ever seeing the ads; I think I'd
remember, but maybe I wasn't lucky enough to see them.
-- David A. Karr (ka...@cs.cornell.edu)
Christian Jacobsen
ka...@cs.cornell.edu writes:
>Personally, I have a lot of other difficulties with hair, hats, and
>other similar accessories for the minifigs. But I suspect that if the
>people at LEGO put their minds to it, they could at least come up with
>"girl accessories" that wouldn't interfere with other accessories.
The answer to this whole problem does not seem all that difficult to me.
I was at Toys R Us yesterday and saw a bunch of small boxes (3x5x3, or
so) that had a selection of people in them. One had 3 or 5
"Servicepeople" (construction worker, gas station attendant, etc), and
another box had Medieval Characters like a knight, a few peasants, a
horse, etc.
It seems the answer to the problem is to simply make a couple of these
boxes that have different kinds of female minifigs. Maybe you would have
the "Mall Selection" which would have the ones with the obviously "girl
clothes" and the faces with the lipstick, a selection of "Woods-Women"
who obviously would not have makeup on, (but might have eyelashes) and
they could be used with the Medieval scenes or the Woodsmen scenes I have
heard about. (This also goes for the race car sets, the space sets, and
any others.)
The boxes I got this weekend had a few extra pieces in them, like extra
faceshields for those minifigs with helmets. In the sets I propose,
simply include a couple of extra hats and hairpieces. That way you are
not stuck with a particular woman always looking the same...
Comments?
- Christian
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
-.- The opinions expressed herein are rarely my own,
-.- and certainly never my employers!
-.-
-.- Christian Jacobsen DoD#1476
-.- christian...@qmgate.arc.nasa.gov
-.- jaco...@george.arc.nasa.gov
-.- 1979 Yamaha XS1100 Special - "Don Gringo - El Innocente"
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
David Karr
>In article <1994Sep19.1...@cs.cornell.edu> David Karr,
>ka...@cs.cornell.edu writes:
>>Personally, I have a lot of other difficulties with hair, hats, and
>>other similar accessories for the minifigs. But I suspect that if the
>>people at LEGO put their minds to it, they could at least come up with
>>"girl accessories" that wouldn't interfere with other accessories.
>It seems the answer to the problem is to simply make a couple of these
>boxes that have different kinds of female minifigs. Maybe you would have
>the "Mall Selection" which would have the ones with the obviously "girl
>clothes" and the faces with the lipstick,
Let me get this straight---are you suggesting LEGO continue with male
cops and hard-hat workers, and balance this with a "Mall Selection"?
>a selection of "Woods-Women"
>who obviously would not have makeup on, (but might have eyelashes)
Point of information: if you can tell just by looking at someone's
eyelashes that's she's not a man, then she has makeup on. Lots of it.
At least on her eyelids.
Now the question is, if you see a minifig with long eyelashes and a
bald yellow head wearing a hard hat, what is it? Sinead O'Connor or
Boy George?
>simply include a couple of extra hats and hairpieces. That way you are
>not stuck with a particular woman always looking the same...
So when Mom goes off in the morning to pour concrete, she gets a buzz
cut, but when she comes home it all magically grows out again? Or
does she just shave around the back of her head but let it grow out of
the top, so she can tuck it all into her hard hat on the way to work?
So here's Karr's Hardhat Challenge: Design a minifig, dressed as a
construction worker (hard hat and overalls), that is obviously female
and continues to look as feminine (and like the same person) after the
hat comes off.
It can be done, of course. I'm not saying it can't. In fact, I said
earlier that it can, I'm just quibbling with one person's proposed
solution. It's just a question of which design compromises you're
going to make. The next question is, would you like to purchase such
a minifigure rather than others that have been made by LEGO? Why or
why not?
David Karr
>You did an interesting job editing my original message to twist my
>meaning around.
I disagree. I believe I responded to exactly what you wrote. It's
not my fault your exact meaning wasn't clear.
Also, while my examples were a bit colorful, I don't believe I stooped
to personal insult. (No the above sentence was not insulting, but the
ones after it were. This is not rec.motorcycles.)
>>So when Mom goes off in the morning to pour concrete, she gets a buzz
>>cut, but when she comes home it all magically grows out again?
>
>I made the assumption that most people build static scenes. I realize
>this is an assumption with no basis other than personal experience, [...]
I don't know what "most" people do either. I suspect many adults build
static scenes, but children would have a tendency to play with the models,
in particular to act out extended role-playing sessions. Remember that
a major impetus to this thread (it may even have been the first message)
was a child's complaint that there weren't enough "girl" figures.
Even the adults on this forum, however, often talk about "playability,"
which suggests that they at least want the possibility to play with the
LEGO models as more than a static scene.
Given all this, do you really blame me for not realizing that your
comments applied *only* to static scenes? Mine applied to the full
range of reasonable uses of LEGO, including play by children.
>BTW - I know from personal experience that on a construction site, even
>guys with long hair have to tie it up under their hardhat for safety
>reasons, so no, the minifig may not have shaved her head. But I would
>reserve her that right.
My recollection is that unless a person has a *very* short cut on the
back of their head---i.e. shaved or a buzz cut---then when they wear a
hard hat, police hat, peaked cap, or cowboy hat, there will be a large,
very visible mass of hair showing below the hat. On the other hand, a
lot of men who wear such hats *do* have buzz cuts so the LEGO minifigs
wearing the LEGO hats do bear a reasonable resemblance to such men.
On the other hand there's the minifig riding the harness rig in the
catalog photo for the Rolling Acres Ranch. The one with the lipstick,
big eyes, and riding helmet. I don't see men who look like *that*
every day---I see this minifig as female. So maybe one approach to
the Karr Hardhat Challenge is to put lots of "makeup" on the females'
faces. (Still, if I were a child playing with the RAR, I'd be annoyed
if I had to look for this minifig's hair every time she wanted to take
her helmet off. This is a case where it does make a difference whether
you just want a static diorama, or an actual toy to play with.)
(Aside on the RAR: The stable doors are a really neat-looking design,
which I don't recall seeing anywhere else. Too bad such a nice
special (but not specialized) piece is pink, but maybe we'll see other
colors some day.)
-- David A. Karr (ka...@cs.cornell.edu) -- DoD #969
Christian Jacobsen
>So when Mom goes off in the morning to pour concrete, she gets a buzz
>cut, but when she comes home it all magically grows out again?
I made the assumption that most people build static scenes. I realize
this is an assumption with no basis other than personal experience, but
when I set up a scene with people in it, the scene is a freezeframe. I
do not pick up the little mommyfig, dress her up, walk her down the
street to the construction site, change her into a construction uniform,
and then play with her at the construction site.
Instead, my scenes are a snapshot frozen in time. People in mid-step, in
the act of drinking, waving to one another from a passing car, etc. So
it seems in my situation minifigs that are specifically female
construction workers, race car drivers, business executives, or
housewives, would work just fine.
BTW - I know from personal experience that on a construction site, even
guys with long hair have to tie it up under their hardhat for safety
reasons, so no, the minifig may not have shaved her head. But I would
reserve her that right.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Eileen F. Keeney
>So when Mom goes off in the morning to pour concrete, she gets a buzz
>cut, but when she comes home it all magically grows out again?
>
If you want to pretend it is magic, then you can play that way.
I never pretend it is magic, I just pretend that the hair is still there,
and it can't be seen because of the hat.
Children are much less picky about such things.
If I was designing for Lego, I would be really glad that my main market
was children and not adults.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Keeney :-) internet: eil...@hpcvnefk.cv.hp.com
David Karr
>>
>>So when Mom goes off in the morning to pour concrete, she gets a buzz
>>cut, but when she comes home it all magically grows out again?
>
>If you want to pretend it is magic, then you can play that way.
>I never pretend it is magic, I just pretend that the hair is still there,
>and it can't be seen because of the hat.
>
>Children are much less picky about such things.
Good point. When I was a child I never worried about my minifigs'
hair at all; maybe the hair was there but you couldn't see it because
I didn't model at that fine a level of detail. The same went for the
eyes and mouth.
Currently my daughters are playing with minifigs with no hair at all,
yet they seem to have no trouble assigning them female (or male)
identities. Most of the figures are reasonably free of gender clues
so they're free to make up their own minds about it (at least I think
so, sometimes the girls disagree).
>If I was designing for Lego, I would be really glad that my main market
>was children and not adults.
It would be my guess too that most LEGO is bought *for* children, but
I wonder what proportion is bought *by* children. As far as I can
tell, the gender-bias complaints are mostly coming from parents, not
from adults buying for themselves. So you run into problems such as
that heavy makeup easily distinguishes female minifigs, but then
parents might object (*do* object, if I understand the postings
correctly) that they don't want to teach their kids that it's
necessary to wear heavy makeup to be recognized as a woman.
In any case, I'd still like to see how people would address my Hardhat
Challenge. I'm interested in the full design of the minifig and
accessories (if any), not just responses to isolated aspects of the
problem. But I do admit that "I build only static displays and so I
don't have to make the transition" points out a weakness in my
specification; so perhaps the challenge should be to design the
various minifigs so the female hardhat can be used in conjunction with
hatless female minifigs. And of course there *are* several ways to do
this, so let's examine the pros and cons of each approach. (This
challenge is not one of those "I think it's impossible" challenges,
it's a "what's the best approach?" challenge.)
David Karr
asynchronous processes communicating over a broadcast medium. Just
when I've posted a message suggesting she should consider a few new
ideas, I read a message in which she introduced and analyzed those
ideas herself---and posted them before I did.
But I couldn't resist a comment on this:
>And I would make that silly bump on the head into a hole, and put the
>bump on the attaching piece.
Now *this* is a truly innovative response. This would really change
the face of the minifigure line, so to speak. I think it would make
the bare-headed minifigs look a lot better.
(Unfortunately, despite the existence of numerous special parts that
change the orientation of bricks in models, I think LEGO still has
a fairly strong "the knobs go on top" mentality.)
I agreed with the rest of that post, just not as emphatically.
David Karr
serious about my Hardhat Challenge. Unfortunately I seem to keep
getting credit for saying things I didn't. (To add to the confusion,
I posted the challenge before I noticed certain relevant photos in the
catalogs.) I wasn't asking a trick question. Honest. If I were, I
would have said so by now.
In article <35oae8$m...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> dulc...@cats.ucsc.edu () writes:
>
>Personally, I don't like the looks of your challenge. It's obvious that,
>for ANY Mini-Figure Genre, one is more or less stuck with ONLY one head
>covering. That covering can be hair, or it can be a helmet, or a headress,
>or a hat, but they don't ever have hair and a hat.
Obviously I need to clarify the challenge. Don't limit yourself to just
what's available today from LEGO. Imagine you could write your ideas to
LEGO and not only would they read your letter, they would put any new
parts you asked for (within reason) into production. What would you
like them to make?
So "hair and a hat" is certainly a possibility. Just describe what
pieces you'd need and what the tradeoffs would be.
I never gave a rule that you have to use an existing LEGO genre. The
only rule of this nature is that your design has to contribute to what
*you* think would be a reasonable LEGO product line.
>if
>you're going to be bothered by a couple seconds worth of baldness, how
>DO you handle the switch for air tanks, expecially in the rigors of
>space,
Again let me clarify. You're not doing this to film a video in real
time. You're just doing this for the purpose of role playing the
minifigures---and you're certainly allowed to pick the minifigs up to
fiddle with them, even though such a "flying leap" is completely
beyond the capabilities of the minifig's "character." In the modified
challenge, all you have to do is use the different minifigs side by
side, no transitions required at all.
The problems I anticipated with swapping head coverings had nothing to
do with the "couple seconds worth of baldness," but with possible
visual inconsistencies between the two configurations, and the effort
of searching for the part to swap in. But neither of these is a fatal
flaw. (Heck, 20+ years ago when my knights wanted to take off their
helmets, I usually had to swap entirely new heads onto their bodies.)
>I think gender is beside the point in the argument. The Mini-Figures
>just aren't designed to be dressed and undressed over time. It's best
>to just leave them be and use your imagination.
Yes, well, this is indeed another topic. If you're going to use one
of the overalls torsos for a construction worker, male *or* female,
what do you do when it's time for them to go to bed? Twenty-odd years
ago, my minifigures would go to bed wearing the exact same "clothes"
they wore all day, so that would be my approach here too---the
construction worker *always* wears overalls, even in the shower. I
don't know what I'd do if he or she were ever invited to a black tie
function.
For that matter, if LEGO made "construction worker heads" with hats
that couldn't be removed, it probably wouldn't have occurred to me to
create my challenge. I'd probably just have assumed that the hats
stay on in the shower too.
>accessory, then s/he can imagine gender just as easily. The telltale
>markers make that part difficult. I say, attack the gender signs, but
>not by pointing out the inherent weakness in Mini-Fig design.
I didn't realize I was pointing out an "inherent weakness" in the
minifigures. We're discussing a few dabs of paint and bits of
accessory plastic. As far as I know, most of these things were LEGO's
afterthoughts, not inherent parts of the original minifig design.
My current approach (also used by my daughters) is to use only classic
smiley-faced minifigs without any hair, although we have one minifig
with a painted-on necklace which is designated "female" by my
daughters. (They've never seen a man wearing one of those big gold
chains.) We use a small number of hats, mainly because I couldn't
resist putting two hard-hatted figures in the cab of my dump truck.
(Do the drivers wear the hats?) But I don't expect this approach
would suit everyone, which is why I'm curious about other people's
ideas. I'm also wondering how *I* would respond to my own challenge,
assuming I could design my own parts.
>P.S. rec.motorcycles, indeed. <snort>
Sorry, I was answering a flame from someone who has a DoD number, so
the reference seemed a natural one.
dulc...@cats.ucsc.edu
>In any case, I'd still like to see how people would address my Hardhat
>Challenge. I'm interested in the full design of the minifig and
>accessories (if any), not just responses to isolated aspects of the
>problem. But I do admit that "I build only static displays and so I
>don't have to make the transition" points out a weakness in my
>specification; so perhaps the challenge should be to design the
>various minifigs so the female hardhat can be used in conjunction with
>hatless female minifigs. And of course there *are* several ways to do
>this, so let's examine the pros and cons of each approach. (This
>challenge is not one of those "I think it's impossible" challenges,
>it's a "what's the best approach?" challenge.)
Personally, I don't like the looks of your challenge. It's obvious that,
for ANY Mini-Figure Genre, one is more or less stuck with ONLY one head
covering. That covering can be hair, or it can be a helmet, or a headress,
or a hat, but they don't ever have hair and a hat.
It gets worse. If you're going to worry about changing of
accessories, then how about the multitude of accessories that require
an entire removal of the head? Space, Pirates, and Castle sets, as
well as some Town figures, all have this type of accessory, and if
you're going to be bothered by a couple seconds worth of baldness, how
DO you handle the switch for air tanks, expecially in the rigors of
space, where being without tanks for an extended period is bad, but
being without your head is much worse?
I think gender is beside the point in the argument. The Mini-Figures
just aren't designed to be dressed and undressed over time. It's best
to just leave them be and use your imagination. This of course points
back to gender-non-specific figures. If a child can imagine that the
tanks came off, that it doesn't matter when going from hat to hair, or
that a larger-than-a-Mini-Figure's head clump of bricks is an adequate
accessory, then s/he can imagine gender just as easily. The telltale
markers make that part difficult. I say, attack the gender signs, but
not by pointing out the inherent weakness in Mini-Fig design.
-- joshua
P.S. rec.motorcycles, indeed. <snort>
Eileen F. Keeney
David Karr <ka...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
> Remember that
>a major impetus to this thread (it may even have been the first message)
>was a child's complaint that there weren't enough "girl" figures.
>
I believe this was a parents observation, of a child using the girl style
hair on a castle figure, as the queen in charge, and the parent drawing
the conclusion of not enough females, not the child complaining of such.
The children I have observed would tend to use their creativity, and
do what this child did, and make their own females out what they had
available.
I guess from that standpoint, having all the castle or space figures with
facial hair, would make it a little more difficult. But the mixed figure
town people set is not that expensive to add to the collection.
With it are the plain smile faces and some female hair.
And the facial hair is a recent addition. I suspect it won't be a trend that
lasts very long (it isn't a big hit with the adults, and the kids
don't seem to care as much as the adults do, and are content with
the smile face).
>On the other hand there's the minifig riding the harness rig in the
>catalog photo for the Rolling Acres Ranch. The one with the lipstick,
>big eyes, and riding helmet. I don't see men who look like *that*
>every day---I see this minifig as female.
> So maybe one approach to
>the Karr Hardhat Challenge is to put lots of "makeup" on the females'
>faces.
Now you see why they used lipstick and earings to show females in
occupations requiring hats. They didn't have a lot of other options.
And I suspect this is a direct response to complains of not enough
female figures.
Pretend you are working for Lego, and try to design a figure that will
make the parents satisfied, that genders are equally represented.
If the clothing had to be the same (such as a uniform for a
job), that leaves the hair and the face. If the hat doesn't allow for
hair (as in the minifig design), that leaves the face.
(Still, if I were a child playing with the RAR, I'd be annoyed
>if I had to look for this minifig's hair every time she wanted to take
>her helmet off.
If I were a child playing with this set (mentally I might still be a child,
and I do play with this set :-), I would probably not use the silly face
with the lipstick, and not bother with the hat either. I would just put
a plain smile face and some hair on the girl.
My female workers usually don't have to wear hats. I wouldn't make the
males wear them either, except I am short hair, and those little yellow
bumps look kind of silly to me. But I do make the construction workers
and dock and ship workers wear hardhats (Safety is important).
Those females usually wear their hats home, and to bed, and such. It
doesn't bother me at all. Of course I think it would be neat if the hats
fit over the hair, but I have no problem just pretending around that
limitation, and still playing with the people.
Sometimes I take off the hats and put hair on after work. But not usually.
Hair is a limited resource.
>
>(Aside on the RAR: The stable doors are a really neat-looking design,
>which I don't recall seeing anywhere else. Too bad such a nice
>special (but not specialized) piece is pink, but maybe we'll see other
>colors some day.)
And maybe we'll also be lucky enough to see some of the plain bricks in
pink. Now all they have are plates and special pieces in pink.
Eileen F. Keeney
>I wonder what proportion is bought *by* children.
For younger kids, marketing toward the parent is much more important than
marketing to the kid.
However this changes as soon as the child is old enough to start asking
for specific things, and knowing what they really want.
Most parents I know, do buy most toys (for children above 5), based on
what the child has asked for.
I would just assume give my nieces and nephews Lego rather than
Nintendo games, or Ninja turtles and such, but I usually get them what they
ask for [Along with some Lego, so there is some to play with when I
visit :-) ]
Why does so much of that stuff, that is desired, only due to the tv show
or movie it represents, sell so well.
Toys are advertised during shows parents rarely watch with thier kids
>In any case, I'd still like to see how people would address my Hardhat
>Challenge.
If I wanted people that could take their hard hat off, and have hair, bad
enough; I would use thin cloth and make some hair that fit under the
hard hat.
If I was working for Lego, and could redesign some stuff, I would design
a series of hair and hats that worked together.
And I would make that silly bump on the head into a hole, and put the
bump on the attaching piece.
> I'm interested in the full design of the minifig and
>accessories (if any), not just responses to isolated aspects of the
>problem.
>But I do admit that "I build only static displays and so I
>don't have to make the transition" points out a weakness in my
>specification; so perhaps the challenge should be to design the
>various minifigs so the female hardhat can be used in conjunction with
>hatless female minifigs. And of course there *are* several ways to do
>this, so let's examine the pros and cons of each approach. (This
>challenge is not one of those "I think it's impossible" challenges,
>it's a "what's the best approach?" challenge.)
>
You could design this.
But if the hair has any thickness (and if it is plastic, it needs some
for strength), there will be empty space, if the hat is used without
the hair. And likely this space wouldn't bother the kids, just the
grownups.
David Karr
>In article <1994Sep21.0...@cs.cornell.edu>,
>David Karr <ka...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>I believe this was a parents observation, of a child using the girl style
>hair on a castle figure, as the queen in charge, and the parent drawing
>the conclusion of not enough females, not the child complaining of such.
I may be mixing up my threads (and/or remembering slightly
inaccurately), but I thought there was another (earlier?) message from
an 11-year-old girl, posted by a parent's account but worded as a
first-person message from the girl, complaining about "not enough
girls."
But I agree that most of the complaints are generated by parents.
>Pretend you are working for Lego, and try to design a figure that will
>make the parents satisfied, that genders are equally represented.
So far, this looks like my Hardhat Challenge.
>If the clothing had to be the same (such as a uniform for a
>job), that leaves the hair and the face. If the hat doesn't allow for
>hair (as in the minifig design), that leaves the face.
Actually, I think there are a lot of options. Painted-on hair, for
example. (Or a painted-on face with the hair the color of the
underlying non-yellow plastic, as in one of the face bricks they put
in the 3+ Basic sets.)
What about a necklace or choker?
What about hair that you can attach a hat to?
I'm not necessarily advocating any of these, just pointing out that
the design space is a lot broader than most people are suggesting.
>And maybe we'll also be lucky enough to see some of the plain bricks in
>pink. Now all they have are plates and special pieces in pink.
Oh my. I was *sure* the #1688 large bucket would be full of pink
bricks, but on closer inspection I think you're right. Sigh. At
least it has a few gray bricks.
Jeffrey T. Crites
jcsy...@christa.unh.edu (Jeffrey C Sypeck) writes:
--------------------------------------------------
> I'm curious...have there been any female mini-figures in any earlier
> Castle sets?
Yes, there have been female mini-figures in earlier Castle LEGO sets.
The following information is from a Castle LEGO information file that I
keep and distribute to interested individuals (some stuff was deleted for
brevity):
__________________________________________________________________________
(1/18/94) Kings & Queens.
{Some info. from: Geoff Bronner; geo...@coos.dartmouth.edu}
Set #6083 (Knights Tournament) includeds what looks like a king
and a queen. The queen had pearls and a town-style hairpiece. Also,
set # 6060 (Knight's Challenge) comes with a pavillion, beer keg, a
couple of knights, and a King. And finally, set #6081 (King's
Mountain Fortress) comes with a `queen.' The queen in this set has
a slanted brick as a `skirt' and a tall red hat.
__________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, the sets that have female figures in the Castle line that
I am aware of, are the following two sets (could someone please let me
know if there is more?):
______________________________________________________________________________
| | | |O| | |U.S.$ | U.S.$ | U.S.$ |
| Item | Year | |W| | |Suggest| Price | Est. |
| #: |Intro:| Set Name: |N|#|Pieces|Retail:| Paid: | Worth: |
|======|======|========================|=|=|======|=======|=========|========|
| 6083 | 1981 | Knights Tournament(399)|y|1| 202 | 12.17 | | 110.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
|*6081 | 1990 | Kings Mountain Fortress|y|1| 429 | 44.99 | 58.00 | 60.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
"*" In front of the Item # indicates that the set is still available as of
the date the listing was last updated from the LEGO Shop at Home Service (USA).
> The current line (this whole Dragon Masters/Wolfpack
> Renegades thingie) clearly has none, but I was wondering if earlier sets
> perhaps had some sort of queen, or princess, or commoner lady in
> sackcloth, or *something*. I would almost think the existence of a dragon
> would at least necessitate the existence of some sort of princess..?
I too think there should be some sort of female in the new versions
of the Castle LEGO line. This would lead to some very interesting play
testing and I would think, add to the `playability' of the sets. But,
only time will tell. We do know that LEGO is planning on further
developing the Dragon Master and Wolfpack Renegades and that there will
be new sets introduced in 1995 for both groups.
Until the new sets come out in 1995' (and maybe not even then), you
can always utilize pieces from other sets to make more women figures in
the Castle LEGO sets you build. I realize that this is not the cheapest
or preferred way to go, but it is an option...
Hope this information is helpful, take care,
Jeff
__<>__ Jeffrey T. Crites __<>__
(______) Purdue University Computing Center (______)
| |_______________________________________________________________| |
| // | | // |
| | "Too low they build, who build beneath the stars." | |
| // | Edward Young / Night Thoughts | // |
| | "Particularly they who do not build with LEGO." | |
| // | Jeff Crites / Synopsis of Oneself | // |
| |_______________________________________________________________| |
|____| |____|
(__ __) (__ __)
<> <>
Rob Maguire
> I'm curious...have there been any female mini-figures in any earlier
> Renegades thingie) clearly has none, but I was wondering if earlier sets
> perhaps had some sort of queen, or princess, or commoner lady in
> sackcloth, or *something*. I would almost think the existence of a dragon
> would at least necessitate the existence of some sort of princess..?
>
I believe (i could be wrong, probably am wrong) one of the very first sets
(yellow castle stuff), there was a jousting(spelling?) set that had a king/
prince? and a female (red hair). This was the first and second last female
mini-fig i even got (last was the princess in King's Mountain Fortress (6081)
complete with pointy hat and cleavage...). I don't find anything wrong with
female mini-figs, but there have been so few.
I still have the red hair and body but i lost the arms and legs (oh well...)
Sorry, I don't remember the number of the set, but that was back when I used
to say, "What the heck are these funny numbers for?"
Bob...
Jeffrey C Sypeck
marlin john c <jma...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Three years ago my 8 year old daughter lined up 50 or more
>heavily armed knights on the table. The leader had a horse
>with all the decorations possible including two lances with flags
>on the red saddle. The minifig on the lead horse was the only one without
a helment. Closer observation revealed that it wore what she refered
>to as the "long black girl hair." My daughter then said "Thats the queen,
>she's the boss."
I'm curious...have there been any female mini-figures in any earlier
Castle sets? The current line (this whole Dragon Masters/Wolfpack
Renegades thingie) clearly has none, but I was wondering if earlier sets
perhaps had some sort of queen, or princess, or commoner lady in
sackcloth, or *something*. I would almost think the existence of a dragon
would at least necessitate the existence of some sort of princess..?
(Your daughter's solution to this problem was pretty neat. :)
Jeff
Eileen Keeney
: I'm curious...have there been any female mini-figures in any earlier
: Castle sets? The current line (this whole Dragon Masters/Wolfpack
: Renegades thingie) clearly has none, but I was wondering if earlier sets
: perhaps had some sort of queen, or princess, or commoner lady in
: sackcloth, or *something*. I would almost think the existence of a dragon
: would at least necessitate the existence of some sort of princess..?
: (Your daughter's solution to this problem was pretty neat. :)
:
Yea, in the king's mountain fortress there is one, that looks like a
damsel in distress on the cover, but may have been referred to as a
princess in some literature.
She is actually ugly.
My nephew's comment was first "wow, there's even a princess".
Then we opened the package his next comment about her was "this princess
really sucks" [ Of course he wouldn't give her to me when I offered to
trade him a few other figures for her ].
He keeps her in the dungeon with the ghost.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
|Eileen F. Keeney |email: eil...@hpcvnefk.cv.hp.com
|Hewlett Packard, Corvallis, ICBD |phone: (503) 715-3140
|Software Application Specialist |location 2U-G33
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~