Why is Bionicle Kinda Sexist?

[Removed297]

Why is this such a big deal?

 

If you make X product targeted towards audience A, then chances are that product X will be made more relateable to audience A than audience B. This does not imply that the producers have any bias against B, it merely means that they are not the intended audience.

 

BIONICLE was made for young boys, and thus, it's likely that the majority of the cast will be male. Nowhere in BIONICLE do I see male superiority implied, and many posting here have already mentioned the interesting female characters that BIONICLE includes. It's just an imbalanced gender ratio for the sake of sales, not sexism out of any bias against the female gender.

 

Really, no one I've seen complains about products directed towards girls having a skewed gender ratio; why worry about BIONICLE, so long as it isn't intentionally sexist, but just part of the same marketing phenomenon?

Edited August 10, 2014 by The Kumquat Alchemist

[Banana Gunz]

Why is this such a big deal?

 

If you make X product targeted towards audience A, then chances are that product X will be made more relateable to audience A than audience B. This does not imply that the producers have any bias against B, it merely means that they are not the intended audience.

 

BIONICLE was made for young boys, and thus, it's likely that the majority of the cast will be male. Nowhere in BIONICLE do I see male superiority implied, and many posting here have already mentioned the interesting female characters that BIONICLE includes. It's just an imbalanced gender ratio for the sake of sales, not sexism out of any bias against the female gender.

 

Really, no one I've seen complains about products directed towards girls having a skewed gender ratio; why worry about BIONICLE, so long as it isn't intentionally sexist, but just part of the same marketing phenomenon?

 

An imbalanced gender ratio for the sake of sales can be seen, and felt, as sexism nonetheless.

 

And in fact if you look back in this topic many people have brought up girl toy themes such as My Little Pony having a skewed gender ratio.

 

Whether or not it is fine for marketing does not mean it is fine morally. Gender restrictions can be awful either way. True, Bionicle probably isn't intentionally sexist, but its restrictions affect many and very much showcase signs of sexism.

 

How you're going to market a product off is important, because it does more than sell; it sends messages. Having a target audience isn't bad, but one must be very careful when targeting that audience, because sometimes it can send a bad idea.

[fishers64]

 

 

I for one learned that if I put one or two girls in my stories (I wrote a lot as a kid, with Bionicle as a big influence), they were good enough and I had met the girl quota.

 

The fact that you think you need to make sure you have a set number of girls in your novel rather than creating interesting characters in general says loads about your point of view on the matter.

 

I see people say this all the time, but isn't it interesting how a majority of the "interesting characters" people create are arbitrarily male? I think being conscious of how accurately your story reflects reality in instances like gender, when applicable, does not contradict creating interesting characters. Contradict isnt quite the word I'm thinking of, but I can't for the life of me think of the word I want.

 

Preclude?

 

 

Interesting characters, no? I dare say that had the gender ration been better, we would have gotten more interesting female characters as well, since the story team seemed interested in writing good characters regardless of their gender.

 

Yeah, how many male characters were as cool as Lariska, or Helryx, or Krahka?

 

Two: Vakama and Teridax.

 

 

 

Throw in the Tahtorak, and it's a dead heat. XD (Come on, you have to give my buddy some credit for destroying things and demanding answers. It's not like Captain Kirk did much better. )

 

Why is this such a big deal?

 

If you make X product targeted towards audience A, then chances are that product X will be made more relateable to audience A than audience B. This does not imply that the producers have any bias against B, it merely means that they are not the intended audience.

 

BIONICLE was made for young boys, and thus, it's likely that the majority of the cast will be male. Nowhere in BIONICLE do I see male superiority implied, and many posting here have already mentioned the interesting female characters that BIONICLE includes. It's just an imbalanced gender ratio for the sake of sales, not sexism out of any bias against the female gender.

 

Really, no one I've seen complains about products directed towards girls having a skewed gender ratio; why worry about BIONICLE, so long as it isn't intentionally sexist, but just part of the same marketing phenomenon?

Because the opinion of the vast majority of people here is that the marketing phenomenon is wrong and should be changed. 

 

To this I for the most part. If everything has to appeal to everyone, then I think a lot of bland stories would be produced. But I think that other beings have made good points on the subject - a balance must be maintained. 

[Removed297]

 

Why is this such a big deal?

 

If you make X product targeted towards audience A, then chances are that product X will be made more relateable to audience A than audience B. This does not imply that the producers have any bias against B, it merely means that they are not the intended audience.

 

BIONICLE was made for young boys, and thus, it's likely that the majority of the cast will be male. Nowhere in BIONICLE do I see male superiority implied, and many posting here have already mentioned the interesting female characters that BIONICLE includes. It's just an imbalanced gender ratio for the sake of sales, not sexism out of any bias against the female gender.

 

Really, no one I've seen complains about products directed towards girls having a skewed gender ratio; why worry about BIONICLE, so long as it isn't intentionally sexist, but just part of the same marketing phenomenon?

 

An imbalanced gender ratio for the sake of sales can be seen, and felt, as sexism nonetheless.

 

And in fact if you look back in this topic many people have brought up girl toy themes such as My Little Pony having a skewed gender ratio.

 

Whether or not it is fine for marketing does not mean it is fine morally. Gender restrictions can be awful either way. True, Bionicle probably isn't intentionally sexist, but its restrictions affect many and very much showcase signs of sexism.

 

How you're going to market a product off is important, because it does more than sell; it sends messages. Having a target audience isn't bad, but one must be very careful when targeting that audience, because sometimes it can send a bad idea.

 

Perhaps so, but what if the only bad idea communicated is a skewed ratio?

 

How, exactly, will a skewed ratio affect the minds of those who have been immersed in BIONICLE's world? Is the idea of a fictional society in which the ratio of males to females is skewed inherently toxic? Nowhere in BIONICLE is it stated that this ratio is right or wrong, it just is as it is. Unless an existing bias against the male or female gender has been planted in the recipient, I fail to see how the gender ratio in BIONICLE being what it is would make people accidentally sexist, or host to sexist sentiments.

 

Yes, alongside other sources of intentional or more blatant sexist influence, I suppose BIONICLE's skewed gender ratio could assist in planting bad ideas, but I cannot personally imagine how it could do so on its own.

 

I won't argue that it isn't potentially upsetting to those concerned with gender equality, as how skewed the ratio must be before it is a problem is more of a subjective opinion. I myself would have no problem if BIONICLE had a larger female cast, and I believe that if society continues on a progressive track, it will be easier to market gender-equal brands to everyone. However, neither do I see the current skewed gender ratio as a danger, and more as a passing annoyance that future society will be able to look back on and laugh at.

Edited August 10, 2014 by The Kumquat Alchemist

[boston100]

A lot of people criticize BIONICLE as having only two types of female characters: nice, gentle ones and malicious, powerful ones, a blatantly untrue claim, and also one that creates a false dichotomy and implies that the two have to be mutually exclusive, and also one that misses the nuance of the characterization of many characters.

 

dalu says hi

[Banana Gunz]

 

 

*snip*

 

*snip*

Perhaps so, but what if the only bad idea communicated is a skewed ratio?

 

How, exactly, will a skewed ratio affect the minds of those who have been immersed in BIONICLE's world? Is the idea of a fictional society in which the ratio of males to females is skewed inherently toxic? Nowhere in BIONICLE is it stated that this ratio is right or wrong, it just is as it is. Unless an existing bias against the male or female gender has been planted in the recipient, I fail to see how the gender ratio in BIONICLE being what it is would make people accidentally sexist, or host to sexist sentiments.

 

Yes, alongside other sources of intentional or more blatant sexist influence, I suppose BIONICLE's skewed gender ratio could assist in planting bad ideas, but I cannot personally imagine how it could do so on its own.

 

I won't argue that it isn't potentially upsetting to those concerned with gender equality, as how skewed the ratio must be before it is a problem is more of a subjective opinion. I myself would have no problem if BIONICLE had a larger female cast, and I believe that if society continues on a progressive track, it will be easier to market gender-equal brands to everyone. However, neither do I see the current skewed gender ratio as a danger, and more as a passing annoyance that future society will be able to look back on and laugh at.

 

 

A skewed ratio doesn't just affect kids' minds, but it also makes things feel unfair to them. As I've posted earlier, from my own experience I always thought as a kid how unfair it had to be that all females were pushed into one elemental group, while males were pushed to others. By canon, there are few exceptions. As I've asked before: what's the problem with having male toa of water? What about female toa of fire?

 

It probably in itself doesn't make people sexist but it surely shouldn't be an influence on anyone at all. If a kid sees that male and female characters in a story are being segregated, they might not think it is right, but they also might not see that it is wrong, and the fact that people in modern society don't see why segregation like that is wrong has resulted in the people who do think it is right keep on segregating and being sexist.

 

And the fact that it is not wrong in Bionicle does not excuse it from it being wrong to people in the real world. This is part of why I made this discussion, because Bionicle was showing segregation of gender and it did not seem to care at all about it. If you have a story that has sexism in it but recognizes it and shows that it isn't right, than that's fine, but Bionicle has it indirectly and does not have a proper excuse for it or showing of it being wrong.

 

Like I said, it can have an influence in if that influence stays I don't know how many people will be looking back on it and laughing.

 

And as I've said before multiple times on different posts, Bionicle faces not one, but two problems with gender, affecting both males and females in total. The fact that the gender ratio is skewed, and the fact that matoran genders are forced into element:gender, other element:other gender. Many people seem to still only recognize or acknowledge one of them.

[BioGio]

And then you can go into "Well, why do people go to 'he' as a default? Isn't it a bit of an issue to automatically assume male when no gender is specified?" and so on and so forth. (To be honest, most statements I come up with of that nature use ze or hir, or they/they're [sometimes she/her], as those are usually pronouns I ascribe to myself and thus relate to them more easily and readily than to he/him -- I've not studied a lot on this particular aspect of this discussion before, so I can really only provide that anecdote).

 

I understand that this was posted like forever ago (i.e., 5 hours ago), but I can't help myself.  The particular case of generating pronouns has a lot to do with how a particular language's gender system works and not all that much to do with sexism.  An unknown person has to be assigned a gender if the personal pronouns are to be used.  These are the pronouns used when describing a person whose gender is unknown, like talking about the driver of the car next to you if the car's windows are heavily tinted.

 

In English, "they" and "he" are most common, but usage in formal writing is the subject of a centuries-old argument in prescriptivist circles.  I recall reading about a particular sub-dialect of AAVE that used "yo" for unknown persons.  (I haven't encountered much about people using pronouns such as "ze," as their appearance seems to be an extremely recent development that hasn't spread to many idiolects, let alone dialects/sociolects.)

Polish uses the neuter singular, a rough equivalent to "it" (or "they," if you happen to use that word in the singular).

Other languages don't have gender at all, like Finnish and Turkish.  They're just fine with having only one third person pronoun, and they'll use it for everyone.

Cross-linguistically, it seems that masculine pronouns are most popular.  However, languages such as Seneca and Maasai use the feminine gender.  Any random speaker, regardless of his/her own gender, will consistently produce a sentence such as "She went to the store" or "She may have been in an accident."  That doesn't necessarily mean that people from certain parts of West Africa or North America are any more or less sexist than speakers of other languages!  The Maasai still practice quite rigid gender roles.  It just means their languages handle these things differently.

 

Basically, linguistic gender and sexism aren't necessarily related.  Linguistic relativity holds that a language's structure can influence non-linguistic behavior, but that claim is far from axiomatic.  Looking at sentences like "He went to the store" is a really inaccurate way of determining whether a culture or individual is sexist.  (The same goes for that old myth that French and Spanish are somehow more sexist because every word in those languages is assigned a grammatical gender.  Saying "la silla" and "el ratón" doesn't ultimately mean much of anything about how Spanish speakers think.)

 

 

While I'm still here, I noticed that some people (The Kumquat Alchemist and one or two others) have been making the distinction between intentional and unintentional sexism.  Would you mind elaborating on how you draw that distinction, and what difference it makes whether sexism is intentional or not?

 

- BioGio

 

EDIT:  Addressed a bit more about grammatical gender because I'm a dweeb.

Edited August 10, 2014 by BioGio

[believe victims]

 

And then you can go into "Well, why do people go to 'he' as a default? Isn't it a bit of an issue to automatically assume male when no gender is specified?" and so on and so forth. (To be honest, most statements I come up with of that nature use ze or hir, or they/they're [sometimes she/her], as those are usually pronouns I ascribe to myself and thus relate to them more easily and readily than to he/him -- I've not studied a lot on this particular aspect of this discussion before, so I can really only provide that anecdote).

 

I understand that this was posted like forever ago (i.e., 5 hours ago), but I can't help myself.  The particular case of generating pronouns has a lot to do with how a particular language's gender system works and not all that much to do with sexism.  An unknown person has to be assigned a gender if the personal pronouns are to be used.  These are the pronouns used when describing a person whose gender is unknown, like talking about the driver of the car next to you if the car's windows are heavily tinted.

 

In English, "they" and "he" are most common, but usage in formal writing is the subject of a centuries-old argument in prescriptivist circles.  I recall reading about a particular sub-dialect of AAVE that used "yo" for unknown persons.  (I haven't encountered much about people using pronouns such as "ze," as their appearance seems to be an extremely recent development that hasn't spread to many idiolects, let alone dialects/sociolects.)

Polish uses the neuter singular, a rough equivalent to "it" (or "they," if you happen to use that word in the singular).

Other languages don't have gender at all, like Finnish and Turkish.  They're just fine with having only one third person pronoun, and they'll use it for everyone.

Cross-linguistically, it seems that masculine pronouns are most popular.  However, languages such as Seneca and Maasai use the feminine gender.  Any random speaker, regardless of his/her own gender, will consistently produce a sentence such as "She went to the store" or "She may have been in an accident."  That doesn't necessarily mean that people from certain parts of West Africa or North America are any more or less sexist than speakers of other languages!  The Maasai still practice quite rigid gender roles.  It just means their languages handle these things differently.

 

Basically, linguistic gender and sexism aren't necessarily related.  Linguistic relativity holds that a language's structure can influence non-linguistic behavior, but that claim is far from axiomatic.  Looking at sentences like "He went to the store" is a really inaccurate way of determining whether a culture or individual is sexist.  (The same goes for that old myth that French and Spanish are somehow more sexist because every word in those languages is assigned a grammatical gender.  Saying "la silla" and "el ratón" doesn't ultimately mean much of anything about how Spanish speakers think.)

 

 

While I'm still here, I noticed that some people (The Kumquat Alchemist and one or two others) have been making the distinction between intentional and unintentional sexism.  Would you mind elaborating on how you draw that distinction, and what difference it makes whether sexism is intentional or not?

 

- BioGio

 

EDIT:  Addressed a bit more about grammatical gender because I'm a dweeb.

 

 

You have to remember, though, that the past did not exist in a vacuum, and things like gender biases existed even then. Why is "he" a grammatical default, when it is a specifically gendered pronoun? Why does language tell you to assume a theoretical person is male unless there is a reason for them to be female specifically? Could you look me in the eye and tell me there's not a chance such a thing could be the product of assuming men to be default and women to be "other"?

 

Also, the difference between intentional and unintentional sexism is that intentional sexism is intended to say terrible things about women, and to spread those toxic viewpoints for the purpose of getting others to share them. Unintentional sexism, however, is more insidious; it exists in just about all media you take in. It's not done out of malice, but because "that's how it's always been done", and if you aren't conscious to it, you may find yourself taking in some of those toxic messages.

 

 

A lot of people criticize BIONICLE as having only two types of female characters: nice, gentle ones and malicious, powerful ones, a blatantly untrue claim, and also one that creates a false dichotomy and implies that the two have to be mutually exclusive, and also one that misses the nuance of the characterization of many characters.

 

dalu says hi

 

 

Dalu was only different to make a point about how dark and edgy Bionicle was getting. Before Voya Nui plunged headfirst into becoming Bloodmurder Island, she was as gentle and pacifistic as every other Ga-Matoran.

[Pomegranate]

Ugh so I had like really great replies written out to each of these responses, and I was almost ready to glance through for typos and post this whole thing, when the page was accidentally refreshed and my autosave was thirty minutes outdated. I'm not gonna bother to try and repeat everything I typed up but I will summarize what I said and do my best to remember as much as possible about what I originally wrote (EDIT: I think it's safe to say I remembered a good amount ). Luckily, because this thread is so cyclical, I have already answered every point made here earlier in this very topic, so I'm just gonna link to my original posts. I apologize in advance that many are very very long, but I always tried to be very thorough with them and I happen to care and know what I'm talking about, and also I'll write in which paragraphs are relevant to the point being made so you don't have to skim looking for the point I'm making. I beg you to actually click and read them, 'cause they're part of my argument that I just didn't have time to retype from scratch.
 

A lot of people criticize BIONICLE as having only two types of female characters: nice, gentle ones and malicious, powerful ones, a blatantly untrue claim, and also one that creates a false dichotomy and implies that the two have to be mutually exclusive, and also one that misses the nuance of the characterization of many characters.
 
dalu says hi

Nobody says it's exclusively two, but for the most part, it's one or the other. Dalu proves that sometimes they mix it up, and I really loved Dalu she was my favorite Voyatoran, but it's disappointing that she was never mentioned again after 2006 except once, by name, in an alternate universe. Exceptions to the rule do not magically disprove anything(p2,3). While may be a handful of very very well written, unique female characters in Bionicle, they are few and far between and do not get as much focus or exposure or story longevity as the male characters(p1), many more of which are unique and well written.
 

 

I for one learned that if I put one or two girls in my stories (I wrote a lot as a kid, with Bionicle as a big influence), they were good enough and I had met the girl quota.

 
The fact that you think you need to make sure you have a set number of girls in your novel rather than creating interesting characters in general says loads about your point of view on the matter.
 

It taught me that there are girl toys and boy toys and god forbid I get the wrong kind.

 
But there are girl toys and boy toys. Barbies are MEANT for girls, and Bionicles were MEANT for boys - that's why the gender ratio is so imbalanced in-story. More male characters means more male sets, which means - considering young boys were the target audience of Bionicle - boys were more likely to spend money on Bionicles. A boy would probably want to buy a Jaller set rather than a Hahli because, well, Jaller is a boy too. It doesn't mean Hahli wasn't a cool character as Jaller was, or that she was somehow less important - it's just the ways young boys think. That's the way it is.
 
If you don't get what I'm saying - how many 12-year-old Star Wars fans do you imagine spending money on a Princess Leia action figure?

 

First response - The fact that you ignore the point being made and assume I value it above anything else, and instead imply that I must be a terrible writer for supposedly valuing that above anything else, says loads about your point of view on that matter. Deflecting like that only tells me that you don't have a response to what I said. The point I was making was that Bionicle taught me, as a kid, when I used to write, that if I throw in one or two girls, that is enough, no matter what I was writing, and that they didn't need to do much else but be the token females. Which isn't good. And extends to how I as a kid, and other like me, would view and learn from other media and real life situations. Just 'cause you didn't have the same experience does not mean nobody else did, and Bionicle did indeed teach not very good things to kids(p1,2).

Second response - You have shot yourself in the foot and proved my point for me. Plenty of 12 year old Star Wars fans would get Princess Leia, because half of all 12 year olds are girls, and especially in this day and age, it's cool to like Star Wars no matter if you're a dork or not or a girl or a boy or whatever. It's a pretty unisex thing nowadays. But of course, boys are the more important consumer to you, and the only Star Wars fans out there apparently. Even if we pretend it's only 12 year old boys we're taking into account, the only reason they would not get Leia on the virtue that she is a girl is if that boy's parents would judge them for it and suggest getting something else (god forbid their child turns gay or whatever or just because dumb kid toy gender role nonsense that they grew up with themselves) or if they were already conditioned to the whole boy toys/girl toys stigma. (Also your example is already self defeating, 'cause not only was Leia pretty kickbutt awesome and one of the most important characters of the original trilogy, but pubescent 12 year old boys would be tripping over eachother to get Leia, especially so depending on which depiction of her it is )

As for the "it's just the way young boys think. That's the way it is" statement regarding the Jaller/Hahli scenario: Young boys think this way because they are conditioned to(p2), and sometimes they don't even care anyways(p1). They may not know it's "sexism", but they know it's not right. I explained that in the previous paragraph and here. Making Bionicle more available to girls would solve the problem(p3) that would arise in your scenario of not enough Hahli toys being sold, and you can't say that making it more appealing to girls would drop sales from boys because that's just untrue(p3,5). I don't know what you imagine "making it more appealing to girls" means, but it isn't slapping on pink and some rainbows, it's as easy as just writing the characters better and having more of them involved, and not making Bionicle with the idea that "girls aren't interested in construction toys"(p1) because that is the mentality they went into Bionicle with, and just didn't even try. This may be what people think is the norm, but it really shouldn't be, and that's why we're talking about it.
 

 

... isn't it interesting how a majority of the "interesting characters" people create are arbitrarily male? I think being conscious of how accurately your story reflects reality in instances like gender, when applicable, does not contradict creating interesting characters. Contradict isnt quite the word I'm thinking of, but I can't for the life of me think of the word I want.

 
I see what you're saying. But make up a sentence in your head with a subject.
 
I came up with, "He went to the store." He. Whenever pronouns are used at random like that, it's often a male pronoun that's used. I guess authors come up with ideas like that - and automatically come up with a male protagonist. And they expand on that idea.
 
Or at least that's my theory.

 

The subject in your made up sentences will depend heavily on that subjects role, and your own gender. If you're a guy, your random character would tend to be a guy, and if you're a gal your made up character will tend to be a girl. People write what they can relate to, and what they know. However, if you told us to make up a sentence about a subject and told us what their job or role is, we're faaaaar more likely to come up with a subject whose pronouns match the stereotypical gender for that role (male football players, female nurses, etc.). If you form a sentence where the subject is the opposite of what's expected, you're probably aware of the gender role nonsense(p4) and have an open mind about that stuff, or are thinking of a character you already know that goes against that role, just by word association (Like, I thought of Turk while I was typing "nurse", 'cause I started watching Scrubs the other day).

None of that is too relevant to what you said, however, because you use the word "author" as if even lady authors immediately envision a man as their random subject. For one thing, like I said, everyone tends to automatically insert their own gender, and for another, authors do not arbitrarily make up characters and go from there; if they keep working with it, they are viable to change anything and everything at some point, "they just thought of a dude first and rolled with it" sounds like a bad excuse. Authors make sure everything they're doing has a purpose/isn't completely arbitrary. The gender of characters is one of the first things they consider; I doubt JK Rowling made Harry a guy when she first thought of the story, and thought, "I really think the main protagonist should be a girl... but I thought of a dude first so I'm rowling with it." 
 

 

Nah, because it's not so simple as "this is aimed at young boys so it's allowed to be sexist"

 
Oh, I think it is. Sales drove the way the Bionicle story went, not the other way around.
 
 

Interesting characters, no? I dare say that had the gender ration been better, we would have gotten more interesting female characters as well, since the story team seemed interested in writing good characters regardless of their gender.

 
Yeah, how many male characters were as cool as Lariska, or Helryx, or Krahka?

 

First Response - So, you're agreeing that "it's allowed to be sexist"? Because it was the sales that drove... how the story was written? That's a lot of misconception there. The stories were written around the products but other than what sets were to be featured and what themes they represented, the writing team was free to do anything they want and expand it through books, comics, and web serials. I also don't ever recall anything that said blue toys selling the worst, and especially nothing about how they were selling in relation to gender. The fact that they were more focused on money than people, which makes sense and everyone is in agreement on, does not make them right for making sexist business decisions. The point of the topic is to discuss why those decisions were made, and in my first post(p1) I explained that it was money, money, money, and old white dudes who don't understand what the world is really like but can't be stopped 'cause old white dudes who run companies can do what they want.

Second Response - You shouldn't only care about female characters if they're cool; "strong characters" doesn't mean "physically strong/violent characters", and the fact that Bionicle has a handful of "cool" and interesting and well written female characters does not excuse everything else. It's the same as with Dalu, and I went into this particular thing in detail (see links in Dalu response). "How many male characters were as cool"? There were 6-8 times as many males than females in Bionicle (around 6 times as many based on sets, 8 times as many that exist in the story) so it would not be hard to find 18-24 male characters that are as cool as Lariska and Co. (In case you ask, TSO, Teridax, Lhikan, Ancient, Lesovikk, Karzahni, Hydraxon, Velika, Pridak, Takanuva, Axonn, Brutaka, Mutran, Miserix, Voporak, Tren Krom, and most of the male characters ever released as canister sets were super cool and had their great moments, especially if they were Toa. The ladies count too, but they are very much outnumbered.)

Naming characters you thought were cool or memorable is very subjective, and you can't claim to use that as a valid argument. This is a topic about why Bionicle was sexist, not about your opinions of which characters of the horribly represented gender are the best. As I explained above, it's irrelevant since they're so few and far between and are not anywhere close to being on the same level as male characters.
 

 

I understand that things being taught can be unintentional, and things learned are likewise unintentional, but what I meant was that I don't believe that the lack of females in Bionicle taught me anything sexist. 

 
The thing is though, saying Bionicle is sexist for having more main male characters is like saying Monster High is sexist for having more main female characters. It's less about sexism than more about appealing to their target audience. In the latter's case, its for pre-teen girls. In Bionicle's case, its 8 year old boys. No matter how many girls like Bionicle, or even how many of us older fans, the only thing that truly matters to Lego in the end are the 8 year olds that the line is targeted towards.

 
 
Boom. That's it. That's simply the answer to this thread. Why is Bionicle kinda "sexist"? Because the target audience was young boys, and more boys in the story = more male characters as toys.

 

Being an exception to the rule does not mean anything, you not experiencing something does mean it does not exist or does not happen. Do not be selfish about your toy line because you're fine with it how it is, not everyone is immune to its harmful effects(p5). 

It has been explained in great detail why poor gender ratios in boys' toys is nowhere near the same thing as poor gender ratios in girls' toys(p3,4,5,6,7). You also cannot seriously make that argument, 'cause if you believe there's nothing wrong with Bionicle's gender ratio, why do you care about gender ratios in girls' toylines? And you can't turn it around and say "well if you care about Bionicle's ratio you have to agree that girls' toylines ratios are harmful too!" because it simply isn't true. A lot of girls' toylines are still produced by companies that are run by men, and their awful ideas affect how those are made as well, and pumped full of harmful gender role nonsense and generally really low production levels. The "money over people" mentality is still in full force, but it's so much easier to use it on girls' lines because they are already growing up in a world made by men that molds them to buy into every wrong, messed up gender stereotype in the world(p3) and get exposed to a very limited range of "for girls" things, and they just don't need to try as hard with the quality. If you slap pink on it, it's a girls' toy, and they don't have too much other competition to fight to produce quality stuff for them. It's a different industry, and it's a terrible industry. Let the girls at least get their own thing where they can have a cool product that's focused on them and features a mostly female cast without getting outraged that you don't see enough men in it. It is sexist. This applies to ALL types of media, not just toys.

Yes, we've all established that LEGO was sexist because money, I explained that in replies to previous responses. Again, it doesn't make it right, and the topic was to discuss why. "Boom. That's it." and "Can this topic be closed now" does not support an active discussion on the topic, it sounds more like trying to sweep it under the rug or just assuming it's all figured out now and unimportant. The fact that so many people have had to be sat down and explained what sexism really is and why so many things that they said are blatantly sexist is evidence enough that the discussion is far from unnecessary. 
 

Why is this such a big deal?
 
If you make X product targeted towards audience A, then chances are that product X will be made more relateable to audience A than audience B. This does not imply that the producers have any bias against B, it merely means that they are not the intended audience.
 
BIONICLE was made for young boys, and thus, it's likely that the majority of the cast will be male. Nowhere in BIONICLE do I see male superiority implied, and many posting here have already mentioned the interesting female characters that BIONICLE includes. It's just an imbalanced gender ratio for the sake of sales, not sexism out of any bias against the female gender.
 
Really, no one I've seen complains about products directed towards girls having a skewed gender ratio; why worry about BIONICLE, so long as it isn't intentionally sexist, but just part of the same marketing phenomenon?

Why this is such a big deal(p1,4).

Why "males are better than females" doesn't need to be outright stated for Bionicle to be sexist(p2) and why unintentional sexism is still sexism(p3,5).  
 
For the gender ratio in girls' products issue, see previous reply and accompanying link.

----

Hopefully I didn't miss anything. I'm sorry this post is so massive, but I couldn't snip anything out of the quotes as they were all being responded to in full, and I was answering a whole bunch.

Y'all really should read through the topic first because everything that has come up in the last two pages was already answered (and not just by me, but by others); citing new examples for flawed concepts is just encouraging the same exact discussion to repeat itself over and over and it's tiresome to keep repeating the same answers.

For those of you who are dudes and saying all these things, please keep in mind that the issues in Bionicle that relate to gender might just not be as obvious or meaningful to you, 'cause you don't understand what it's like to see it from a different perspective and with the weight of many other similar experiences in the past. You may be confused as to why it's sexist or why a couple well written characters should be enough to make up for everything, but the very fact that people are complaining about it and trying to explain should be enough to tell you that maybe you are wrong and need to consider what they're saying to you(p4,5,6,7,8).

Edited August 10, 2014 by Pomegranate

[BioGio]

You have to remember, though, that the past did not exist in a vacuum, and things like gender biases existed even then. Why is "he" a grammatical default, when it is a specifically gendered pronoun? Why does language tell you to assume a theoretical person is male unless there is a reason for them to be female specifically? Could you look me in the eye and tell me there's not a chance such a thing could be the product of assuming men to be default and women to be "other"?

 

Also, the difference between intentional and unintentional sexism is that intentional sexism is intended to say terrible things about women, and to spread those toxic viewpoints for the purpose of getting others to share them. Unintentional sexism, however, is more insidious; it exists in just about all media you take in. It's not done out of malice, but because "that's how it's always been done", and if you aren't conscious to it, you may find yourself taking in some of those toxic messages.

 

If you want to talk about the past, the late Winfred Lehmann's theory is that Indo-European languages derive their gender systems from three endings.  These three endings (-s, -m, and -h) didn't really make up a gender system in Proto-Indo-European (the common ancestor to all modern-day Indo-European languages, from Farsi to English, which was spoken around the 4th millennium BC).  Then, in every Indo-European language except Hittite, the -h disappeared and instead lengthened the preceding vowel.  For some reason or another (likely due to pure chance), the consonantal endings became associated with masculine referents, while the nouns ending in long vowels became associated with feminine referents.  In other words, no linguistic gender does not develop due to sexism.  That's not a direct answer to how we started saying "he" for unknown persons, but we lack first-hand data on Proto-Indo-European pronoun usage (for the obvious reason that it was never written).  In short, this is a linguistic issue, and the consensus in that field of science is that linguistic gender and sexism are not as closely related as they seem.

 

Also note that "language" does not inform what we use as the gender of unknown persons.  Each individual language does, so treating "language" as something monolithic here ignores real-life linguistic diversity.  Would you say that the Maasai people believe women to be the default and men to be "other," based on their language's gender system?  Do you believe the Finns are (or were) less sexist than the French because Finnish lacks a gender distinction in its nouns and pronouns?

 

Now, there are certainly linguists to subscribe to linguistic relativity in its various forms.  However, the claim that a language's gender system is the product of (or causes) sexism is mostly a myth among lay-people--a very prevalent one.  In general, the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" (quotes because that's not the technical term, but nonetheless the popular one) and various over-stated versions thereof are popular among those who don't know much about linguistics.

 

Thanks, by the way, for the definition of the intentional/unintentional split.  I felt it was a bit odd to call LEGO's conscious decision to make most characters male "unintentional sexism," but now I see that it's sort of a matter of (un)intentional spreading of sexism.

 

- BioGio

 

(P.S.:  As for that "not a chance" line, I'm reminded of a friend, an attorney who loved sharing stories from the trenches of the courthouse.  He loves to say that when a lawyer asks "Is it possible that XYZ happened?" or something similar, the only correct response is "Yes, and it's also possible that there are aliens on Mars."  Don't try this at home, though, kids; contempt of court is a real thing.)

Edited August 10, 2014 by BioGio

[toa kopaka4372]

 

 

A lot of people criticize BIONICLE as having only two types of female characters: nice, gentle ones and malicious, powerful ones, a blatantly untrue claim, and also one that creates a false dichotomy and implies that the two have to be mutually exclusive, and also one that misses the nuance of the characterization of many characters.

dalu says hi

 

 

Nobody says it's exclusively two, but for the most part, it's one or the other. Dalu proves that sometimes they mix it up, and I really loved Dalu she was my favorite Voyatoran, but it's disappointing that she was never mentioned again after 2006 except once, by name, in an alternate universe.Exceptions to the rule do not magically disprove anything(p2,3). While may be a handful of very very well written, unique female characters in Bionicle, they are few and far between and do not get as much focus or exposure or story longevity as the male characters(p1), many more of which are unique and well written.

The first quote is something I said a few pages back, which no one responded to. boston100 was quoting me and then said "dalu says hi."

 

Let me clarify the point I'm making here, because it's very clear aren't getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no dichotomy between gentle and violent. In response to the third quote, I contest the statement that it's one or the other. It's not one or the other because there is no one or the other. 'Gentle' is not a character trait that is restricted to female characters, and when they have it it is not their sole one. Matoro and Onua are two male characters who are arguably more 'gentle' than any female character ever was, and as mentioned earlier, Gali and Nokama were the only notable female characters with that as a defining characteristic, and even that's arguable in Nokama's case. Now, characters like Krahka have their own personalities and character traits that have nothing to do with a false contrast of gentle and aggressive. Aside from the two traits being non-mutually exclusive, they are often irrelevant when discussing the traits that certain female characters have.

 

I believe that well-written female characters was the rule, as were well-written male characters, aside from the characters that were too minor to get proper development. Yes, Dalu vanished after 2006...as did Garan, Balta, Kazi, and Piruk. Out of all those characters, guess who got the most attention devoted to them? Dalu, as I can say after reading all the 2006 books, followed up by Garan/Balta. Let me bring up another group. We were introduced to seven Av-Matoran in 2008: Tanma, Gavla, Kirop, Solek, Photok, and Radiak, and Vican. There were a lot of things happening that year and over a dozen other characters to focus on, so the story team can be forgiven for the fact that we never got to learn much about these people. However, one overlooked Matoran sticks out: Gavla. She was introduced as a frigid, Ko-Matoran type who others regarded as arrogant and so she never had any friends. When Takanuva freed her from being a Shadow Matoran she was outraged. We learned that she had become a Shadow Matoran willingly, because she had finally found a group of people who had need for her. She had never felt that kind of love or care from anyone around her, and so was more than happy to be used by the Makuta, even if she was just a tool, because she finally felt like she had somewhere she belonged. Combined with Tanma's description of her a frigid Matoran who no one liked it, it becomes ironically clear that Gavla and others misunderstood each other, resulting in her being an outcast. She openly challenged Takanuva for freeing her against her will, pointing out, correctly, that Toa shouldn't always assume that what they're doing to people is for the best.

 

That small piece of characterization was deeper and more meaningful than anything the other Matoran got. The assumption running through this thread is that in every wave, the male and female characters got the same amount of attention in the story, or that the females got less, when the reality is quite different. Usually, out of the six in each wave, three would get the most attention, and in every case those three were two males and one female. People are determined to say that the story team did "nothing" about the skewed gender ratios, but how much choice did they have? I'm pretty sure the higherups made it clear that there were not to be too many females in the story, and while the story team should have made the ratio a little less unbalanced, they tried to compensate, especially Greg, in other ways. Also, a rarely mentioned point is that in-story, no BIONICLE characters show surprise at women being capable of holding positions of power or achieving great things, or capable of doing what the guys do, whether its in terms of heroics or villainous actions. Helryx is the first Toa and is the founder and leader of the most powerful organization in the world, on par with the Brotherhood. There is not a single instance in-story of anyone finding this strange. Surely, if no one finds it odd, the kid reading the story would learn that it isn't? And no, don't pull the "Helryx was only in the serials" card. Helryx was introduced to us in person in a book, Swamp of Secrets. She was first mentioned, without name, in BIONICLE: World. And the serials were still meant for kids to read. They were on BIONICLEStory.com for a reason. 

 

Yes, the gender ratio is a problem. What I'm trying to say is that BIONICLE was never sexist, whether directly or indirectly, in any other matter, aside from the "gentle" Ga-Matoran established in '01 that became largely irrelevant later.

Edited August 10, 2014 by toa kopaka4372

[Banana Gunz]

 

*snip*

 

While I'm still here, I noticed that some people (The Kumquat Alchemist and one or two others) have been making the distinction between intentional and unintentional sexism.  Would you mind elaborating on how you draw that distinction, and what difference it makes whether sexism is intentional or not?

 

*snip*

 

 

Think about it this way: you can say anything negative about any type of gender or race as a whole, because there are negative things about all races and genders as a whole, no one is completely innocent and good in history. But just because you can say it and sometimes DO say it doesn't mean you are sexist. It's all situational. Sometimes it's okay to point out some of the things that aren't totally pleasant about someone, by that doesn't mean you hate them and their entire group of people. I can say: "Girls tend to think to much about the present and can lose sight of what's important." This statement isn't true for the entirety of all girls but it is something I have noticed in many of the females I have met to the extend I can't tell whether it's coincidence or not anymore. It doesn't mean that I hate all women, it's just a problem that I would point out, and all types of people have these things, including males.

 

But if you begin saying that sentence because you specifically want to be rude or insult females somehow and your ideas/beliefs show that you dislike females, then I would see you as sexist. (remember, I'm using you for convenience here, I'm not calling anyone out.) And if you are always starting to look for and make things up to say something rude about someone, that probably shows you are sexist (if it's against women).

 

The example I used before was: "You can swing a golf club or play golf but that doesn't immediately make you a golfer."

 

To me, this distinction is drawn on what a person intends to mean or say. Because we can all interpret and misinterpret things and we don't all have the best ways of conveying what we mean, which can result in the message/idea/intent being lost or changed. There is a line of course, though to me it is more important what a person truly feels inside, and it is important that we let others know where we stand, and that they don't immediately try to judge you and give you titles if you don't.

 

It makes a difference because anyone can say something rude about me, but it could very well be a best friend who does that, and just because they said something rude about me it doesn't mean they hate me, for it could very well be true, and I should take it with consideration. Not everyone means to hurt you when they say something that feels bad and it's important we try to understand first and foremost what they actually feel about you, and then absorb the other details afterwards. Like I said there is a line as to what you can say before you really hurt someone's feeling, no matter what your intent is, but as people we must be tolerant of each other and keep away from hurting others when we can (unless the situation demands for a bit of tough love, what has to be done must be done).

 

 

I hope that this makes sense to all of you, what I'm trying to say about intentional and unintentional sexism. I sometimes have so much show about what I mean that it turns into a garbled mess, but I tried to keep it as clear as possible so no one misinterprets me.

[Removed297]

*snip*

 

A fair analysis; you've given me a better perspective for the issue at hand, and perspective is everything.

 

I may still not see this as such an affront as you do, but to be confronted with where I am wrong is an invaluable asset to better understanding your motivations and the motivations of those who think similarly.

 

Just a final question of you, to better understand how you think of things; do you believe that this type of unintentional sexism is a symptom of a larger issue, and that this specific issue would resolve itself over time if higher issues were quashed, or do you think it a self-contained marketing phenomenon that needs to be directly combated? I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

Edited August 10, 2014 by The Kumquat Alchemist

[Reznas]

the very fact that people are complaining about it and trying to explain should be enough to tell you that maybe you are wrong and need to consider what they're saying to you(p4,5,6,7,8).

 

This logic is kind of flawed, because anyone else could say the same to you. If I complained and tried to explain my point of view to you, would that make you wrong and automatically require you to consider what you're saying?

 

-Rez

 

EDIT: Do note, I'm not questioning your post, but rather this specific section that has some logical fallacies.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Reznas

[Pomegranate]

 

the very fact that people are complaining about it and trying to explain should be enough to tell you that maybe you are wrong and need to consider what they're saying to you(p4,5,6,7,8).

 

This logic is kind of flawed, because anyone else could say the same to you. If I complained and tried to explain my point of view to you, would that make you wrong and automatically require you to consider what you're saying?

 

-Rez

 

EDIT: Do note, I'm not questioning your post, but rather this specific section that has some logical fallacies.

 

The difference here is that I am in the right, and have not been provided with any information that has proved me otherwise. I always do consider that I may not be correct and consider what others are saying to me, and in thinking it through I almost always find that I am right, 'cause I never stick my nose into something unless I am confident that I am well educated on what I am talking about and can defend my point. I have admitted in this topic before that I have phrased some things wrong or not explained myself properly, and I have admitted when others' counterarguments held some weight. I am not stubbornly pushing ahead and I take a lot of time to carefully read through what others are saying.

 

The biggest difference between my making the "people are complaining, it means you're still wrong" claim is that I am using it to point out the fact that someone else is wrong in saying something doesn't exist, and when others say that to me they would be trying to say that I am wrong in claiming that it does exist. When people complain about sexism, it means they have seen something sexist. When people complain that something isn't sexist, it means they haven't seen something sexist. The reason there are two points of view on this is that one side has their eyes open and the other side has their eyes closed.

 

A lot of responses in this thread seem to exist simply because they get frightened by the accusation that Bionicle was sexist (not even 100% sexist, just "kinda sexist" as the title makes clear) and do not want their beloved toyline to be associated with that word. Because they have not experienced the effects of sexism or been sat down and taught on all the many ways it can manifest itself (it doesn't matter if it's intentional or unintentional; either way there is a victim and you shouldn't be caring more about the technicalities of the perpetrator) they are not aware of the ways in which Bionicle is sexist, and they think that by proving that one thing here or another thing there was not sexist (usually through subjective arguments like "I didn't think there was a problem" or "these few characters were really good" or "i didn't learn anything bad") it resolves the whole issue and proves that nothing is wrong, letting them settle back into a comfortable world where they can pretend everything is fine and nobody is being mistreated. Why is everyone so adamant to defend Bionicle against this accusation, although everyone unanimously agrees that it is sexist? Yes, it only happened because of money. That's been established. That does not mean the problem goes away. We are allowed to discuss it and figure out the nuances, identify other ways in which that sexism manifested itself, and how it affected folks that were not ourselves.

 

"The very fact that people are complaining about it and trying to explain" that Bionicle wasn't really sexist does not tell me that maybe I am wrong, it tells me that there are people who are ignorant of the problem and refuse to accept what they are being told as fact just because "it never happened to me" or they just can't admit that something they like is sexist. Whether it happened on purpose or not does not matter, whether it affected you personally or not doesn't matter, whether you knew about or not doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that once you recognize it and are made aware of it is whether or not you choose to support it. I've said it before, willful ignorance is not neutrality, it is guilt. I like the example of the "golf club swinger" very much.

 

If you swing a golf club, it does not make you a golfer. However, if you hit that ball, it can hit someone. Whether you meant for it to hit someone or not, you are the one who hit them. You can fess up to it and run over to help them, or blame them for standing there, or pretend you didn't see and ignore it. That's Bionicle. It swung a golf club and sometimes a stray ball hit someone. It wasn't intentional. The people behind Bionicle were never taught that it was wrong to wildly swing golf clubs. But it is still their fault, and pointing out that some of their balls went into the hole does not absolve them. They could play a perfect game and have made one of those holes when the ball bounced of someone's face and into the mark. They still hit someone. They are at fault.

 

You are not the golfer, you are the bystander, the spectator. You came to watch, and fell in love with the game. Then someone got hit with a ball. It wasn't you. If you didn't see it, you are gonna be pretty skeptical one someone makes the claim, but if they show you a photograph of it you can't still claim it didn't happen because you weren't looking. You can't still claim it didn't happen because Bionicle just got a perfect game, which means they must be professional golfer and can't possible mess up. You can't claim that it's irrelevant 'cause it's in the past, or 'cause it was just an accident, because that person still got hit and you can't change that. If you did see it happen, the same applies, except now you have a choice whether to ignore it or to admit that it happened. 

 

The most important thing? In the end, you could be any of those people, but once you are made aware that someone got hit with the ball, you have a choice to either run there and help, or not. You can try to tell the people telling you about the accident that it's not big deal, and people get hit all the time, or any of the excuses I mentioned previously... or you can go help the person who got hit. You can insist that because you didn't swing the club, it's none of your business... or you can go an help. That's what it boils down to. No matter what you do, if you have been told about the problem and choose anything other than helping, you are guilty of not helping, you are in the wrong. How can you help? You can tell other about the accident. Make them believe. You can make a statement that you support the person that got hit. You can run over there and help them if they're really injured. You can stand with those that are trying to make it clear that the golf club swinger was in the wrong, instead of trying to defend them. Or, you know, you can stand in the corner and nitpick what words the people trying to help are using, pointing out "logical fallacies", putting the golfer on a pedestal and insist that they're a better golfer now, you can find other people who are ignoring it or didn't see it and use them to support your claims that everyone else is just paranoid and made up the accident, you can cry about how unfair it is that other people wildly swing golf clubs but never get the same criticism, you can say that it doesn't matter where the ball went but rather what clothes the golfer is wearing, you can complain that it was 10 minutes ago and everyone should get over it. No matter what you do, no matter how right you think you are, the fact is that someone got hit and whatever it is you're doing isn't helping them; denying it won't change reality. 

 

Bionicle is kinda sexist. This was because money and old white dudes who grew up in a sexist world. They didn't know that they were being sexist. They weren't aware that their story had some sexist elements. The consumers didn't notice this. Not all of them. But some did, and we're speaking out about it, because ignoring it sure isn't going to help. For the most part, guys aren't gonna get this, 'cause they just don't understand what it's like and it doesn't affect them. Ladies will feel the impacts much more easily and recognize the root of the problem and how it affects others, and some might not because they've been brought up in the same world that harms them and they're just used to it. I've explained it all before. 

 

So, why isn't it the same when I make that statement, and when others would make it against me? Because I am right. I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't. I care about this and I've thought it all through. I am on the side that is trying to prove something real, and defending it against those trying to prove that it isn't. The latter is easier, because it's so simple to deny things than it is to prove it exists. Please keep and open mind and remember that your point of view is not the only one that matters, that if you didn't see something does not mean it did not happen. Take others' word for it. What do we have to gain by making this all up? Why would somebody sit down one day and say, "hehe, what if we all pretended Bionicle was sexist?" The problems that plagued Bionicle were there from Day One, and now that the fanbase has had 14 years to grow up, a lot of them are starting to recognize some of the more sexist parts of it, and trying to talk about it with whoever is willing to listen. Unfortunately, that's threatening to some people, 'cause apparently it's too hard not to butt in and insist that we're wrong. How do you know? The fact that someone is complaining means something is wrong. It's not always true, 'cause as I've said about a hundred times, there's always an exception to the rule. Sexism in Bionicle is not one of those exceptions.

 

And, yes, Kumquat, in response to this: " do you believe that this type of unintentional sexism is a symptom of a larger issue, and that this specific issue would resolve itself over time if higher issues were quashed, or do you think it a self-contained marketing phenomenon that needs to be directly combated? " I do believe it is part of a bigger issue. As I've said before, it's the society we live in, one that puts man above woman and makes it hard for those living and raised in it to recognize that something is wrong. If we continue to speak out about it and point it out in our everyday lives, more people learn about it, and learn that it is wrong, and if higher authority starts taking steps to change it or simply acknowledge it, we'll be on the road to a better world. It will definitely solve itself, but only if regular people push it along. The marketing phenomenon of Bionicle (is that what you meant?) does not need to be directly "combated", but the problem needs to be made known and it is up to the folks up at LEGO to do something about it. I believe that they are capable of doing so, as they are already taking steps towards improving their relation to the female demographic in their consumer base. I am not a fighter by nature, but that does not mean I am content to stand by and watch. One of the best ways I help is by listening and communicating. I listen to learn, and I communicate to teach. That's what I am trying to do here. 

 

That's all I've got to say about that. I don't have fun in this topic, it's very frustrating and disconcerting. I go into it because I want people to understand and to not spread misconceptions and ignore the plight of others, 'cause I care (and I don't like to abandon folks when they're trying to have a discussion, even if I wish I could be doing anything else, 'cause that's just rude and cowardly). If it's alright with y'all, I'll leave the topic with this. I've said all I have to say and all my past posts contain more than enough to address any and every point that could possibly be made, as I showed with my previous enormous message. I hope y'all understand what I have been trying to say all this time and eventually come to find yourselves helping others learn about this. I want nothing more than to keep dispelling wrongful thinking, but it's kinda frustrating to see the same thing said over and over and things that I type ignored completely, and I'd rather be out on the rest of BZPower having fun

 

Thanks for a lovely discussion, as aggravating and time consuming as it was everyone was like super polite and rational and that made me very happy. I don't hold any grudges or whatever, I don't judge anyone based on a single opinion. Carry on, cool cats   And always keep an open mind.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Reznas]

 

Because I am right.

 

That's subjective. Theoretically you could be wrong. I think you're right, because I totally think Bionicle had elements of sexism. But the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that definitively calling one side wrong and your side right is logically flawed. Of course you think your side is right and the other side is wrong. That's a given. But that doesn't make the other side inherently wrong. It just makes it wrong from your perspective. 

 

Again, I do agree with you, so don't take this like an attack on the views you laid out. I'm simply pointing out that a definitive, "I'm right," is logically flawed.

 

-Rez

[believe victims]

 

 

Because I am right.

 

That's subjective. Theoretically you could be wrong. I think you're right, because I totally think Bionicle had elements of sexism. But the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that definitively calling one side wrong and your side right is logically flawed. Of course you think your side is right and the other side is wrong. That's a given. But that doesn't make the other side inherently wrong. It just makes it wrong from your perspective. 

 

Again, I do agree with you, so don't take this like an attack on the views you laid out. I'm simply pointing out that a definitive, "I'm right," is logically flawed.

 

-Rez

 

Would you say you're right about that?

[~Shockwave~]

 

 

 

Because I am right.

 

That's subjective. Theoretically you could be wrong. I think you're right, because I totally think Bionicle had elements of sexism. But the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that definitively calling one side wrong and your side right is logically flawed. Of course you think your side is right and the other side is wrong. That's a given. But that doesn't make the other side inherently wrong. It just makes it wrong from your perspective. 

 

Again, I do agree with you, so don't take this like an attack on the views you laid out. I'm simply pointing out that a definitive, "I'm right," is logically flawed.

 

-Rez

 

Would you say you're right about that?

 

 

Well yes, but rather than saying he's right because he's right, he's saying he's right because that's fallacious logic.

 

In a discussion such as this it is perfectly well and good to believe you are correct, it seems pointless to discuss if you think otherwise. But saying that you are right in part of your argument is generally something that shouldn't be done. You can present evidence and give the reasoning behind your views but if you lead your post with "I'm right and here's why" you're potentially alienating half the argument because it's fairly reasonable to assume that you think that they are wrong. And if you lead the argument by saying anyone who apposes you is wrong then we just have a pointless debate that's not going to go anywhere.

 

Basically, While it is okay to think you are right, leading your argument with that probably doesn't do anyone any good. 

 

Edit: And I say this even though I sympathize with Pomegranate's side of the argument.

Edited August 11, 2014 by ~Shockwave~

[bonesiii]

Since logic is at issue here, lemme cut in here.
 
All Pomegranate said was that if a lot of people are disagreeing with somebody, that's a reason to "consider" the somebody might be wrong. That isn't the same as saying the somebody is wrong because people disagree. Notice the wording:
 

the very fact that people are complaining about it and trying to explain should be enough to tell you that maybe you are wrong and need to consider what they're saying to you

Now I presume Pomegranate believes that view IS definitely right, but that conclusion wasn't worded as being based on the fact that many agree. It's based on all the other things Pom has said (and more; we could probably write more than the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject).

 

But the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that definitively calling one side wrong and your side right is logically flawed.

Not if the statement is based on sound support.

 

However, you're right that it's important to avoid actually arguing "I'm right because people agree with me." That would work two-ways and would thus be a fallacy, but that wasn't the argument that was used, at least as I'm reading it.

[Reznas]

Since logic is at issue here, lemme cut in here.

 

All Pomegranate said was that if a lot of people are disagreeing with somebody, that's a reason to "consider" the somebody might be wrong. That isn't the same as saying the somebody is wrong because people disagree. Notice the wording:

 

the very fact that people are complaining about it and trying to explain should be enough to tell you that maybe you are wrong and need to consider what they're saying to you

Now I presume Pomegranate believes that view IS definitely right, but that conclusion wasn't worded as being based on the fact that many agree. It's based on all the other things Pom has said (and more; we could probably write more than the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject).

 

You do have a point. I must have missed the "maybe" part. Had I noticed it, I probably wouldn't have called the section out. I, therefore, digress.

 

Not if the statement is based on sound support.

 

I could argue that even a supported argument doesn't equal a truthful argument. In reality, truth is relative from person to person. That doesn't mean that the truth each of us derive is real true. But since each person determines what he considers true, we can never conclude a finite truth. You see, if the perception of truth changes from person to person, any statement can theoretically be right or wrong.

 

-Rez

 

Edited August 11, 2014 by Reznas

[~Shockwave~]

Since logic is at issue here, lemme cut in here.

 

All Pomegranate said was that if a lot of people are disagreeing with somebody, that's a reason to "consider" the somebody might be wrong. That isn't the same as saying the somebody is wrong because people disagree. Notice the wording:

 

the very fact that people are complaining about it and trying to explain should be enough to tell you that maybe you are wrong and need to consider what they're saying to you

Now I presume Pomegranate believes that view IS definitely right, but that conclusion wasn't worded as being based on the fact that many agree. It's based on all the other things Pom has said (and more; we could probably write more than the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject).

 

But the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that definitively calling one side wrong and your side right is logically flawed.

Not if the statement is based on sound support.

 

However, you're right that it's important to avoid actually arguing "I'm right because people agree with me." That would work two-ways and would thus be a fallacy, but that wasn't the argument that was used, at least as I'm reading it.

 

 

This is the issue though:

 

The difference here is that I am in the right, and have not been provided with any information that has proved me otherwise.

 

That is the very first unquoted thing in the post. That's kind of like starting your resume with: "You should hire me, here's why."

 

While yes that is the point, that probably wouldn't look too great.

 

You can't go into an argument like that. It just looks bad. And as I said earlier, it alienates the people who are on the other side of the argument, which exactly what you don't want in a discussion. If you aren't trying to open up the opposing sides eyes to your points then what is the point of having a five page long debate on it?

 

Like I said, I agree with Pom, but I don't think that's a great way to start a post in a situation like this, and most of the arguments in that post are pretty good ones and should be taken seriously by everyone in the debate. Which is why I take such issue with that.

Edited August 11, 2014 by ~Shockwave~

[Noxryn]

I could argue that even a supported argument doesn't equal a truthful argument. In reality, truth is relative from person to person. That doesn't mean that the truth each of us derive is real true. But since each person determines what he considers true, we can never conclude a finite truth. You see, if the perception of truth changes from person to person, any statement can theoretically be right or wrong.

 

-Rez

 

Truth isn't subjective, that's sort of why it is called "truth."

 

For example: Gravity is a scientific truth, so too is evolution (both of which have theories accompanying them regarding the how and why, not debating their existence) and you can't say "Gravity isn't real" or "Evolution isn't real" because that contradicts actual science -- research, experiments, discoveries and observations that prove its existence. Well, you can say that they aren't true, but that statement is then false regardless of what level opinion it is as observable nature dictates otherwise.

 

Right now, in this debate and topic, there is an abundance of evidence and support behind precisely why Bionicle is (at least kind of) sexist and it is a morally objectionable position to take to actively be and behave as sexist -- granted, no one is inherently above any other person on such superficial factors. 

 

So, Pomegranate isn't right on the basis "I'm right and you're not": Pomegranate is right on the basis that Pomegranate has gone through the effort (as have many others) to compile support and evidence regarding their position, while debunking and refuting the scant tatters of evidence people try to bring up to debate with. When supporting a statement with solid factual evidence, it starts to become less of an "opinion" and more of a fact... and one can't say a fact is wrong anymore than they could say the Sun goes to a solar rave every Tuesday.

[bonesiii]

I could argue that even a supported argument doesn't equal a truthful argument. In reality, truth is relative from person to person.

In terms of the proper definition of truth in logic, a soundly supported argument is a true one. Of course, then people go on to question whether any given argument really is sound; my point is, truth isn't actually relative (except in matters of taste, which this isn't).

 

This is the issue though:

 

Quote

The difference here is that I am in the right, and have not been provided with any information that has proved me otherwise.

 

That is the very first unquoted thing in the post. That's kind of like starting your resume with: "You should hire me, here's why."

I agree that wasn't well worded; hence my jumping in to hopefully clear up the earlier confusion. (However, the statement is technically not illogical in and of itself, as it doesn't say why.)

 

Incidentally, a recent study has shown that supposedly that sort of resume (or response in a job interview) actually tends to result in more hires, but I digress... (The study also said the tactic is rarely effective in other situations. So, bad analogy. )

Edited August 11, 2014 by bonesiii

[Reznas]

 

I could argue that even a supported argument doesn't equal a truthful argument. In reality, truth is relative from person to person.

In terms of the proper definition of truth in logic, a soundly supported argument is a true one. Of course, then people go on to question whether any given argument really is sound; my point is, truth isn't actually relative (except in matters of taste, which this isn't).

 

But what basis of truth is a soundly supported argument upheld by? A definition is created by a person, an argument is created by a person and speculation based on the argument is created by a person. Therefore, knowing that each person has a different perception of truth, how can we truly know that a soundly supported argument is true? Technically speaking, truth isn't relative, no, because there can only be one truth. What I mean is that perceptions of truth are relative.

 

-Rez

Edited August 11, 2014 by Reznas

[bonesiii]

Yes, perceptions of truth certainly vary. Anyways, this is getting rather off-topic -- it sounds like you got my point, so yeah.

[toa kopaka4372]

 

 

it's kinda frustrating to see the same thing said over and over and things that I type ignored completely

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my experience in this thread

 

Thanks for the good and thought-provoking posts, Pomegranate. I agreed with some of the statements you said, disagreed with others, but overall your posts contributed a lot to a very active debate.

[Airoski]

Yes, perceptions of truth certainly vary. Anyways, this is getting rather off-topic -- it sounds like you got my point, so yeah.

 

The fact that the original topic has turned into a debate on epistemology is a good indicator that the discussion has gone as deep as it can go

 

Despite this, I still challenge the 'Bonkles is sexist' crowd to cover my uncertainties

 

I would prefer Bionicle to have more female characters because it would allow people in the real world to be more evenly represented in Bionicle. It’s important for groups to have a character to relate to, as it creates a stronger sense of self. I recall an interview with the first African American in space stating that they were inspired by watching Uhura in Star Trek. The world is split more or less 50/50 male/female, so Bionicle would be a better story to entertain and inspire the population of Earth if there were more female characters.

 

However, I do not believe it has an obligation to do so, as I don’t see how having an unbalanced gender ratio constitutes any kind of moral offence, let alone one motivated by sexism. An action is not being taken that shall mistreat a person based on their sex. If you believe that someone else is more likely to be sexist after watching/reading/playing ‘Bionicle’, then go and join the ‘video games make kids violent’ camp- I hear they’re rather lonely.

 

I admit that Bionicle, by having an unbalanced gender ratio, does not depict my values on representation. This is not a problem for me, as I only prefer, not demand, a work of fiction to share my values.

 

Furthermore, I feel that a world where all media, did portray my values would simply be an intellectual echo chamber. A world where all media we 'feed' to children shared my values would be downright dystopian. This is a fallacious slippery slope argument, but should still convey why I find the demands to ‘retcon’ previous Bionicle stories somewhat repellent.

 

Of course, this assumes that we don't know for sure what the ‘correct’ set of values are. If you believe your own values to be correct beyond doubt, then of course Bionicle is incorrect. I, however, am not smart enough to have worked out a set of values that are unquestionably correct.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Airoski

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Yeah, I think Airoski pretty much echoes my thoughts on the matter, but he's much better at explaining himself.

 

It would be nice if Bionicle just had more female characters in general... but it has no obligation to do so.

 

And considering that 90% of Bionicles are glorified robots, the story team had to define gender through something, so they chose to portray the females as more gentle than the males. The story team never intended for the toyline to be viewed as sexist, and I'd like to think that maybe, if they could see into the future how big of an issue this would be with people today, they would have made some changes.

[Alyska]

Well, I would say that the only way we really need to define gender is whether they consider themselves male, female, or something else, combined with the pronouns that the narration and other characters use to describe them.

 

The gentleness thing, when we go right back, (not looking at the in-universe explanation for now) really just comes from Lego wanting to give each element an anthropomorphosised personality. Fire= headstrong and brave, Air= Carefree and quick-witted, Water= Calm and gentle. It was only their decision to make the elements gender-exclusive, and Water (at the time) the only female element, that led to female characters having a restricted range of personalities. 

 

I'd also like to note that Bionicle's representation of female characters kind of has two sides to it. On the one hand, there's the mainstream marketing of the characters- the ones who get sets, appear in comics, are seen on posters, and occasionally make it into a direct-to-DVD movie. This is the experience most kids will have with Bionicle- the females are typically in a supporting role for the male heroes, and tend towards the standard Water-type personality.

 

​Then we have the written material- online and in books, largely supplied by Greg, where there is actually a lot more presence and diversity of female characters. While still not "balanced" exactly, this content is several steps up on the media Lego focuses most on for its marketing purposes. Greg almost certainly knew that Helryx, Tuyet, Lariska, etc would never become sets when he created them- selling toys was not important there- telling a good story about interesting characters was. It's just a shame that Lego's reluctance to prominently include female characters  in the story (particularly female villains and antiheroes)  has left these characters being restricted to side-stories where a majority of Bionicle's target audience will never encounter them.

[randomreviewerbros]

Well i think it's probably because of who BIONICLE was targeted towards, mainly younger to teenage boys, and we see this reoccurring through many different LEGO themes which are targeted to the boys of the younger audiences, for example another popular theme, Ninjago has one girl character being Nya, and all the other main characters are male (excluding Lloyd's mother), Kai, Cole, Zane and Jay, this is purely a marketing scheme in my eyes, but personally i want to see more girl characters in themes, because I must say that Nokama and Gali were great characters, their personality and their sets, and as for Ninjago, Nya's minifigure was fantastic, her character in the show is great as well, and as we end up finding out she is also Samurai X which was awesome.

 

But back to the main point, to me it is all a marketing scheme, that they (TLG) probably studied and figured out this is a better way to sell sets primarily targeted to boys, but had to have at least one girl character to entice the girls to some part of the storyline.

Edited August 12, 2014 by randomreviewerbros

[Bob the Janitor]

Read Nova Orbis by NickOnAquaMagna. He fixes that problem.

[Banana Gunz]

Read Nova Orbis by NickOnAquaMagna. He fixes that problem.

 

It's great that fanfics and head-canon often work to fix that but if Bionicle is to come back, it is important that it fixes it itself. Canon is important and affects far more people than fan fictions do. Nova Orbis, as much as people may like it, is not the official story, but it is still important that important changes such as this are recognized by the majority.