Jump to content

The Protectors Die Naturally/Biologically Reproduce?


Recommended Posts

 

Well, the Agori reproduced biologically. I don't see why LEGO wouldn't make a similar move with the new line.

 

Wait, what? :o

 

I didn't even know that! Was it mentioned in the books somewhere?

 

That came up back in '09. Due to the Spherus Magna inhabitants being biological with a few mechanical implants, that was a topic of discussion. When brought to Greg, he confirmed that due to their biological nature, they are born, and would reproduce in a similar manner to us.

~Your friendly, neighborhood Shadow

 

sotpbanner.png

~Credit for Avatar and Banner goes to

NickonAquaMagna~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Well, the Agori reproduced biologically. I don't see why LEGO wouldn't make a similar move with the new line.

Wait, what? :o

 

I didn't even know that! Was it mentioned in the books somewhere?

That came up back in '09. Due to the Spherus Magna inhabitants being biological with a few mechanical implants, that was a topic of discussion. When brought to Greg, he confirmed that due to their biological nature, they are born, and would reproduce in a similar manner to us.
Dang, that's weird. Never actually pictured that being canon. Thanks for clearing that up. Edited by Shadow Destroyer

shadow_destroyer_banner.jpg
Thank you to the Dark Beings Banner and Avatar Shop for the banner! Brickshelf Gallery  BZPRPG Profiles 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing that I have a very blunt and straight forward view regarding gender and sexuality, all I have to say is the following:

 

Lego obviously tried to replicate old tribal systems that were used early on in human history to create the Okotoan culture, as was done in 2001. We see villages living in harmony in nature, tribal leaders etc.

Well, wouldn't you know that it just so happens that in human history, most governing systems, tribal or not, have been male-oriented, and that's where the "father-to-son" thing originates from.

Now, seeing that this COMPANY has the main goal of making MONEY it would make sense to make the story most relatable as possible to people, seeing that most children and rest of the population, don't have such a broad view of sexuality/gender.

 

tl;dr keeping it traditional sells, being progressive doesn't

Welcome to the system people!

  • Upvote 6

                      Archon                      


***


"For one to truly feel alive, the person must kill oneself a little bit each and every day."


 


Check out my MOC, one of the new generation of Toa on Spherus Magna!


***Toa Kyraan***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I don't know if this is new or recycled, but the Facebook group posted this 

 

"The Protectors wear sacred Elemental Masks that have been passed down through generations with the Prophecy of Heroes."

 

No mention of father to son there. Is this a change in thought or what?

What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I don't know if this is new or recycled, but the Facebook group posted this 

 

"The Protectors wear sacred Elemental Masks that have been passed down through generations with the Prophecy of Heroes."

 

No mention of father to son there. Is this a change in thought or what?

What do you guys think?

 

I suspect it is deliberate, although it still has F2S on the website on all the Protectors pages.

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be implied that they could have offspring, and have mixed genders within the tribes. I mean it makes more sense than never saying where they came from in the first place, and besides they aren't robots, so... they do have genders, unlike hero factory, where some random green character so happened to be programed with a female voice and personality (which was just... stupid. lol).

"Don't! They will kill you like a small dog. Instead let your anger be as if it were a monkey on a treadmill; confused and tripping around." -Lelouch of Britania- (Here is my BZPRPG Profile, Diotrua.) 

09972482fe0243bdf1778f84fd5d61d1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing that I have a very blunt and straight forward view regarding gender and sexuality, all I have to say is the following:

 

Lego obviously tried to replicate old tribal systems that were used early on in human history to create the Okotoan culture, as was done in 2001. We see villages living in harmony in nature, tribal leaders etc.

Well, wouldn't you know that it just so happens that in human history, most governing systems, tribal or not, have been male-oriented, and that's where the "father-to-son" thing originates from.

Now, seeing that this COMPANY has the main goal of making MONEY it would make sense to make the story most relatable as possible to people, seeing that most children and rest of the population, don't have such a broad view of sexuality/gender.

 

tl;dr keeping it traditional sells, being progressive doesn't

Welcome to the system people!

 

It's 2014. The idea of a woman being in a position of leadership shouldn't be so outlandishly progressive as to be considered a financial risk. That's not even having a "broad" view of gender. That's just common sense. And Bionicle is an anachronistic story to begin with, so it shouldn't matter how much it wants to evoke a tribal atmosphere when it comes to things like this. There really isn't any reason to say "ok we have all this weird outlandish biomechanical stuff and these magic masks and powers and such, all mystical and whatnot, keepin' it weird, but we simply MUST adhere to strictly patriarchal leadership roles now because that's how things are i guess." It's silly and pointless. They could easily frame it as "from parent to child" or as might be the case based on that facebook post, "through the generations." But if it's literally, strictly father-to-son? That's just bad.

 

Of course we could all be making too much of this, and it could simply be a stock phrase that doesn't actually mean it is literal. But if it is, excusing it as "well but that's realistic" isn't exactly helpful.

 

And in any case, I think the most successful toy company in the world can stand to "risk" having a couple of females leading their tribes (without having to make it a special case or anything). After all, they've done that for other themes once or twice....and, of course, Nokama....(does that even count, I wonder? Not like they had a choice with monogender tribes...)

  • Upvote 4

AXKP5KC.png


 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could easily frame it as "from parent to child" or as might be the case based on that facebook post, "through the generations." But if it's literally, strictly father-to-son? That's just bad.

 

I'm sorry but I don't think it is bad; from a story stand point you're going to want all sorts of things to change; next year we might get a lot more female characters (although I doubt it would be a majority), and frankly I don't won't them to make a big deal of it whatever they do.

 
 
 
But pretty much this:
 

Of course we could all be making too much of this, and it could simply be a stock phrase that doesn't actually mean it is literal. But if it is, excusing it as "well but that's realistic" isn't exactly helpful.

 

And in any case, I think the most successful toy company in the world can stand to "risk" having a couple of females leading their tribes (without having to make it a special case or anything). After all, they've done that for other themes once or twice....and, of course, Nokama....(does that even count, I wonder? Not like they had a choice with monogender tribes...)

 

The less said about gender roles et cetera in the story the better; I get tired of certain aesops, especially when they're a central plot point, but sometimes they are done well. Sometimes things change subtly and are never talked about within the story but it offers character appeal.

 

The main thing is we haven't seen that much of the story yet.

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all, they've done that for other themes once or twice....and, of course, Nokama....(does that even count, I wonder? Not like they had a choice with monogender tribes...)

Also, insert all Vortixx society + Helryx the Leader of the Order here. Female leaders in Bionicle certainly have precedent. 

 

Not so much among the Glatorian, though.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much among the Glatorian, though.

 

They didn't have much of anything.

Boring retroactive ripoffs :P

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They could easily frame it as "from parent to child" or as might be the case based on that facebook post, "through the generations." But if it's literally, strictly father-to-son? That's just bad.

 

I'm sorry but I don't think it is bad; from a story stand point you're going to want all sorts of things to change; next year we might get a lot more female characters (although I doubt it would be a majority), and frankly I don't won't them to make a big deal of it whatever they do.

 

Well, the problem for me wouldn't necessarily be that there are no female Protectors. (this being Lego, and this being Bionicle, I don't really expect lots of female representation) If the system was such that gender didn't matter but they still had all of them be male, well, that's just 2009. It's dumb, but it at least leaves the option open. The real problem would be if it was a strict system that only allowed for the males to rise to the role of Protector. I think that'd be kinda bad. Of course there could be the (obvious, perhaps a little tired, but not bad) plot where the one rebellious woman proves herself worthy of being a Protector against all the rules. It's, again, not really a bad thing. But I'd still kind of like for that to not be necessary. It shouldn't have to be a special thing.

 

edit: i'm still mayhaps reading too much into it though

Edited by farmstink buttlass

AXKP5KC.png


 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not so much among the Glatorian, though.

 

They didn't have much of anything.

Boring retroactive ripoffs :P

*yawns appropriately* Well I guess we never really found out who led Tajun, Iconox, Tesara, etc - i.e. who was in Raanu's position. Still, I'm not placing too many bets on female leaders being a thing. They fell behind Ackar quickly enough. 

 

I'll say this now, though, if Lego doesn't have some sort of female leadership in Gen 2, someone on BZPower is going to point to BioniClassic and whine "We had better representation in the good old days!" and give examples of Gali, Helryx, Gorast, and Nokama, and Krahka. Then I will sit over here and laugh because many people in the past have tried to argue that Bionicle is sexist and ignoring such examples when I said them. 

 

Except I should not laugh at such things, ever. Funny how a change of perspective works, eh? :)

Edited by fishers64
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE The phrase "Father to son": I rather doubt that LEGO will give Okoto an Egyptian-style Patriarchy in which the only female rulers are those who have seized power from their young regents and wear false beards and are officially referred to as "His Majesty Herself." Until further information is gleaned, I think it is safe to assume that it was merely used as a stock phrase, without much thought given to its actual implications. Personally, I suspect that LEGO is adopting a "fill-in-the-blanks" policy with the villagers. We don't have names for the Protectors beyond their official titles, which would be rather an awkward arrangement for distinct, well-defined characters. Keep in mind that so far, the known total of 2015's story is several animations, of no more than two minutes in length, and an uncertain number of books of uncertain length. LEGO might well not be too keen on developing the characters other than the Toa. The Protectors might not have canonical genders.

  • Upvote 3

gZsNWyr.png


(Credit to Nik the Three for the banner)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem would be if it was a strict system that only allowed for the males to rise to the role of Protector. I think that'd be kinda bad. Of course there could be the (obvious, perhaps a little tired, but not bad) plot where the one rebellious woman proves herself worthy of being a Protector against all the rules. It's, again, not really a bad thing. But I'd still kind of like for that to not be necessary. It shouldn't have to be a special thing.

 

Trust me I don't want it to be a special thing; it draws attention in the wrong way IMHO.

It could just be typically done that way (for a variety of possible reasons, not necessarily social pressure), but no one raise an eyebrow at a female stepping up.

One can have a female character doing things by virtue of being a character doing something;

As it is I don't see why 'strict system' comes into this; they haven't said that, it is a throw away line*; it might be indicative of the nature of the story & it might not.

 

As it is, Lego doesn't typically have as many females as males, & they are looking at changing that**; so I really don't see why a generic phrase is being viewed in such a restrictive way. Even if all the Protectors happen to be males doesn't de facto mean females characters are being oppressed;

& it doesn't present us getting more female characters in the future (July-ish? potentially), & online we might hear about other female characters which may not be that far in the future at all.

 

We've seen very little of the story, & judging it before it's been released seems very unfair.

 

* Which doesn't necessarily reflect the writers views; 1 person may have written that for a male Protector, & another person may have copied the bios without even looking at them. (General notice: don't assume homophobia, malice, sexism, or anything else not-ideal straight away when laziness &/or inattentiveness is a fine explanation; that's not to say people at TLG are lazy etc either, errors come about easier the more or less people handling something.)

 

** Although as this is a soft reboot, we can expect to see some similar things for a while, and have a rebooted character of a different gender would seem a bit odd  If for example they did another "Toa of Light"-type Arc again I would prefer it be:

Takanuva for old-times sake; on the other hand it would be a good opportunity for them to have a brand new character (especially as I found Takua/Takanuva to be poorly handled / have odd personality changes);

On another hand I would kind of like it to be a female if they hadn't introduced a few other female characters yet, on the other hand if they introduced a female character that way it might seem overly anvilicious (I can hear people whining about that already);

& I'm not after a female Takua/Takanuva; so frankly if they did that Arc someone somewhere won't like how it is executed XD

 

 

Except I should not laugh at such things, ever. Funny how a change of perspective works, eh?  :)

 

On the contrary I laugh at things all the time that I don't necessarily agree with &/or think are sad in an ironic way; & I am entirely unashamed about it because if a given non-positive thing happened; anyone being able to enjoy it without endorsing it is at least doing something good (ie being amused) :)

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh that reminds me;

 

It's 2014. The idea of a woman being in a position of leadership shouldn't be so outlandishly progressive as to be considered a financial risk. That's not even having a "broad" view of gender. That's just common sense. And Bionicle is an anachronistic story to begin with, so it shouldn't matter how much it wants to evoke a tribal atmosphere when it comes to things like this.

 

I fully agree that it "it shouldn't matter how much it wants to evoke a tribal atmosphere when it comes to things like this." but I don't think that's the cause at all; I don't think there's an issue here of it being outlandish &/or progressive to cause a financial risk; at least in the sense that I think it comes down to the thoughts that a substantial amount of the likely buyers are young boys, many of which will better connect with a male character in terms of them on some level, 'being' that character.

Edited by Iblis
  • Upvote 2

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Seeing that I have a very blunt and straight forward view regarding gender and sexuality, all I have to say is the following:

 

Lego obviously tried to replicate old tribal systems that were used early on in human history to create the Okotoan culture, as was done in 2001. We see villages living in harmony in nature, tribal leaders etc.

Well, wouldn't you know that it just so happens that in human history, most governing systems, tribal or not, have been male-oriented, and that's where the "father-to-son" thing originates from.

Now, seeing that this COMPANY has the main goal of making MONEY it would make sense to make the story most relatable as possible to people, seeing that most children and rest of the population, don't have such a broad view of sexuality/gender.

 

tl;dr keeping it traditional sells, being progressive doesn't

Welcome to the system people!

It's 2014. The idea of a woman being in a position of leadership shouldn't be so outlandishly progressive as to be considered a financial risk. That's not even having a "broad" view of gender. That's just common sense. And Bionicle is an anachronistic story to begin with, so it shouldn't matter how much it wants to evoke a tribal atmosphere when it comes to things like this. There really isn't any reason to say "ok we have all this weird outlandish biomechanical stuff and these magic masks and powers and such, all mystical and whatnot, keepin' it weird, but we simply MUST adhere to strictly patriarchal leadership roles now because that's how things are i guess." It's silly and pointless. They could easily frame it as "from parent to child" or as might be the case based on that facebook post, "through the generations." But if it's literally, strictly father-to-son? That's just bad.

 

Of course we could all be making too much of this, and it could simply be a stock phrase that doesn't actually mean it is literal. But if it is, excusing it as "well but that's realistic" isn't exactly helpful.

 

And in any case, I think the most successful toy company in the world can stand to "risk" having a couple of females leading their tribes (without having to make it a special case or anything). After all, they've done that for other themes once or twice....and, of course, Nokama....(does that even count, I wonder? Not like they had a choice with monogender tribes...)

It could be a financial risk when your target audience is young boys. Be it silly or pointless, it's simply been done before and it's a formula that works, sadly or not.

Look at most mainstream comic books, or any sort of heroes. Most usually adhere to patriarchy, have just as much as weird stuff and it just works when your target audience is intended to be guys, especially if you're starting the line fresh.

The reason we got strong female leads later on is due to the aging population of the Bionicle fandom, and I think it's great don't get me wrong, but simply when you're attempting to give something credibility you want to go with traditional (being partriarchy in our society) and I doubt Lego would want to run some sort of social experiment with a line that's supposed to be promising with great success.

 

Shortly, I am confident some strong characters will be introduced, and I hope some random Protector (like Ice) is the female one in this time around, but I'm just trying to explain to you why Lego does things the way it does. I've gone through several marketing and psychology classes, and trust me the way people chose things is based on very basic principles of association.

 

Finally I do think that "passed on through the generations" is a much better umbrealla statement to be used.

  • Upvote 3

                      Archon                      


***


"For one to truly feel alive, the person must kill oneself a little bit each and every day."


 


Check out my MOC, one of the new generation of Toa on Spherus Magna!


***Toa Kyraan***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what half of you are talking about. (Mostly because most comments are too long for me to want to read them.) But by skimming through there is a lot of talk about something about sexism or patriarch and other boring already discussed numerous times semi-political nonsense that people on here vaguely are allowed to discuss or not discuss depending on how many people find something offensive or too controversial and then someone gets ban or whatever... I don't really care to learn what thought process gets involved when dealing with these sort of things. :???:  Teehee I still find it funny, because it's my turn to write a completely unnecessary rant about a toy for childrens... with lots and lots of run-on sentences and other grammar mistakes. lol  :evilgrin:

 

Oh and I recall reading about something about someone not wanting a female Takua/Takanuva... and I just have to say... who wouldn't want a female toa of light running around in the story, because I know I wouldn't mind one bit.  ;) I mean if that happens.... Yay... more fan art about female characters that aren't a blue something of water or another Roodaka "reimagining"... lol (Which I mean... most guys here don't mind anyway.. so... that will probably continue no matter what. lol)  :gavel:

 

By the way... silly fans Bionicle is for kids... just like GI-Joes and Transformers... lol  :D  Kids don't care about the social ramifications of making action toys aimed mostly at young boys and not really girls but sure they will probably get them anyway because barbies are lame and most normal girls don't comfort to stereotypes anyway.. so unless you are too insecure or so shallow (or simple over thinking everything so everything magically becomes sexist when it really isn't) to understand the difference, between what a simple story for a toy line is and what is actually is actually sexist. (I'm looking at you Barbie... lacking male characters, and only have that unrealistic Ken!!! That very few guys can relate to... just makes me sick. lol)  :blushlaugh:

 

Besides none of what you guys are saying is really relevant at all. Since, we are suppose to be talking about the possibility of reproduction and natural death occur in Bionicle G2. So to further the real discuss... I would say it makes sense that all the tribes would have both male and females, regardless of tribe, and that they are more like the Agori... so yeah natural deaths and etc. It is very plausible that Lego is going in that direction.  :eyeboggle:

 

Oh and Patriarchs historically are more common in tribal societies... so... yeah... I doubt there will be that many "strong" female leaders in this sort of setting except for the occasional Amazonian type *cough cough...* (Gali)...  :guilty:

Edited by TrueshadowX01
  • Upvote 4

"Don't! They will kill you like a small dog. Instead let your anger be as if it were a monkey on a treadmill; confused and tripping around." -Lelouch of Britania- (Here is my BZPRPG Profile, Diotrua.) 

09972482fe0243bdf1778f84fd5d61d1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say this now, though, if Lego doesn't have some sort of female leadership in Gen 2, someone on BZPower is going to point to BioniClassic and whine "We had better representation in the good old days!" and give examples of Gali, Helryx, Gorast, and Nokama, and Krahka. Then I will sit over here and laugh because many people in the past have tried to argue that Bionicle is sexist and ignoring such examples when I said them. 

 

I'd laugh too because that's a hilariously small and bad group of examples for a line that was overstuffed with characters.

 

@TrueshadowX01: I'd try arguing against what you're saying but even if I could understand half the things you said I doubt it would be worth my time.

Edited by Wally
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'll say this now, though, if Lego doesn't have some sort of female leadership in Gen 2, someone on BZPower is going to point to BioniClassic and whine "We had better representation in the good old days!" and give examples of Gali, Helryx, Gorast, and Nokama, and Krahka. Then I will sit over here and laugh because many people in the past have tried to argue that Bionicle is sexist and ignoring such examples when I said them. 

 

I'd laugh too because that's a hilariously small and bad group of examples for a line that was overstuffed with characters.

 

@TrueshadowX01: I'd try arguing against what you're saying but even if I could understand half the things you said I doubt it would be worth my time.

 

 

Awww... that's too bad you couldn't keep up with my pirate swag... so sticks and stones my love. ;) *Sick rap beat starts in the background*  :o (Justice in the words of Vezon...)

 

Besides... You... can't...  > :( 

 

Beat me in this battle of rhymes, fo sure now, now that's a crime.  B-) 

 

And everyone here cannot see the true... that Bionicle G2 is not a simple redo.  :afro: 

 

 It begins in a tribal setting... with a sleek new look. YEah.  ;) 

 

But patriarchal systems aren't a thing of the past.. :( 

 

But one Amazonian chick is still bad [censored]!  ;) 

 

Now I think we can stop with this pointless discussion,  :D 

 

Since you just got owned by my lyrical digression. *Drops the mic*  -_-

 

Anyway... lol I still believe Patriarch tribal systems makes more sense for the setting of the story and that the fact the Gali seems to be an exception to the cultural norms adds to her as an important character, whether or not only the water tribe is female or if there are mixed sexes within each tribe is interesting to find out. I think it would make a lot more sense that all the tribes have both genders and that they are more like the agori. Regardless, it could be possible that the water tribe is only female, then they are probably going to be more Amazonian. However, if they have both genders then, I think because Gali being the main warrior of that tribe that the water tribe are more like Spartans and have their women train as the men do, which would be an interesting dynamic characteristic attributed to the water tribe only.  ^_^

Edited by TrueshadowX01
  • Upvote 2

"Don't! They will kill you like a small dog. Instead let your anger be as if it were a monkey on a treadmill; confused and tripping around." -Lelouch of Britania- (Here is my BZPRPG Profile, Diotrua.) 

09972482fe0243bdf1778f84fd5d61d1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning a population that actually appears to age & have kids & die of old age; seems cool;

The immortality always felt like one of the weaker parts of G1, could have had them glitch up / maximum storage / gradually have memories become less clear after a few hundred years, or find out that they had been spending thousands of years trying to work out how to build a better Great Spirit Robot (...which if Teridax had waited a bit longer they would have been able to put him in the other one. destined to lead; just not this robot etc) which well if they just did something with their immortality from a story stand point it was just sort of ...there.

 

Just looked around the site again, & I didn't see any changes about the father to son thing, so may as well continue on with this related point;

 

Patriarch tribal systems makes more sense for the setting of the story

 

A few people seem to be saying this, but seeing as they aren't even human (of which debates continue to why Patriarchal societies were more common in given time periods, which I won't address beyond this bracket), what would be more sensical (back formations!) about a Matriarchy or no particular gender bias?

I mean I can see why many of the 'main' characters would be male (regardless of whether that is right or wrong, & I can see a change coming), but story-wise I really can't see the logic that tribal society of non-humans is going to have a male leadership bias?

I mean there are more options than a Patriachy or a cliché Amazon societies of Greek mythology etc.

(If anyone actually want's to share in a blog or somewhere else, I'm just curious, I won't debate it if people don't won't that, I'm just interested in peoples reasoning.)

 

As it is I have nothing to add about the Protectors until we hear some more actual information on G2, except that, well the Protector Masks; what if they are designed to activate into a proper powerful an unique looking mode when something happens? so they are just like a storage mode a the moment? :P

  • Upvote 4

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning a population that actually appears to age & have kids & die of old age; seems cool;

The immortality always felt like one of the weaker parts of G1, could have had them glitch up / maximum storage / gradually have memories become less clear after a few hundred years, or find out that they had been spending thousands of years trying to work out how to build a better Great Spirit Robot (...which if Teridax had waited a bit longer they would have been able to put him in the other one. destined to lead; just not this robot etc) which well if they just did something with their immortality from a story stand point it was just sort of ...there.

 

Just looked around the site again, & I didn't see any changes about the father to son thing, so may as well continue on with this related point;

 

Patriarch tribal systems makes more sense for the setting of the story

 

A few people seem to be saying this, but seeing as they aren't even human (of which debates continue to why Patriarchal societies were more common in given time periods, which I won't address beyond this bracket), what would be more sensical (back formations!) about a Matriarchy or no particular gender bias?

I mean I can see why many of the 'main' characters would be male (regardless of whether that is right or wrong, & I can see a change coming), but story-wise I really can't see the logic that tribal society of non-humans is going to have a male leadership bias?

I mean there are more options than a Patriachy or a cliché Amazon societies of Greek mythology etc.

(If anyone actually want's to share in a blog or somewhere else, I'm just curious, I won't debate it if people don't won't that, I'm just interested in peoples reasoning.)

 

As it is I have nothing to add about the Protectors until we hear some more actual information on G2, except that, well the Protector Masks; what if they are designed to activate into a proper powerful an unique looking mode when something happens? so they are just like a storage mode a the moment? :P

 

Awww... but I like primitive patriarch tribes... it just makes female characters having to deal with such cultural norms so more interesting, and what's wrong with warrior women or Spartan women? lol I mean Gali practically is one at this point regardless if you like it or not. lol So big and tall...  ;)

 

Oh and that would be cool if the protector's masks can morph into like collectable masks that could be bought like in 2001 and could actually use them, unlike the Matoran. I hope they do something along those lines... because it's kind of boring that they all wear the same mask.  :???:

"Don't! They will kill you like a small dog. Instead let your anger be as if it were a monkey on a treadmill; confused and tripping around." -Lelouch of Britania- (Here is my BZPRPG Profile, Diotrua.) 

09972482fe0243bdf1778f84fd5d61d1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still just assume that 'father to son' is a simple typo that wasn't really thought about when being written. It's only a protector bio after all, not a big, deep bit of Toa lore! I reckon whoever wrote the description simply didn't realise how it would be interpreted so literally and I also reckon it wasn't meant that way. Especially since we've now seen the facebook post saying 'passed down through the generations' I think it's only a matter of time before we see a rewrite in the bios as well. Of course, if this is the case then I would be curious to know why there hasn't been a rewrite already when they've had plenty of time to do so...

 

Either way I think the only people concerned with this gender ratio/divide is us and Lego will simply pick the gender of each character as they go in order to build a strong story and enjoyable sets. Any male dominance that DOES exist in the new line will probably be down to their target audience being young boys but I'd certainly expect a better split than Gen 1, though not expecting a feminine majoirty by any means...

  • Upvote 2

Check out my Bionicle store on Bricklink here!

> > > Bionic Bricks < < <

 

Let me know if you can help me find these last few collectibles!

Masks%20footer4_zpspqs4myrt.png

Also looking for WILD KRAATA and a VMKK Yo!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looked around the site again, & I didn't see any changes about the father to son thing, so may as well continue on with this related point;

 

 

Patriarch tribal systems makes more sense for the setting of the story

A few people seem to be saying this, but seeing as they aren't even human (of which debates continue to why Patriarchal societies were more common in given time periods, which I won't address beyond this bracket), what would be more sensical (back formations!) about a Matriarchy or no particular gender bias?

I mean I can see why many of the 'main' characters would be male (regardless of whether that is right or wrong, & I can see a change coming), but story-wise I really can't see the logic that tribal society of non-humans is going to have a male leadership bias?

I mean there are more options than a Patriachy or a cliché Amazon societies of Greek mythology etc.

(If anyone actually want's to share in a blog or somewhere else, I'm just curious, I won't debate it if people don't won't that, I'm just interested in peoples reasoning.)

I don't think a lot of people are saying "patriarchy" makes sense story wise, just that there are certain reasons why "partriarchy" is used in the story.

 

Primarily, it goes to target audience and marketing: more male characters for a boy-targeted stories (Bionicle, Star Wars, X-Men, etc.) and more female characters for girl-targeted stories (Barbie, MLP, PowerPuff Girls, etc.). In order to get people interested in the story you're presenting, you need to make characters that they can relate to. In this case, that leads to male characters, and it's irrelevant that the characters are of human or any other species. This is sinply how entertainment works people. Anyway, I think that's rather clear, and I feel as I've beat that dead horse to mush by now in my earlier posts.

 

Secondly, although Lego could spilt the gender thing (for the protectors at least) 50:50, it would be a risky stunt to satisfy such a small minority of the people who indulge in the product. These are toys for 7-14 year olds (or at least thats how its marketed), and I think people foget that a lot.

 

In general I see Gen2 as something the new generation of Bionicle fans should nurture and debate, while we the older fans still have Gen1. That's our childhood, and I'm all in favor of slicing and deicing the story to oblivion, but I think that we should understand that Gen2 will be very simple and basic (in the beginning at least), and respect that it's meant to draw in new fans, instead of hyper-satisfy the old ones. I think we can still talk about its story, and speculate about mysteries, but this entire gender thing is getting ridicilous here as well as the other parts of the internet... I guess I've said enough for now. :P

Edited by Archon~
  • Upvote 2

                      Archon                      


***


"For one to truly feel alive, the person must kill oneself a little bit each and every day."


 


Check out my MOC, one of the new generation of Toa on Spherus Magna!


***Toa Kyraan***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just looked around the site again, & I didn't see any changes about the father to son thing, so may as well continue on with this related point;

Patriarch tribal systems makes more sense for the setting of the story

A few people seem to be saying this, but seeing as they aren't even human (of which debates continue to why Patriarchal societies were more common in given time periods, which I won't address beyond this bracket), what would be more sensical (back formations!) about a Matriarchy or no particular gender bias?

I mean I can see why many of the 'main' characters would be male (regardless of whether that is right or wrong, & I can see a change coming), but story-wise I really can't see the logic that tribal society of non-humans is going to have a male leadership bias?

I mean there are more options than a Patriachy or a cliché Amazon societies of Greek mythology etc.

(If anyone actually want's to share in a blog or somewhere else, I'm just curious, I won't debate it if people don't won't that, I'm just interested in peoples reasoning.)

I don't think a lot of people are saying "patriarchy" makes sense story wise, just that there are certain reasons why "partriarchy" is used in the story.

 

Primarily, it goes to target audience and marketing: more male characters for a boy-targeted stories (Bionicle, Star Wars, X-Men, etc.) and more female characters for girl-targeted stories (Barbie, MLP, PowerPuff Girls, etc.). In order to get people interested in the story you're presenting, you need to make characters that they can relate to. In this case, that leads to male characters, and it's irrelevant that the characters are of human or any other species. This is sinply how entertainment works people. Anyway, I think that's rather clear, and I feel as I've beat that dead horse to mush by now in my earlier posts.

 

Secondly, although Lego could spilt the gender thing (for the protectors at least) 50:50, it would be a risky stunt to satisfy such a small minority of the people who indulge in the product. These are toys for 7-14 year olds (or at least thats how its marketed), and I think people foget that a lot.

 

In general I see Gen2 as something the new generation of Bionicle fans should nurture and debate, while we the older fans still have Gen1. That's our childhood, and I'm all in favor of slicing and deicing the story to oblivion, but I think that we should understand that Gen2 will be very simple and basic (in the beginning at least), and respect that it's meant to draw in new fans, instead of hyper-satisfy the old ones. I think we can still talk about its story, and speculate about mysteries, but this entire gender thing is getting ridicilous here as well as the other parts of the internet... I guess I've said enough for now. :P

 

Amen.

  • Upvote 2

Hero Factory RPG 2.0 PCs:
| Erik Jet | Daren Wolfe | Henry Flint | Helen Corona | Ethan RezDr. Xaal |

Wasteland RPG PCs:
|
Mina |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do think you people are making far too big a deal out of patriarchy. Once again, it isn't inherently evil. It's just culture.

 

That being said, I'm not sure why people are assuming that it's a "strict patriarchy." Nowhere thus far has it been stated that there's no such thing as a female ruler in the Protectors' society. Even if all the leader protectors turn out to be male, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a strict patriarchal government.

 

Last point I want to make is, like many others have here stated, that this toy line is marketed to boys. If girls want to get into it, then that's fine. They'll just have to put up with the male majority. :P Don't get me wrong here. I can very easily get into a female character if she's pulled off right. And that's not to say we won't have any strong female characters at all. (we already have Gali.) I'm simply saying that a lot of young boys will have trouble getting into a female character, therefore, Lego can't risk making a 50:50 ratio in Bionicle, or even a 40:60 ratio.

 

For those of you to whom this matters, I'm afraid you're just gonna have to get over it. Not to sound harsh, but that's just the way things are.

 

Please let the next post be more on-topic.

Edited by The Meta Knight
  • Upvote 5

MetaKnight.gif  Stay vigilant, my friends. MetaKnight.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please let the next post be more on-topic.

 

Hi, i'm the next post!

 

 

I really do think you people are making far too big a deal out of patriarchy. Once again, it isn't inherently evil. It's just culture.

 

And I'm sectioning off  this line on it's own, for reasons. :u

 

back on topic, back on topic, uh...

 

oh right, the topic was how Protectors can potentially have children just like good old human beings. which is, somehow, a huge scandal!

Edited by Rahkshi Lalonde
  • Upvote 2

bnnrimg1.pngbnnrimg2.pngbnnrimg3.pngbnnrimg4.pngbnnrimg5.pngbnnrimg8.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still find it strange that this time around the biomechs reproduce.
Grinds-my-gears1.jpg

 

 

pun intended.

  • Upvote 3

                      Archon                      


***


"For one to truly feel alive, the person must kill oneself a little bit each and every day."


 


Check out my MOC, one of the new generation of Toa on Spherus Magna!


***Toa Kyraan***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really following on from the discussion above, but I think a change like this is good since it should give the writers greater ability to make the characters a bit more relatable allowing for stronger and more emotional storytelling hopefully. Makes the weird kind of abstract premise a bit easier to relate to and probably not as jarring with the very familiar/human personality traits the characters had. :P

  • Upvote 3
photo-50441.gif

 

Credit to Pohuaki for the awesome banner! ^_^

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

patriarchy... isn't inherently evil. It's just culture.

I don't think LEGO intended patriarchy here (I think it was just poor word choice), but this is very illogical. Who holds a position should be based on merit. If a female (or male for that matter) is prevented from having a position even though she's the better choice, that's not "just culture". And I'd say it's evil... I don't see how it couldn't be. Not the worst kind of evil in all existence, but that doesn't make something not evil/wrong. Asserting that it isn't evil doesn't change this, Meta. That's a fallacy called elephant hurling, or bald assertion.

 

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the idea of "a patriarch", as long as "a matriarch" is possible too. But I'm presuming this isn't what you mean by patriarchy here.

  • Upvote 5

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

patriarchy... isn't inherently evil. It's just culture.

I don't think LEGO intended patriarchy here (I think it was just poor word choice), but this is very illogical. Who holds a position should be based on merit. If a female (or male for that matter) is prevented from having a position even though she's the better choice, that's not "just culture". And I'd say it's evil... I don't see how it couldn't be. Not the worst kind of evil in all existence, but that doesn't make something not evil/wrong. Asserting that it isn't evil doesn't change this, Meta. That's a fallacy called elephant hurling, or bald assertion.

 

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the idea of "a patriarch", as long as "a matriarch" is possible too. But I'm presuming this isn't what you mean by patriarchy here.

 

The term "inherently" is intended to denote the fact that it's not evil in itself, although it can often have evil causes/results. In my earlier post, I stated what you said here: that if they decline a female ruler in favor of a male ruler just for the sake of tradition and regardless of actual potential for a good leader, then it is kinda evil. When I said that wasn't evil either, I was meaning to say that it's not on the same level of bad as what some people have compared it to thus far, and I'm not defending such actions, I'm merely stating that patriarchy isn't evil in itself. And you're right: the choosing of a male leader without taking anything into consideration but tradition is bad. What I said was that people are making too big a deal out of patriarchy here.

 

And I don't believe it's just a patriarchy either. Sorry if it sounded like that.   :s: :m_o: :r: :r: :y:     :b: :r: :m_o: :t: :h: :e: :r:

Edited by The Meta Knight
  • Upvote 4

MetaKnight.gif  Stay vigilant, my friends. MetaKnight.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "inherently" is intended to denote the fact that it's not evil in itself, although it can often have evil causes/results.

That seems to be just semantics. The normal definition of "an evil thing" is that it has evil results (and/or causes). Dictionary.com includes "harmful" as one of its definitions of evil (the second one; the first one says less about why it's wrong and just restates that it is).

 

In my earlier post, I stated what you said here: that if they decline a female ruler in favor of a male ruler just for the sake of tradition and regardless of actual potential for a good leader, then it is kinda evil. When I said that wasn't evil either, I was meaning to say that it's not on the same level of bad as what some people have compared it to thus far

I understand that, but again, that doesn't justify a wording of "not evil". And it's still unclear when you say "it" here, after saying "it" is "kinda evil." I'd say it's way more than "kinda" BTW. But point is, if you meant to say what I said there, then you should really have worded it more like that.

 

I'm merely stating that patriarchy isn't evil in itself

But since apparently by this you really mean "it's not the worst type of evil ever," you should just say that. It's best to avoid attempted summaries that actually, as worded, say something wrong, when a more accurate and equally concise summary is possible. :) (Again I'm here assuming by "it" you mean patriarchy as a rule, rather than a leader who happens to be male being called a patriarch and a leader who happens to be female being called a matriarch. Still not 100% sure that's what "it" was meant to refer to here, though.)

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I had hoped not to comment any further, until I had seen something new on the Bionicle site relevant to this, but I'm a person of weaker will, so if a mod etc. want's to move this elsewhere, please feel free to :) (not that you need my permission or anything, but I hope you know what I mean)

 

[Am I correct in understanding that I can create a Blog once I become a  Premier member? 'cause I was thinking of doing that in the new year, I need to wait a bit at the moment...]

 

To my understanding this actually does relate to the Protectors, as people will analyse the morality of a fictional setting, so why not get some understandings of what different systems can mean, & also be mindful that we don't really know what we are getting until we have it.

But perhaps more so that people feel about things before they are fully shown, so if we can alleviate some of the worry in any way, mores the better.

 

I wonder what people would think if they discovered that by freak chance that the Protectors eldest child had been a male, & they prioritised training the eldest child as they would have more time to pass on to them than a younger & got carried away with a firstborn notion xD

Really though, we don't know what will or won't change by January 1, so don't get too worried about G2 :)

 

 

In this post, when I talk about Matriarchy or Patriarchy I'm referring to "a system of society or government in which [women/men] hold the power (and [men/womem] are largely excluded from it)", not just when a female or male happens to run a given 'state'. :)

 

 

While it might seem very contrived (at least for larger groups), I can see a society where everyone in it feels happy with certain roles being 'restricted' to certain groups on grounds unrelated to the subject (Matriarchies & Patriarchies being the specific systems in question);

 

For example: men do M, N, W, X, Y, & Z; women do A, B, C, D, M, & N but if for a period of time all people within all groups are happy with this (not in the sense they just put up with it because it's easier to go along than to go against the system), then that 'restriction' would in a sense be irrelevant; so under those (rather contrived) circumstances would that restriction really be evil?

 

Even if in that scenario X, Y, & Z are (considered) preferable/better/more_important/etc. than A, B, C, & D, until at least 1 person feels restricted by it that limitation actually isn't preventing them; even if the system was very strict (so men/women were getting jobs because of their gender, when another person is better than them at it & wants it) any evil to it is at least 'dormant'; (the evil might [technically] be there, but it hasn't hit anyone yet)

 

Of course if one believes that: choosing someone over a better-suited person on the grounds of a unrelated factor is evil, then yes it is; but if the better suited person doesn't want the role at all... or if the gender determinism only comes in when there are two people are of equal merit (although there could be long term consequences).

 

Obviously this does not have ([{easy}]) application to real life (as far as I know); because we can't know whether someone doesn't want something or feels they can't risk anyone thinking they want it et cetera, et cetera.

 

So whilst this is all just a technicality, I think there is grounds to say that a gender-biased system (be it matriarchy or a patriarchy or something else) isn't intrinsically a evil system; but it is very likely that it will cause problems sooner or later (which certainly could be evil).

 

 

 

This is a very detailed view that doesn't easily translate to anything; it's pedantic; but:

 

 

The term "inherently" is intended to denote the fact that it's not evil in itself, although it can often have evil causes/results.

That seems to be just semantics. The normal definition of "an evil thing" is that it has evil results (and/or causes). Dictionary.com includes "harmful" as one of its definitions of evil (the second one; the first one says less about why it's wrong and just restates that it is).

 

"just semantics" is something I need to start avoiding (I'm fairly certain I made that error talking to you not long ago); it is semantics because this is about what we and our words mean;

 

The Meta Knight said it can often have evil causes/results; if it was intrinsic to it it would always have such results; so when a given case of patriarchy causes evil; that case is evil; but not necessarily the entirety of the idea of patriarchy. I personally believe it's better to avoid them, but my belief is irrelevant here.

 

I mean if something needs only cause one evil or harmful thing but still has the capacity not to; is still evil; then what isn't evil?

 

I agreed with bonesiii here (the editing is deliberate & relevant):

 

 

patriarchy... isn't inherently evil. It's just culture.

I don't think LEGO intended patriarchy here (I think it was just poor word choice),

[...]

Who holds a position should be based on merit. If a female (or male for that matter) is prevented from having a position even though she's the better choice, that's not "just culture". And I'd say it's evil...

 

I can't say I know what The Meta Knight was thinking, but what I inferred was that he was stating that a direction to roles based off of gender wouldn't necessarily be evil if the participants of it didn't object to it; once they object to it & it is inflicted on them would arguably (in my opinion) be evil; so as I suspect that in people any such direction (whether gender or otherwise) will have someone that disagrees any arbitrary direction is usually going to be evil because it's the 'forced on people' which is evil.

 

I object to the notion that someone would choose person A over clearly-better-B for job X based on a feature that I cannot see as relevant to job X; & I can understand that being called evil; and as such I can see a Patriarchy or Matriarchy being evil by this; however this seems more related to causing harm in the sense of sub-optimal rather than causing harm to a person (although it's a likely/common side effect in real life).

 

So that debate is about (the nature of) evil... which helps to complicate a debate about gender roles. I'm accustomed to saying gender bias, but in the highly contrived setting (at least for larger groups). I articulated at the beginning it wouldn't be a bias in the sense that it wasn't unfair as it coincidentally wouldn't be forcing anyone into or out of anything. (Which is what a strict Patriarchy or Matriarchy would do if someone objected.)

 
The reason I edited out "but this is very illogical." is because it wasn't necessarily what was indicated; if no one is being forced in or out; that didn't happen - it's certainly a contrived/unlikely scenario but it isn't impossible & it does articulate a way that a Matriarchy or Patriarchy could exist without inflicting evil on anyone. (Not creating evil, not causing harm; it's not evil)
 
I did offer an alternate way that it could be classified as evil "A over clearly-better-B", but (that doesn't work if B doesn't want it, although it is likely that there will be a B who does want it!) however one could have a relaxed Patriarchy or Matriarchy; which is where: "when A & B are equal, choose the one which is gender [male/female] (for job [X])" thus that would only apply to strict Matriarchies/Patriarchies :)
 
 
I personally don't think either Matriarchies or Patriarchies (or related gender role position systems) are a great idea, but I don't think "likely to cause problems" can be called evil; flawed yes, but not evil.
 

No offence, but I won't go into your latter points bonesiii, as I'm not so much trying to defend everything that The Meta Knight said (no offence, just not my goal), as my understanding of Evil, Matriarchies, & Patriarchies :) & some things might already be covered by what I've already said ;)

 

 

(In the case of a soft [M/P]atriarchies it could cause inflation in one side down the line which certainly could upset people, & I think that is to be avoided; when a decision between too equally good people is needed I try not to let the result be a pattern, but not having a pattern isn't really doing anyone person favours it just means there is no system; either way 1/2 people looses each time; so I don't think the flaw is in having an arbitrary decider so much as that as soon people realise the arbitrary decider then they will take issue to it [for a range of reasons; someone will think they were clearly better than the other] so I don't think there is a flaw as making desicions between equally good people is hard, & that people can't be blamed for disliking certain things, even if one doesn't necessarily see a flaw to a system. Although I suggest alternating between choosing between female/male each time might keep people happier but I'm not sure if that helps any more as someone will feel frustrated that they didn't go in one person after; so yeah... it's hard. Making arbitrary decisions are just that; arbitrary...)

 

 

But guess what folks, I still haven't seen any changes on the Bionicle website, so as far as Protectors go, & how they lead their villages or otherwise, is still more or less unknown, as well as whether they just happen to have all male Protectors now or they aren't all guys, or whether they have any of the methods of deciding leadership many of us have outlined or not, so don't worry! :)

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that characters in Bionicle chose female leaders over perfectly capable males every time "for the sake of tradition"... it's perfectly fine, right? Nothing wrong here, nope. But heaven forbid the reverse ever happen.

 

Just sayin'.

 

... but I don't think "likely to cause problems" can be called evil; flawed yes, but not evil.

^^^

 

Back on topic, though, I wonder if this means that the Gen 2 "Matoran" will be half-tech-half-organic, or if they'll be more like the Agori...

Hero Factory RPG 2.0 PCs:
| Erik Jet | Daren Wolfe | Henry Flint | Helen Corona | Ethan RezDr. Xaal |

Wasteland RPG PCs:
|
Mina |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that characters in Bionicle chose female leaders over perfectly capable males every time "for the sake of tradition"... it's perfectly fine, right? Nothing wrong here, nope. But heaven forbid the reverse ever happen.

 

Just sayin'.

 

I don't know what dim-witted name the fallacy of shoving words into your opponents mouths is (strawman maybe?) but you're certainly doing it.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a good, civil debate and all, but is seems quite silly that you guys are arguing over whether the recently-announced fictional biomechanical characters that we know little about of a buildable action figure toyline can reproduce like humans. Maybe its a good thing we don't know.

  • Upvote 2

I HATE SCORPIOS


 


~Pohatu Master of Stone, 2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, but I always thought it came down more to how a group treats individuals. Let's put it this way: 

 

1) Out of any given group (male or female) there will be a variety of gifts, brain allocations, tastes, and so on. One being may be better at one thing than another. 

 

2) Then we have how that group is viewed by those who are NOT in the group. If a male comes along and says "females cannot have a mental allocation to perform X task" then he has committed a logical fallacy - since there is a wide variety of tastes and skills among women, his statement is invalid. If he says that "I am more capable to perform X task than a female (who is, in fact, more capable)", he is fulfilling his own self-interest at the expense of said female and frankly, everyone in that community that needs that task done, since it being done worse as a result. Such reasoning is evil. 

 

3) If a story characterizes all of its characters as not having a variety of tastes, gifts, and brain allocations, a reason should be given. If it is not given, the story is based on an illogical premise. This is not a wise thing to do - it annoys people - and since Lego wants to please/entertain, they should probably stay away from that. 

 

4) If a society says that "you are not supposed to want that" or "you are not supposed to have skill in that" and you truly do want that thing or have skill in that area, then those people are lying to you. Such lying is evil. 

 

5) If a society says that "you cannot do this thing that you are obviously more skilled at" that goes back up to reason #2. Usually this happens because the people who are expected to perform that skill do not wish to have competition from someone who is more skilled than them. This comes from pride, which is also evil. Such persons are also missing out on the fact that they can learn from that person or become more skilled than them, rather than viewing them as something to be feared. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic has been ridiculous for way too long. Even an attempt to get it back on track has immediately reverted to a debate on patriarchy. It's a kids' toyline folks, if we want to have a discussion about REAL LIFE ruling bodies why doesn't that get it's own topic so this can be left to just discussing the matters raised by the OP?

 

A point that I don't think has been risen yet is that we had some female characters in G1 even though there was NO biological reproduction. I assume (as has been THOROUGHLY discussed already!) it was just a way to reach out to any interested girls but it just goes to show that choices made by the writers sometimes have literally zero impact on anything at all. There is no requirement for the Matoran Universe to contain genders at all so essentially everyone could have just been the same gender. 

 

Frankly the whole question behind the OP is reading more into birth and death than we currently know for sure so it could still go in one of many different directions. Although it's fairly clear there will be 'generations' in the new Universe we don't know if they are bred or born or even whether they actually die at all. The world would get crowded without natural death but hey, we won't know how it works until they decide to flat out tell us!

  • Upvote 1

Check out my Bionicle store on Bricklink here!

> > > Bionic Bricks < < <

 

Let me know if you can help me find these last few collectibles!

Masks%20footer4_zpspqs4myrt.png

Also looking for WILD KRAATA and a VMKK Yo!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iblis:

 

Well I had hoped not to comment any further, until I had seen something new on the Bionicle site relevant to this, but I'm a person of weaker will, so if a mod etc. want's to move this elsewhere, please feel free to :) (not that you need my permission or anything, but I hope you know what I mean)

 

[Am I correct in understanding that I can create a Blog once I become a  Premier member? 'cause I was thinking of doing that in the new year, I need to wait a bit at the moment...]


1) Skimming through your post, it seems about as on-topic as other also long posts here, so no need to move it methinks.

2) Correct.



 

For example: men do M, N, W, X, Y, & Z; women do A, B, C, D, M, & N but if for a period of time all people within all groups are happy with this (not in the sense they just put up with it because it's easier to go along than to go against the system), then that 'restriction' would in a sense be irrelevant; so under those (rather contrived) circumstances would that restriction really be evil?


I think the biggest problem with that scenario is not even the question of morality directly, but that it's incredibly, hopelessly unlikely. (You could try, and some have, a case based on this being a fictional world, but I don't see how that helps at all in this case.)

I understand you go on to mention that... but I'm saying, why even bring it up?

 

So whilst this is all just a technicality, I think there is grounds to say that a gender-biased system (be it matriarchy or a patriarchy or something else) isn't intrinsically a evil system; but it is very likely that it will cause problems sooner or later (which certainly could be evil).


I just think this is an artificial distinction -- something causing evil problems, at least when a better alternative is quite possible as it would be here (simple -- hire the most qualified), is itself evil. It's causing harm, so by the definition I mentioned earlier... it's evil.

 

The Meta Knight said it can often have evil causes/results; if it was intrinsic to it it would always have such results


No -- at least with the clarification that some things have to have downsides that are outweighed by the upsites, but I don't see an application here -- it would be the other way around, actually. Only if it never caused harm would it definitely not be intrinsically evil. However, I don't think the idea that it ever couldn't cause harm applies here. Telling one gender they can't have the position, even if by weird luck none of them happen to be the most qualified in a particular scenario, does cause psychological harm. Not to mention it could affect choices in training/education so that less become qualified beyond their natural talents, since many positions do take learning too. Not all of the harm would even be obvious; you wouldn't necessarily know that somebody wouldn't have learned different things and be found more qualified then.


 

what I inferred was that he was stating that a direction to roles based off of gender wouldn't necessarily be evil if the participants of it didn't object to it


From your wording (I understand you were trying as hard as possible to be clear but) I'm not sure if you're endorsing this at all, but I think that's oversimplistic, esp. in light of the above points. Some problems they might not even realize. Those they do, they might feel it's hopeless and not object. And if nobody ever thinks of the problem even subconsciously (again ridiculously unlikely but just for sake of analysis), the problem can still exist, so it could still be evil/wrong/bad/harmful.



 

I don't think "likely to cause problems" can be called evil; flawed yes, but not evil.


We're getting a little off-topic here, but briefly, this would be a semantics thing again because of "can be called". It can be called that and by the dictionary.com definition at least it is (if it's clear that is does cause harm, at least, and on this subject it is), but it maybe need not be (if you define evil differently, but that's where we get tangential... and it's important to understand that that doesn't actually change anything but labels!).

You do bring up an issue that I would get into if we aren't already getting off-topic; I'd bring up weighing pros and cons and how that all factors in. But... maybe you get all that anyways, so eh...



Wally:

 

I don't know what dim-witted name the fallacy of shoving words into your opponents mouths is (strawman maybe?


Correct.




Munty:

 

if we want to have a discussion about REAL LIFE ruling bodies why doesn't that get it's own topic


For the record, I see the "father to son" thing as reason enough to make this mildly on-topic here and do not require it move to another. (This isn't really about real life though; those are being brought up for their relevance to the subject for Bionicle, which is allowed by the S&T rules.) The topic covers more than one narrow subject about the Protectors and this is related (both death and reproduction seem implied in that wording).
  • Upvote 1

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I just want to get my opinion out because this thread is turning ridonkulous.

First things first; I don't believe in "evil". At all. I'm nietzschian in that I believe people simply have different opinions on certain topics, and just because someone's opinion is radically different to mine, or the majority, does not mean it is wrong, bad or "evil".

For this reason I do not believe any sort of government is inherently evil. Communism? Capitalism? Patriarchy? Matriarchy? All have their own strengths and weaknesses. Patriarchy probably began when the biggest and strongest warrior had the most influence in their tribe. The position passed from son to son and when everyone forgot might=right it was simply tradition, and you can't break tradition or fear the wrath of the gods! On okoto it was probably: man is strongest warrior: we give him best gear. He passes the training to his son, and when he dies his son takes over. If a protector had no sons he could well have trained his daughter, but she would probably train her son, because tradition. No one is manipulating or oppressing anyone, only the misread teachings of the past keep the system in place. This is why feminism and the like are recent things, now that we're finally getting rid of traditions we're also stripping away the social stigmas attatched to them.

Does the system work? Yes. Perfectly? No, but it means it's very easy for the tradition of the protectors to continue. A simple "train your firstborn son to replace you" from your father is easier than a

" have a certain number of children within a few years, then train them all equally and test them regularly. Finally, when you reach 40, you choose the most promising to succeed you."

"But daddy, what if I die before I'm forty?"

"SHUT UP. TRADITION."

 

Also, we haven't considered the fact that we only know anything about the protectors. Maybe men protect and women hunt? Maybe men are soldiers and women are scholars? Maybe, just maybe, it's a typo, as there are millions other on the website?

 

I honestly wouldn't mind myself if we got a few waves of nothing but women, but, as silvercor said , I seriously doubt you all would be complaining if we got four waves of exclusively women, compared to how much controversy a single wave of possibly only men is stirring up.

 

And on the topic of homosexuality and transgenderism in bionicle, please no. Bionicle is being aimed at an even younger audience than platonic G1, and little kids find it difficult to understand homosexuality, never mind transgenderism. Heck, I didn't even fully understand transgenderism until I was fifteen! So while I'm as supportive of the LGBT community as I can be, there's no need to shoehorn that into a kid's franchise.

And how in the name of mata nui would a protector get a sex change? But the less said about that, the better.

 

Oh, and to that person who is headcannoning kopaka and lewa to be female; Seriously? There's a line between having a strong political opinion and just being plain weird, and you can't even see the line, you're so far past it.

 

Now, back on topic. Biomechanical beings and live births? What, do they just plop out, pistons and all? That stretches my suspension of disbelief.

Interesting concept though.

 

I really hope they don't shoehorn relationships into the toa's dynamic. Because we ALL know, tahu would get gali, end of. Tahu is fiery-blooded, masculine, charismatic, main character and leader. Pohatu is too nice, lewa is too childish, kopaka too cold and onua: BARREL CHESTED CAVE DWELLER DOES NOT HAVE LOT OF CHARISMA"

On the topic of onua, I really don't want to see female toas of earth. Roodaka was the only female G1 titan we got, so for a female toa of earth they would probably just slap boobs on onua.

WOMANUA HAS ALL THE STRONK!

  • Upvote 2

If the above post has offended you in any way, please send me a PM. It won't help, as I won't respond, but you may feel better afterwards, and keep your frustration to yourself instead of saying something stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of the Protectors being organic beings. I feel a lot of Bionicle 2001's atmosphere originally came from how human-like the island of Mata Nui felt, with all its plants and animals and tribal lore. Hopefully this reboot keeps that feeling throughout its whole run, as opposed to completely switching gears like G1 did in 2004.

  • Upvote 1

why is this happening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...