Jump to content

The Protectors Die Naturally/Biologically Reproduce?


Recommended Posts

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.

Well, yeah, probably. After some 15 years of almost nothing but males, getting the opposite would probably not cause a lot of complaints. Not that that would be the ideal, though. A 1:1 ratio would be best. 

 

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.

There's other stuff I could talk about here but I don't have time, so I'm just gonna say that transgender is not the same as transexual. Not to say that they should necessarily include either of these things in Bionicle, but you're looking at it a bit weird.

  • Upvote 1

AXKP5KC.png


 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are accusations of patriarchy still a thing in this topic? I thought we were past that.

 

And honestly, I still can't believe how dense some of my fellow members are on here. What part of toyline intended for boys don't you get here? It's a smart move for LEGO to give them characters that they can relate to, especially with the overly feminized society we're approaching to today.

I doubt Bionicle will release a wave of female sets, count on 1-2 female per wave, the most.

 

And honestly, if you feel so strongly about all this "patriarchy is evil" stuff then go argue it on other parts of the internet, as I'm sure there are plenty places for that at this time, and not get your frustrations out on a children's toyline. Let the kids have it; don't ruin it for them before the sets are even released.

 

Also, to those who have not seen my more detailed explainations regarding the issue, look to the previous pages where I have stated my opposition and ratification strongly and clearly.

  • Upvote 8

                      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

especially with the overly feminized society we're approaching to today.

 

this sentence is so ridiculous and untrue I had to single it out so I and other members could laugh uproariously at it.

 

Anyway, your whole point this entire topic has been "kids shouldn't know about social issues so we should stop debating poor gender decisions to protect them from it" so I'm not really sure it warrants the end of this line of discussion. Yes, it's a line that is mostly aimed at young boys. But if all you toss at young boys is lines that primarily have boy characters (and especially go as egregious as to have solely male characters or even primarily male populations) then that's what young boys will expect and thus it forms a self-fulfilling prophecy of marketing dynamics.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

especially with the overly feminized society we're approaching to today.

 

this sentence is so ridiculous and untrue I had to single it out so I and other members could laugh uproariously at it.

 

Anyway, your whole point this entire topic has been "kids shouldn't know about social issues so we should stop debating poor gender decisions to protect them from it" so I'm not really sure it warrants the end of this line of discussion. Yes, it's a line that is mostly aimed at young boys. But if all you toss at young boys is lines that primarily have boy characters (and especially go as egregious as to have solely male characters or even primarily male populations) then that's what young boys will expect and thus it forms a self-fulfilling prophecy of marketing dynamics.

 

Wow you're one pretentious gal. If you really want to debate how society is slowly turning into fem-centric feel free to PM me about it I don't want to argue with you on this haywire topic, especially with the flamatory diction I've noticed you like to use. So yeah, feel free to dive into my DMs.

 

On the other hand, yes it's a positive feedback effect for marketing, but it happens in girl toylines (MLp, Barbie, new Lego Friends theme) as well and I don't see you barking up that tree advocating that it needs more male characters. And frankly, as this positive feedback loop will keep building, I DOUBT that Lego will ever change their production standards, no matter how much you wish it into being. So feel free to argue why something should, or shouldn't be, but know in the back of your mind why it won't be.

  • 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 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?

 

Simply because I was thinking along the lines that something intrinsically evil wouldn't be able to not cause evil,

 

 

 

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.
 
I suppose this is why I struggle with calling most things evil; most things seem to be evil under this (to the point that evil seems like a pointless word unless one is intending to provide an explanation for their rage against reality, otherwise...), where as I would have thought that for something to be evil would require some degree of malicious intent; or some other more distant notions of evil.
So I suppose I'm simply not really accustomed to how evil is usually talked of ;)
 
 

 

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.

 

To know either way would require a one to be psychic, but anyhow, to me intrinsic means it's essential so if X is intrinsic to Y there cannot ever be a case of Y without X, & as evilness of a thing can be seen by it's actions: " if it was intrinsic to it it would always have such results", but then I suppose my highly contrived example (which really can't be applied to reality for reasons in your quote here & others) isn't doing anything!

 

So it's evil is dormant because it isn't influencing anything until it's forcing (this is deemed to be evil by me), & when it isn't forcing it is possibly influencing — as you outlined — so as I don't think it can really be proven either way (although it has a very high likelihood that it will cause these: negative. bad. evil; things), so exempting even more outlandish ideas of aliens (or robots, or _...) who aren't influenced by this; then yes I can't disprove that these things might happen every time, so assuming the positive (of which there is evidence); then yes I think you quite fairly stated that was fallacious, & you win :)

 

 

 

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.

 

No I don't endorse it, it's something I'm against;

I don't see how my scenario could really occur in real life, (even if it [somehow] didn't affect people in the aforementioned way), as I think the situation would not last long; as for the softest Matriarchy/Patriarchy were (certain) roles are only determined by gender as a last resort, bother me less, but frankly I think they would upset people, I don't think a dice roll is necessarily much better nor do I think an alternating system would be better;

 

I suppose in a sense you could say I consider between choosing between equals to be incredibly frustrating, so I don't particularly care what's used to determine it (as inside that case, it won't be any better or worse), but even that softest Matriarchy/Patriarchy could cause problems along the line so I would rather do something else (preferably something as inconspicuous as possible because whichever I choose would upset someone).

 

& I maintain that whatever other options outside of those: direct prioritise this gender over this (&/or alternate it each time); could also have various problems in the future so my avoidance of those three routes is related to current stigma with them (which I mostly agree with).

 

& well, if everything in a situation is bad; I suppose I ignore that the my rock & a hard place contains multiple 'evil' options, as calling them flawed is easier for me to deal with (maybe)? I'm not entirely sure, inside such a situation it would be hard to make me feel bad about any of the choices as regardless of how abhorrent they may have been to someone, they were all just as bad to me.
 
But I definitely try & avoid Matriarchies & Patriarchies in real life.
 
I'm not entirely sure if it's overly simplistic as it is contrived; but either way, they aren't helpful to real life, & not to Bionicle as I don't think this would be the type of difference that would be welcomed, nor would it add much depth from a plot perspective.
 
 

 

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...

 

All good, I'm just to used to "evil" referring to rather different notions & I've become a bit to divorced from common views of it, so no you win, & I believe I follow your reasoning well enough for a weighing in not to be necessary :)

 

But yes, as far as flawed = evil goes, I most definitely agree with you :)

 

 

 

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.


Well, yeah, probably. After some 15 years of almost nothing but males, getting the opposite would probably not cause a lot of complaints. Not that that would be the ideal, though. A 1:1 ratio would be best. 

 

Heh, this is actually kind of interesting, as one one hand I don't think it's ever a great idea to push through a whole pile of X's (&/or vice versa) when the imbalance occurred so long ago; because for those that are joining, it's not evening out it is starting off unbalanced ;)

On the other hand, it's nice to even things out... But I think the time displacement is an issue which overrides this.

 

The 3rd hand however simply holds that I feel that TLG does (or rather, could) have a valid concern for wanting to have predominantly male characters, although I think they can also fit in quite a few female characters without it negatively impacting sale (enough).

I feel that TLG like almost all companies can tackle various issues, but they don't necessarily want to entirely 'fix it', they still have trends &/in a target market, but ultimately 2/6 is better than 1/6 or 1/12; & 1/3 (or 3/12) is even better, even though none of them are ideal as such.

 

[Mind you I don't think many groups should feel: "we have 49:61, we need to to make one more X", but I think most aren't at this extreme, but I think 1/3 is still a bit to far out, 2/5 would probably be pretty acceptable for most I think?

 

I for one tend to see toys which are done on something like this: toys are targeted at people with interests: A, B, C, D, & E; and the company believes that most people that like most of those things are X, & not as many Y, thus they label it for X; this very quickly becomes making things for X so it must have a lot of A -> E; which becomes less relevant to the majority of people as what most people like in any given groups can change over time {in a society}, thus for X or for Y is no longer just a handy guide for most X's & Y's, but influences many people to some degree {however slightly}.

 

But so long as there aren't rules {whether formal or not} in place, a guide can just be treated as a guide, & people might collectively find that X now refers to things for both X's & Y's but 'only' those of a certain other_feature, but there might be XX which is 'specifically' just for X's.

 

Whatever the categorisations are they can be problematic, but much of it can be alleviated by not {as a society} making them prescriptive; I can go & buy products which aren't for me based on my gender, & I'm lucky enough that I can do that where I am without really encountering any resistance or difficulty; so as labels can be taken less strictly; maybe representation can to? Should we try & ensure that our stories all feature very different personality types so as to prevent people feeling that all people with personality_trait are V? Maybe, maybe not;

 

I don't see a show or a toyline that doesn't have a good representation of either gender as a huge issue necessarily; less females may connect with Bionicle than what they otherwise may have done if there were more, but I think the main thing about trying to have more than token representation is so that the characters of that gender {or race, etc.} doesn't appear to be a mere cliché {as in not just commonly done, but negative}, & this will also require more members of that group, as the total size of the cast increases {generally speaking}; tokenism isn't avoided by throwing in one or two characters that are __ but by ensuring that those 'characters' aren't just there, but that they are meaningful;

 

{generally: some interact regularly in a way beyond just a joke or other fluff; some have a big impact on the direction of the story; these things happen 'on-screen', so not oh yeah this chick did all this awesome stuff in the back-story; etc.}

 

So whilst a show shouldn't need to be targeted at girls to have a decent amount of female characters, I think with a few regular female characters if they are strong characters, it might not be doing as much for a shows audience as possible, but the 'show' doesn't perpetuate various stereotypes; it still might not be ideal, but I think it's at the point were, if handled well a 1:3 female to male ratio of main characters can be enough to start to breakdown some gender stereotypes.

 

There's a lot we don't know about G2, but even though we only have 1 definitely female character, and possibly 11 males, the next wave could have 7 males & 5 females, still not very close to the ideal 1:1, but a 1:4 ratio doesn't look that unlikely, & depending on how the story is handled we could see many other characters which could help to even things out. I'm not exactly expecting wave 2 to have 5:7 but we might get lucky; I don't think a 5:7 would really cause issues for them, especially as they already would have had wave 1 out. There is hope yet, for something better, even if it isn't what we may call optimal.]

 

 

man, people sure do like to make kids out to be dumb. they understand and can deal with more than they're given credit for. :t

 

Eh, peoples aversion for something being in a toy-line aimed at kids doesn't necessarily mean they don't think kids can understand it...

But yeah.... :/

~ 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

 

 

especially with the overly feminized society we're approaching to today.

 

this sentence is so ridiculous and untrue I had to single it out so I and other members could laugh uproariously at it.

 

Anyway, your whole point this entire topic has been "kids shouldn't know about social issues so we should stop debating poor gender decisions to protect them from it" so I'm not really sure it warrants the end of this line of discussion. Yes, it's a line that is mostly aimed at young boys. But if all you toss at young boys is lines that primarily have boy characters (and especially go as egregious as to have solely male characters or even primarily male populations) then that's what young boys will expect and thus it forms a self-fulfilling prophecy of marketing dynamics.

 

Wow you're one pretentious gal. If you really want to debate how society is slowly turning into fem-centric feel free to PM me about it I don't want to argue with you on this haywire topic, especially with the flamatory diction I've noticed you like to use. So yeah, feel free to dive into my DMs.

 

On the other hand, yes it's a positive feedback effect for marketing, but it happens in girl toylines (MLp, Barbie, new Lego Friends theme) as well and I don't see you barking up that tree advocating that it needs more male characters. And frankly, as this positive feedback loop will keep building, I DOUBT that Lego will ever change their production standards, no matter how much you wish it into being. So feel free to argue why something should, or shouldn't be, but know in the back of your mind why it won't be.

 

 

get a load of this marketing genius. :v

 

girl-populated things don't need more male characters because the overdose of male characters from literally everytihng else is already poisoning the air like the dreaded Jörmungandr on it's way to end life as we know it.

 

meanwhile boy-oriented, male populated. "mainstream media" could certainly use a heavy dose of vitamin-positive-female-reinforcement to dispell the horror that is internalized male-centricism.

  • Upvote 1

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

especially with the overly feminized society we're approaching to today.

this sentence is so ridiculous and untrue I had to single it out so I and other members could laugh uproariously at it.

 

Anyway, your whole point this entire topic has been "kids shouldn't know about social issues so we should stop debating poor gender decisions to protect them from it" so I'm not really sure it warrants the end of this line of discussion. Yes, it's a line that is mostly aimed at young boys. But if all you toss at young boys is lines that primarily have boy characters (and especially go as egregious as to have solely male characters or even primarily male populations) then that's what young boys will expect and thus it forms a self-fulfilling prophecy of marketing dynamics.

Wow you're one pretentious gal. If you really want to debate how society is slowly turning into fem-centric feel free to PM me about it I don't want to argue with you on this haywire topic, especially with the flamatory diction I've noticed you like to use. So yeah, feel free to dive into my DMs.

 

On the other hand, yes it's a positive feedback effect for marketing, but it happens in girl toylines (MLp, Barbie, new Lego Friends theme) as well and I don't see you barking up that tree advocating that it needs more male characters. And frankly, as this positive feedback loop will keep building, I DOUBT that Lego will ever change their production standards, no matter how much you wish it into being. So feel free to argue why something should, or shouldn't be, but know in the back of your mind why it won't be.

get a load of this marketing genius. :v

 

girl-populated things don't need more male characters because the overdose of male characters from literally everytihng else is already poisoning the air like the dreaded Jörmungandr on it's way to end life as we know it.

 

meanwhile boy-oriented, male populated. "mainstream media" could certainly use a heavy dose of vitamin-positive-female-reinforcement to dispell the horror that is internalized male-centricism.

It's incredibly sexist of you to be applying this double standard. Girl oriented themes don't need male characters, but boy oriented themes need more girls, because of some idea that mainstream media is more male-centric? I think you're just chosing to see what you want and ignoring the fact that TLC exists. If that's not female- overpopulated mainstream media, I don't know what is. My point is let the creators of their shows, toys, games and art focus on whatever sex they want if they have a preference and stop trying to pursue your own agenda.
  • Upvote 5

                      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

How are accusations of patriarchy still a thing in this topic? I thought we were past that.

 

And honestly, I still can't believe how dense some of my fellow members are on here. What part of toyline intended for boys don't you get here? It's a smart move for LEGO to give them characters that they can relate to, especially with the overly feminized society we're approaching to today.

Dude seriously.

Seriously.

I'm not even going to try to reason with that.

 

Putting that aside, you know what could also be a smart move? Broadening the appeal of a line like Bionicle's to target both genders. Perhaps trying to be a little more diverse in how they approach consumers wouldn't be a terrible idea. You know, maybe.

 

Honestly it really is kinda baffling how the attitudes of some people here are, in effect: "That's just how it is, so get over it." That's a simply ridiculous argument. If everyone in history just accepted that "that is how it is" and never questioned it, then nothing would ever change. Social progress happens when you're willing to challenge the ways things are. As Wally said, the very fact that people insist that "this is just how it is" is exactly why things are how they are. The very divide between media that is overly geared towards either gender is toxic in itself. If that's how things "just are," people have every right to voice their disapproval.

 

We don't (necessarily) expect Lego to completely revamp how they do things, or to immediately change the way they distribute gender with their characters. It's not realistic to expect that, from their past history. That doesn't mean that, as society becomes slowly but surely more geared towards equality, we can't begin to expect that Lego becomes perhaps a tad more progressive. And that doesn't mean that we're too dense to understand marketing.

  • Upvote 4

AXKP5KC.png


 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of most toys is to give kids something to play with, not use them to hammer our views into seven-year-olds. :I

 

Every piece of media gives some view to kids. G.I. Joe tells kids to respect the military. Transformers often begs questions of morality, or ethics conundrums. Even Bionicle often tried (and often failed) to make a point.

 

Media without a message would be kind of empty and soulless.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of most toys is to give kids something to play with, not use them to hammer our views into seven-year-olds. :I

Honestly, if I wasn't so annoyed with Wally's response, my wirds would be much more civil I guess I'm sorry?

Anyway, the poster above explains my feelings on the issue with a more calm standpoint.

 

With that, peace I'm out. Wanna debate gender equality systems? PM me please.

  • Upvote 1

                      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

 

The whole point of most toys is to give kids something to play with, not use them to hammer our views into seven-year-olds. :I

 

 

Every piece of media gives some view to kids. G.I. Joe tells kids to respect the military. Transformers often begs questions of morality, or ethics conundrums. Even Bionicle often tried (and often failed) to make a point.

 

Media without a message would be kind of empty and soulless.

So what's the meaning behind plain ol' bricks? Teddy-bears? A rubber ball? I know a number of kids who don't/didn't care one bit about Bionicle's story, but they loved the toys themselves.

  • 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

 

 

The whole point of most toys is to give kids something to play with, not use them to hammer our views into seven-year-olds. :I

 

Every piece of media gives some view to kids. G.I. Joe tells kids to respect the military. Transformers often begs questions of morality, or ethics conundrums. Even Bionicle often tried (and often failed) to make a point.

 

Media without a message would be kind of empty and soulless.

So what's the meaning behind plain ol' bricks? Teddy-bears? A rubber ball? I know a number of kids who don't/didn't care one bit about Bionicle's story, but they loved the toys themselves.

 

 

it's like, if they don't care about the story, they don't care.

 

but if they do care, they absorb the information and take on traits relating to said information. which includes concepts of gender roles and ratios. :0

  • Upvote 1

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the meaning behind plain ol' bricks?

 

creativity

 

 

Teddy-bears?

 

 

developing a positive response to cuteness, and also an object of comfort

 

 

A rubber ball?

 

reflexes

 

and honestly if you're trying to say a story-intensive action figure line is anywhere near as generic and message-detached as those three examples I'd have to say that's ridiculous.

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

Putting that aside, you know what could also be a smart move? Broadening the appeal of a line like Bionicle's to target both genders. Perhaps trying to be a little more diverse in how they approach consumers wouldn't be a terrible idea. You know, maybe.

 

Honestly it really is kinda baffling how the attitudes of some people here are, in effect: "That's just how it is, so get over it." That's a simply ridiculous argument. If everyone in history just accepted that "that is how it is" and never questioned it, then nothing would ever change. Social progress happens when you're willing to challenge the ways things are. As Wally said, the very fact that people insist that "this is just how it is" is exactly why things are how they are. The very divide between media that is overly geared towards either gender is toxic in itself. If that's how things "just are," people have every right to voice their disapproval.

 

We don't (necessarily) expect Lego to completely revamp how they do things, or to immediately change the way they distribute gender with their characters. It's not realistic to expect that, from their past history. That doesn't mean that, as society becomes slowly but surely more geared towards equality, we can't begin to expect that Lego becomes perhaps a tad more progressive. And that doesn't mean that we're too dense to understand marketing.

 

^This.

 

Seriously, I sincerely hope that TLG does add more female characters & discover that it actually discover that it doesn't ruin sales, & from there we might start to get pretty much 1:1, I imagine it will be a somewhat gradual thing, but still; more diverse characters gives more things for an audience to relate to, means more members, profit :D

As it is I'm hopeful that things will improve :)

 

 

(As it is though I think there are various inequalities all over the place, whether you're: Caucasian, or Latin-American, or Indonesian, or gay, or straight, or female, or male, or Muslim, or Atheist; almost whatever aspect there is you can think of a person, somewhere along the line someones discriminated against it, & someone probably is right now.

 

Getting hung up on how evil society X is is with it's [X]-centrism ... can be cathartic, & some discrimination are more prevalent or noticeable than others; and it's not to say that some societies aren't very X-biased, but you'll still often be able to see some 'minority' discriminating against the 'majority', sometimes people in trying to make things fair don't build up different 'sides' they instead try and knock the other down.

I don't think that that last bit is that relevant here, but it may look like what is happening to some.

 

[& please don't get me wrong; whilst I have seen people discriminate against someone because he is a male, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of women being discriminated against for being female; neither excuses the other, & one thing being perceived {whether rightly or wrongly} than another doesn't somehow cancel out the other.])

 

 

So what's the meaning behind plain ol' bricks? Teddy-bears? A rubber ball? I know a number of kids who don't/didn't care one bit about Bionicle's story, but they loved the toys themselves.

 

I think toys, and games, can have many things to them; for me pretty much all LEGO Pieces (System, Technic, CCBs, etc.) offer a fantastic creative outlet; which I think promotes certain imaginative / constructive features.

 

I mean there are those who just put it on display, & I don't think that really does much of anything beyond satisfaction, but whilst many things seem to have an intrinsic playability-fun, or 'companionship', many other things have some sort of moral or build on something, but plenty of things exist mainly to indulge in some sort of desire. *shrugs*

 

I'm not really sure that something needs a moral to have soul. *shrugs*

  • Upvote 1

~ 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

...

And honestly, I still can't believe how dense some of my fellow members are on here. What part of toyline intended for boys don't you get here? It's a smart move for LEGO to give them characters that they can relate to, especially with the overly feminized society we're approaching to today.

...

 

I'm apparently going to join in with the verbal beating this comment is taking as I think it's just as valid a point as any other being made. I don't think we're living in a world that is (or will necessarily EVER become) 'fem-centric' but I do agree that this huge male/female divide that people seem to think exists for some reason simply doesn't. We've come a seriously long way in the last few decades as far as abolishing discrimination, eliminating stigma and re-inforcing equal human rights goes...

 

These days a woman is just as capable of doing anything in the world that a man can do and vice versa. I'm actually speaking with some small amount of experience in the matter as my partner is currently out working her butt off to support our family while I'm home doing the washing and looking after our kids. Noone saw that coming in the 19th century did they?!

 

The reason specific brands or mediums are sometimes dominated by one gender is the same reason they can sometimes be dominated by one race, colour or creed. Think of artforms like rap and jazz for example. These things soon integrate into global phenomenon though as they're target audience come from every walk of life. That however is not the case with many forms of media. Even within media you'd be hard pressed to find a huge youth fanbase for classical music for instance...

 

This logic also exists in most mainstream media. We have James Bond because action movies are far more likely to attract male audiences than females. Jane Bond may go down well too but it would be considerably more niche for a whole host of reasons.

 

Lego friends is all bright pink, little girls and puppy dogs in the park. I highly doubt there's anyone out there calling for more little boys to be added because they aren't aiming the brand primarily (arguably almost exclusively) at young girls! 

 

Bionicle is similarly marketed towards young boys and therefore contains a largely male character pool and hierarchy. There have ALWAYS been female characters however and I would say including Gali as a primary female character right from the get go is easily enough to show girls that it's ok for them to enjoy it as well.

 

The real question is this. If 84% of bionicle sets are male, is more than 16% of it's fanbase female? 

 

.... you know what could also be a smart move? Broadening the appeal of a line like Bionicle's to target both genders. Perhaps trying to be a little more diverse in how they approach consumers wouldn't be a terrible idea. You know, maybe.

 

.....

 

You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time...

 

If TLG decided to use a 50/50 gender split in Bionicle (or any other line targetted at young boys) to try and increase the target audience they'd most likely end up with a product that was less enjoyable for everyone. The boys who the line is primarily aimed at would suddenly find themselves noticing that they were playing with a bunch of girls toys and because of what Bionicle is specifically it would NEVER feel like a 'girls' line anyway.

 

Please don't read any unintended sexism into this, the topic is ridiculous enough without more of those accusations... My point is, if a girl wants to play with Bionicle she can and will and even with the gender divide as it is there's already at least one heroine for her to enjoy. Meanwhile, there are plenty of girls out there who aren't even remotely interested in fighting, action or constraction in general (probably should toss sci-fi in there too for good measure!) and TLG is well aware of that. This is why the female representation is smaller than it possibly could be.

 

Look again at the Lego Friends range, were they trying to create a line with gender-equality in mind there? I should say probably not... If boys want to play with it too then that's fine but personally I imagine there are far fewer instances of that sort than there are of girls enjoying Bionicle.

  • Upvote 5

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

[Pretty much everything in this post,]

 

...I entirely agree with.

 

 

The real question is this. If 84% of bionicle sets are male, is more than 16% of it's fanbase female? 

 

Is there any chance we could find out how many Female:Male:Not_Telling accounts there are on BZPower? I know BZPower isn't the Bionicle community, I don't think it could be said to be conclusive of anything, but maybe it would be interesting to look at anyway? :3

I have no ideas which communities if any would be willing to give out a rough female:male:[other] ratio, but may as well ask; I suspect someone will want to say no, but; don't know until I ask :]

 

 

If TLG decided to use a 50/50 gender split in Bionicle (or any other line targeted at young boys) to try and increase the target audience they'd most likely end up with a product that was less enjoyable for everyone. The boys who the line is primarily aimed at would suddenly find themselves noticing that they were playing with a bunch of girls toys and because of what Bionicle is specifically it would NEVER feel like a 'girls' line anyway.

 

[...]

 

Look again at the Lego Friends range, were they trying to create a line with gender-equality in mind there? I should say probably not... If boys want to play with it too then that's fine but personally I imagine there are far fewer instances of that sort than there are of girls enjoying Bionicle.

 

See I hope that the vast majority of boys won't have that sort of reaction, but it does seem likely. But I wonder; how many boys won't buy Gali (G2) because of the design aesthetics they've taken to make her look female?
Regardless, if it's a slow, gradually increasing female sets & not having something like Roodaka, will that really turn off many boys?
 
I don't think toy-lines which are targeted at boys or girls need to try & turn into something entirely 'gender-neutral', but does a 'minimum' 1/3 ratio (this is definitely imperfect, I don't think the ratios matter so much as having the 'minority' characters been good characters) really hurt them that much? (honest question)
(Like if this is implemented slowly, not that you suddenly get a wave with 1:1 or more to make up for previous waves!)
That way something is can still have more females than males if it's for or vice versa.
 
Like I think various traditional gender-roles are being done away with, which I see as a positive thing; I'm not sure if one needs plenty (in terms of number of characters) of direct representation of either female xor male characters, just that when such characters do show up they aren't 2D or a cliché... like I think it requires a few characters if one wishes to ensure it's done properly; but I don't think Tolkiens Middle Earth Mythos had a problematic lack of female characters; they were there, there weren't as many, they didn't receive the same amount of focus, but a lot of their strength was implied. There are some unfortunate 'implications' in it, but frankly they seem to extend from statements, not from a lack of female characters doing things on-screen etc.
 
Society has changed a lot, & it will change some more, I don't think it should be expected that TLG will change certain things now if they feel it will hurt them too much, if one thinks that it won't then good luck convincing them of that (that's sincere), but I think most people won't try and push a group they like into doing something that will significantly hurt them at the cost of a societal change that they probably think is happening regardless of that individual group.
 
So eh, IMO, they can introduce a few more female characters without risking sales being affected that much; I don't think they need to reach a 1:1 ratio; society might change or might already be at a point where that wouldn't matter, but regardless, I think adding a few more would do more good than harm. *shrugs*
 
I just can't wait to see if these Protectors are going to be brand new characters, or rebooted Jallers or Vakamas or mixes of them.
That is what I find exciting, as for the sex of these characters, eh, as long as they are strong, & we get some more representation somewhere, I'll be happy with it. I'll still probably be happy with if they don't give us some decent female characters, but it'll bug me (If absolutely nothing else other than I know I will hear someone else complaining about it, & it'll seem an easy fix to me, & if it's better than 1/6 I can at least say that & point out that an 'improvement' is an 'improvement').

~ 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

 

 

.... you know what could also be a smart move? Broadening the appeal of a line like Bionicle's to target both genders. Perhaps trying to be a little more diverse in how they approach consumers wouldn't be a terrible idea. You know, maybe.

 

.....

 

You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time...

 

If TLG decided to use a 50/50 gender split in Bionicle (or any other line targetted at young boys) to try and increase the target audience they'd most likely end up with a product that was less enjoyable for everyone. The boys who the line is primarily aimed at would suddenly find themselves noticing that they were playing with a bunch of girls toys and because of what Bionicle is specifically it would NEVER feel like a 'girls' line anyway.

 

Please don't read any unintended sexism into this, the topic is ridiculous enough without more of those accusations... My point is, if a girl wants to play with Bionicle she can and will and even with the gender divide as it is there's already at least one heroine for her to enjoy. Meanwhile, there are plenty of girls out there who aren't even remotely interested in fighting, action or constraction in general (probably should toss sci-fi in there too for good measure!) and TLG is well aware of that. This is why the female representation is smaller than it possibly could be.

 

Look again at the Lego Friends range, were they trying to create a line with gender-equality in mind there? I should say probably not... If boys want to play with it too then that's fine but personally I imagine there are far fewer instances of that sort than there are of girls enjoying Bionicle.

 

Ok, but that is, in fact, problematic in its own way. I mean, look, I'm not here to make any accusations of sexism--I don't think anyone arguing for the things I am necessarily is arguing that there is a conscious and/or malicious intent to perpetuate some of these things--but I think it's worthwhile to still call attention to them, because awareness is key. The argument that it's ok to have something aimed squarely at males, with maybe a token female thrown in, and that that is sufficient because it's still expected that any girls remotely interested will be able to look past the gender incongruity and relate to the story, while at the same time talking about how things aimed at girls are treated more as niche products that males are simply not expected to even consider...that honestly just perpetuates a mindset that male is the norm, which anyone of either gender can relate to, while delegating female-oriented media to being niche. That's a form of stigma that still exists in our world, even today. Boys are still raised to dislike "girly" things, while it is (mostly) seen as appropriate for girls to like anything, because, again, male is still largely considered "neutral."

 

Consider that it's not like boys and girls are born with those specific mindsets or interests. What is considered appropriate for males and females is largely dictated by the way people are raised and socialized, and part of that includes the toys and media that we consume while we're young. Continuing to cater specifically to one gender isn't simply responding to how things are, it is, in part, causing the divide in the first place. Ultimately, of course, toys are only a small part in an incredibly big system of socialization, and within the subset of toys, Lego is an even smaller part. Like I said in that same post, it's not like we expect Lego to completely revamp and go full on equality mode overnight. Even if it did, indeed, it's doubtful that it would have too big an impact in the grand scheme of things. But it'd still be a good thing to provide some better representation, and like Iblis said a while back, it doesn't have to be a perfect 1:1 ratio--any little bit helps. It wouldn't take too much to say, make 1/4 or 1/3 of the characters female--but it could go a long way in broadening the horizons of a theme's demographic. It's difficult to say that they wouldn't be able to do something like that successfully if they've never tried before, after all.

Edited by farmstink buttlass
  • Upvote 1

AXKP5KC.png


 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a kid, a small amount of female representation in Bionicle was the last of my worries- I was too busy worrying about whether the Toa could win. My sister also likes Bionicle, and I've never heard her ask why there are so few girls on the teams. We must remember that Lego is trying to please the younger, target-aged kids with an immersive story, descriptive characters, and fun sets, not trying to please the more mature older fans who want answers to more mature problems, like gender representation. 

  • Upvote 7

I HATE SCORPIOS


 


~Pohatu Master of Stone, 2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boys are still raised to dislike "girly" things, while it is (mostly) seen as appropriate for girls to like anything, because, again, male is still largely considered "neutral."

How does this argue for more gender representation? In fact, that would argue against that because boys interests/tastes/preferences are being marginalized and dictated, while girls can just like whatever. 

 

Growing up I found the opposite was mostly true - building toys are boys' thing, you don't like that. Books and dolls are girly things, you like those - and if you like the opposite, you're weird. 

 

But I can see society shifting in the direction you've described - girls are 'allowed' to have interest in whatever, including things previously known as 'boy' things, while boys are still with the same set of tastes they've always been stuck with, that liking anything girly is weak and pathetic. I don't know why we can't just accept that everyone has their own tastes regardless of gender or whatever group they belong to. I wish that people who are content producers would say "this piece of media has quality, it stands on its own merit, and whoever wants to like it can like it" instead of saying "this piece of media is for *insert group here* and if you're not part of *insert group here* and you like this, ya weird."

 

In fact, the former approach would actually be better for business in the long run, because more people would feel more comfortable liking stuff and own up to the fact that they like it, instead of not buying into it/not telling their friends about it in order to avoid the "weird" label.

 

But now I'm getting off topic. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

did anyone stop and think about how marketing a generic, gender-neutral action line like Bionicle towards boys primarily in the first place is probably one of the flaws?

 

if so, why do you still bring it up as if it's a set-in-stone kinda thing, like Bionicle has to be boys-first?

Did you not read the post right above you where I brought up that very thing? XP

 

I don't know why we can't just accept that everyone has their own tastes regardless of gender or whatever group they belong to. I wish that people who are content producers would say "this piece of media has quality, it stands on its own merit, and whoever wants to like it can like it" instead of saying "this piece of media is for *insert group here* and if you're not part of *insert group here* and you like this, ya weird."

 

But they wanted it to be boys-first for whatever reason they happened to have. Probably some sort of taste or something. :shrugs: I always thought it actually did appeal to young boys, and the marketing people recognized it and said "these people like this, so we're going to cater more to them" or some such thing. The idea is that would get them to buy more, and that would be more effective than catering to a larger audience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did anyone stop and think about how marketing a generic, gender-neutral action line like Bionicle towards boys primarily in the first place is probably one of the flaws?

 

if so, why do you still bring it up as if it's a set-in-stone kinda thing, like Bionicle has to be boys-first?

Well, bionicle is anything but generic as it doesn't even really fit into any genre. It's also not gender neutral. There's fighting, swords, monsters, giant frikkin robots and mechs. Some of which have lazer eyes. These concepts are all considered masculine by nature, and as such it was marketed towards boys. You can't market towards everyone efficiently, and as it was better suited to boys than girls, they marketed it towards the demographic they thought they could get the most sales out of from the lowest marketing budget. It's economics. It's not so much as a "boys first!" as it is them simply trying to please the target audience.

 

This thread is getting SERIOUSLY derailed. I mean, wow. Even previous attempts to help have failed miserably.

Edited by Bedrock1
  • Upvote 4

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

Well, bionicle is anything but generic as it doesn't even really fit into any genre. It's also not gender neutral. There's fighting, swords, monsters, giant frikkin robots and mechs. Some of which have lazer eyes.

 

none of those concepts are inherently masculine, what?

 

(also, bionicle is generic in the sense it's an action theme starring sci-fi characters, which is a gender neutral concept.)

  • Upvote 2

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well, bionicle is anything but generic as it doesn't even really fit into any genre. It's also not gender neutral. There's fighting, swords, monsters, giant frikkin robots and mechs. Some of which have lazer eyes.

 

 

none of those concepts are inherently masculine, what?

 

(also, bionicle is generic in the sense it's an action theme starring sci-fi characters, which is a gender neutral concept.)

Firstly, ANYTHING sounds gender neutral when you phrase it as broadly as that. And bionicle definitely isn't straight-up action sci-fi, the first few years were tribal science fantasy, then it got a bit more sci-fi as it went on, with the glatorian being more post-apocalyptic science fantasy.

And I don't know what rock you've been hiding under if you don't think swords, action, giant robots etc. are considered masculine. Films like pacific rim and transformers play on man's love of giant robots ( and you cannot say they weren't marketed towards men), while pretty much any film ever made heavily involving fighting or action has also been marketed towards men, because testosterone causes a more violent thought process, and this causes man's warrior instinct, which these films prey on. While many women do enjoy these things, the majority of gun owners or action film enthusiasts are men, because testosterone. It's a bit of a vicious cycle, as sone women are less likely to watch something exclusively marketed towards men, but that doesn't stop many.

And can we pleease stop this conversation? It's a topic as old as mata nui and we aren't even talking about bionicles any more.

  • 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

Well, bionicle is anything but generic as it doesn't even really fit into any genre. It's also not gender neutral. There's fighting, swords, monsters, giant frikkin robots and mechs. Some of which have lazer eyes. These concepts are all considered masculine by nature, and as such it was marketed towards boys. You can't market towards everyone efficiently, and as it was better suited to boys than girls, they marketed it towards the demographic they thought they could get the most sales out of from the lowest marketing budget. It's economics. It's not so much as a "boys first!" as it is them simply trying to please the target audience.

This thread is getting SERIOUSLY derailed. I mean, wow. Even previous attempts to help have failed miserably.

 

Couldn't agree more! This is exactly the post I didn't make before turning in last night so I'm glad someone else did! 

 

I think any hope of this topic getting back on track has long since vanished...

  • 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

 

True, though wasn't it said that they intended to use air as the element but focus-testing proved that jungle was a more successful term among the target audience? In that case it may just be an unchanged previous name (not saying it doesn't work though).

 

-NotS

From what I heard at NYCC, it wasn't about jungle being more popular so much as "green=jungle" making more sense to the target audience than "green=air". Which I think is fair. If I were to pick up the original Lewa set without seeing any prior story information, I certainly would have thought of him as a jungle character rather than an air character, on account of his colors, design, and environment. Even places in East Asia where the "wind is green" trope is common would probably be able to make the "jungle is green" connection a lot more easily.

 

I think sky-blue and a light, slightly dulled green (like LEGO's Sand-Green) would work well for air . 

  • Upvote 2

bzpower selfmoc smiley.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

The way i see it, the element they're in doesn't have a relation to the gender they are, so there could be female Fire Villagers, male Water Villagers, Etc. it won't matter! in fact, the Protector of water is Male, so this supports my theory!

Link to how Azi looks(UPDATED): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Hh1oWv0PcbLWVKdnpaT1hZeFk/view?usp=drivesdk

 

Also, because THEMESONG:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not post in topics that have been inactive for sixty days or more. :) Revived topic closed.

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

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