Feminizing BIONICLE

[Lyichir]

 

 

Hey I'm just going to throw this out there.

 

Assigning any sort of characteristics to a gender is sexist and you shouldn't do it.

Any sort? Then how, pray tell, would you suggest making a character's gender more evident from their set?

 

 

They're robots. Giving gender traits based on human's is dumb and uncreative if I say so myself.

 

No. No no no. They are not robots in the sense that they are completely alien or foreign to humans. They have faces. They interact with one another on a human level. And most importantly, human audiences (especially CHILDREN) need to be able to relate to them on an emotional level. To put the burden of relateability on the audience, to say "if you can't tell what sort of character this is from their alien appearance, that's your problem", that's not "creative". That's bad storytelling.

 

The fact is that human brains are wired certain ways, and I'm not using that to say males and females are different, but I AM saying that to say that we are programmed to recognize things that are like us. We laugh at cat macros because we can ascribe human traits to feline faces and poses. We see faces in the moon or in clouds. Good character design doesn't rebuke this fact as a limitation—it takes advantage of it to help convey emotion and meaning to a character.

 

This is harder with a children's toy than it can be for almost anything else. Firstly, it's not animated, or at least, it isn't on store shelves. You likely get one picture of the character, maybe two, and those two pictures need to convey who that character is or what they do. You don't get to see how the characters move or what they sound like, not unless you watch a movie, and the kinds of people who watch Bionicle movies are by and large people who already buy the toys. A kid walking down the toy aisle should see a character like Kopaka and be able to tell at a glance—he has ice powers; he's standing on a mountaintop, a loner; he carries a shield, perhaps he's shy? The character design conveys an incredible amount of information, both in terms of explicit details and inferred characteristics. And that's how you create new customers. You create a character the buyer will be drawn to, characters they'll understand in an instant.

 

Also, gender is an intrinsic part of the human condition! It may not be binary, or inextricably tied to sex, but it makes up a big part of who we are and what sort of characters we relate to. As such, Bionicle characters have genders, and they should be recognizeable lest the legions of little boys who will inevitably buy the theme assume that all the characters are like them as far as their gender is concerned. Because that's not the kind of lesson kids need—they need to recognize the value of diversity; the idea that a bunch of different kinds of people can be companions and friends. Bionicle's color-coded characters are well-suited to that kind of message, so the sets should represent that sort of diversity.

 

The argument that "robotic characters shouldn't have gender distinctions" for all intents and purposes might as well be "the characters should all be male". Because without gender distinctions, THAT'S going to be the mindset of Bionicle's primarily-male audience. Kids in the Bionicle age range aren't at a point in their lives where they'll create headcanons to justify their love of a series, and if they do, they won't be headcanons that challenge their preconceived notions, but rather ones that make the series more comfortable to them. In a society where many children are exposed to the prejudices and stereotypes of the older generation, that's not always going to be a good thing.

[Pomegranate]

I think you're missing Seth Rollin's point; you shouldn't assign characteristics to the gender doesn't mean individuals of certain genders cannot share common characteristics, just that it's wrong to attribute them to the entire gender and thus everyone who identifies under it. 

You can give Gali an hourglass figure and say that it's easy to identify her as a female now, but you cannot say that she cannot be a female without them, or that a male character with an hourglass figure must be female because of it. Don't generalize, don't stuff everyone under one label or identifying trait, I think, is what you should get from that. That's what I got out of it, anyways, it makes more sense than "everything is sexist, please make all your robots boring."

Diversity can be shown through having a very obvious female in the midst of every Toa team, or, you can keep the female character and give her a different body type than your standard silhouette, and kill two birds with one stone. More diversity isn't gonna kill anyone, and kids are smarter than most give them credit for. I assumed Gahlok, my first set, was a girl character, based soley on the colors and the vibe it gave off. I had no inkling of the Bionicle story or the existence of other sets or the fact that a Bohrok is a genderless brain in a lifeless tank suit. I was happy with that. If a six-seven year old can look a scary insectoid tank creature and say "that one's a girl 'cause colors and I just think so", it shouldn't be hard for them to identify Gali or any other official sets as female based soley off the colors, mask design, name, and association with Water (since Bionicle has this lovely One Girl Per Team and She Gotta Be Water rule). Bionicle 2015 is looking to have a lot of media associated with it, so it shouldn't take much for a kid to glance "she" somewhere on the packaging, or website, or the future web animation and books, possibly even comics and more. I don't think just getting kids to identify them as girls is the big dilemma, I think it's figuring out how to build the characters so they look like what they're supposed to be-- not so it's obvious, just so it matches, 'cause folks like to build things that look like they think they should look. Saying "Oh, if you're building a character with Trait Y, that means they're Gender X" is not the right way to go about this, even if you are just trying to make it clear what gender the character should be at first glance. Dealing in absolutes is the wrong way to go with gender, and then on top of that you shouldn't be dealing with ideals but with true diversity-- all shapes, all sizes, for everyone. 

It's just like what is always said in other gender-related topics: People recognize or accept things because of a flawed system of thinking; the best way to fix that is to go against the grain and try to make a difference yourself instead of waiting for the system to change on its own. In regards to this topic, while hourglass figure and other such stereotypes are the best way to get your point across, it's 'causing more harm than other approaches would, and although some methods and builds may not make your set recognizable immediately as a specific gender, it's not your fault that everyone else is trained to see it as something it's not. Do your own thing, preferably what's right, and teach other people. If they don't get it, just say, "it's thin with wide hips, but it's my character and I'm telling you it's a dude" and it's not your fault if they can't see beyond appearances and such.

Suggesting changes to official sets is very different from talking about how to build MOCs a certain way for a certain effect, but either way, nobody is going to get hurt if the next official female set isn't gonna have narrow shoulders and wide hips, but if she does then Lego has made absolutely no progress and it's got another wave of toys to teach kids that looking a certain way is so shameful even toys aren't allowed to look that way, and that one shape is better than others and should be repeated over and over and over since 2001. Don't be so afraid of change, ya know? It can only make things better. No such thing as a woman "too manly". Like I said before, make an "obviously feminine" set with the stereotypical characteristics, it's not like those traits don't exist in real life-- just don't make all of them that way. Branch out. Do something different and preferably something kids that aren't perfect can relate to.

Also, your point that "no gender distinctions means everyone looks standard which means everyone looks male" is just an example of the same flawed thinking you attribute to primarily-male audience in your example. "No gender distinctions" does not mean "no distinct characteristics". It just means any character can be bulky, petite, top heavy, wide at the hips, have huge feet, a scary face, or a certain color, or breasts, or a muscular build, or whatever, and it doesn't define what gender they are. You can say "oh that one looks female to me" or "that one looks male to me" or "that one looks like an androgynous blob" or anything in between, and you'll always be correct-- but so will the person who sees 'em differently. To say that one trait is exclusive to any gender is just incorrect, inflexible, and offensive to many.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Kevin Owens]

 As such, Bionicle characters have genders, and they should be recognizeable...

 

 

This is an oversimplification, but this is pretty much the crux of your argument.  Bionicles have gender, and they should be recognizeable.  The issue is that most people here, and this includes you, believe that this should be shown through certain characteristics.  The problem is that assigning certain characteristics to gender and sex is incredibly problematic and shouldn't be done.

 

There's other stuff I could go over in your post but most of it would be either agreeing with you (there should be diversity) or just nothing for me to really comment on (Kopaka wears a shield because he's shy).

[Aanchir]

Yeah, honestly? Gender is one of many ways that people relate to each other and to fictional characters. Saying that there's no reason for BIONICLE characters to have genders at all is the single dumbest idea to appear in this topic so far, and that's INCLUDING all of the stereotypes about sex and gender that have cropped up.

 

If all that matters is that they're robots, then for that matter, why even give them personalities? It's not like kids need to identify with them or anything...

 

Remember that sex and gender are different things. Sex relates to a person's reproductive organs and the biological differences that result. Gender is more of a social construct, and relates to how you identify yourself. A character not having actual reproductive organs has NOTHING to do with whether they have a gender.

 

To be frank, the dumbest and most uncreative thing BIONICLE could ever do is strip away every single personality trait that doesn't make sense for a robot to have in real life. The LEGO Group tried having robot action figures with no well-defined genders or personalities. The series in question were called Slizer and Roboriders. Neither was ever anywhere near as successful as BIONICLE or even Hero Factory.

[Kevin Owens]

Yeah, honestly? Gender is one of many ways that people relate to each other and to fictional characters. Saying that there's no reason for BIONICLE characters to have genders at all is the single dumbest idea to appear in this topic so far, and that's INCLUDING all of the stereotypes about sex and gender that have cropped up.

 

If all that matters is that they're robots, then for that matter, why even give them personalities? It's not like kids need to identify with them or anything...

 

Remember that sex and gender are different things. Sex relates to a person's reproductive organs and the biological differences that result. Gender is more of a social construct, and relates to how you identify yourself. A character not having actual reproductive organs has NOTHING to do with whether they have a gender.

 

To be frank, the dumbest and most uncreative thing BIONICLE could ever do is strip away every single personality trait that doesn't make sense for a robot to have in real life. The LEGO Group tried having robot action figures with no well-defined genders or personalities. The series in question were called Slizer and Roboriders. Neither was ever anywhere near as successful as BIONICLE or even Hero Factory.

How did you reach that conclusion?  Just because somebody makes the argument that Bionicles are robots and therefore need no gender means that Bionicles shouldn't have character traits or a personality.  Gender is not tied to character traits and personality.

 

For what it's worth I agree that they shouldn't throw out gender, I just think that your logic is faulty and you're reaching.

[Lyichir]

 

As such, Bionicle characters have genders, and they should be recognizeable...

 

This is an oversimplification, but this is pretty much the crux of your argument.  Bionicles have gender, and they should be recognizeable.  The issue is that most people here, and this includes you, believe that this should be shown through certain characteristics.  The problem is that assigning certain characteristics to gender and sex is incredibly problematic and shouldn't be done.

 

There's other stuff I could go over in your post but most of it would be either agreeing with you (there should be diversity) or just nothing for me to really comment on (Kopaka wears a shield because he's shy).

 

Believe me, if there were a way to show gender in set design in a way that DIDN'T involve common characteristics, it would be perfect. The problem is that there are none. Nada. Zero. Bionicle sets don't talk. They don't display mannerisms. The ONLY way that they can display gender is with recognizably gendered characteristics.

 

And the failure to denote gender amounts to abandoning the issue. It amounts to saying "we're trying to write a story, but whatever, you can ascribe whatever gender or personality you like to the set". And while to an adult who HAS learned the values of diversity that might seem like a good thing, to kids it amounts to "go ahead and make all the characters like you, with the same prejudices your parents have taught you, the same gender as you, the same personality". That's a problem, and more to the point it's TOTALLY counter to the values of the Bionicle theme—values like the union of different personalities for a noble cause.

 

You don't have to use the same characteristics to denote gender for every set. Not every female character has to have smooth outlines. Not every one has to have narrow shoulders. But to fail to use ANY contextual clues is a failure of character design. It results in sets like Toa Mahri Hahli—sets that, when I show them the set and describe her character to a kid OR adult they ask "That's a girl?" incredulously, as if the thought never occurred to them. Because it didn't. Because they saw robot heroes and, because of years of gendered marketing, thought that weird robot characters couldn't POSSIBLY be girls, and their were no context clues to tell them otherwise. That's a much bigger problem for Bionicle to overcome than adding comparably harmless identifying features to a set design could ever be.

[Kevin Owens]

 

Believe me, if there were a way to show gender in set design in a way that DIDN'T involve common characteristics, it would be perfect. The problem is that there are none. Nada. Zero. Bionicle sets don't talk. They don't display mannerisms. The ONLY way that they can display gender is with recognizably gendered characteristics.

What if I were to tell you that what you "recognizable gender characteristics" is a sexist notion and that supporting such a notion is sexist?

 

And the failure to denote gender amounts to abandoning the issue. It amounts to saying "we're trying to write a story, but whatever, you can ascribe whatever gender or personality you like to the set".

I take issue with the word failure here.  It's not a failure.  It would be a conscious choice.  It would not be abandoning the issue.  It would be recognizing that gender is a complex subject that should be respected and not boiled down to predetermined characteristics.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Seth Rollins

[fishers64]

I would prefer that female robots look like female robots, you know? I know that's a preference thing, but since when is that wrong?

And I'll be first to agree that not all girls look alike, and that these are biomechanical and not necessarily human representatives, but yeah.
 

Ja nee, I know and accept that people of both genders have varying body types, but the original question was how bet to feminize MoCs, and I certainly think the proportions argument is better than the 'Slap on boobs' argument. Yet, let me emphasize that I'm fine with how female characters already look in Bionicle simply because they're not human. It doesn't matter if they have a feminine figure. But if you do want to make a bionicle with a female figure, don't build boobs onto it when you could just as easily change proportions.

Agreed. It would be hard to get proportion changes worse than item slapping. 
 

"Sexist old men" is a direct quote from earlier.

Just for the record, the people running the new Bionicle are young guys, with even a women among the ranks. I'd hardly think they are in the dark about this stuff.

I think they tried to come up with a reasonable feminine build for Gali - looking like a girl without being objectifying, and for the most part they succeeded. 

[Pomegranate]

 

 

As such, Bionicle characters have genders, and they should be recognizeable...

 

This is an oversimplification, but this is pretty much the crux of your argument.  Bionicles have gender, and they should be recognizeable.  The issue is that most people here, and this includes you, believe that this should be shown through certain characteristics.  The problem is that assigning certain characteristics to gender and sex is incredibly problematic and shouldn't be done.

 

There's other stuff I could go over in your post but most of it would be either agreeing with you (there should be diversity) or just nothing for me to really comment on (Kopaka wears a shield because he's shy).

 

Believe me, if there were a way to show gender in set design in a way that DIDN'T involve common characteristics, it would be perfect. The problem is that there are none. Nada. Zero. Bionicle sets don't talk. They don't display mannerisms. The ONLY way that they can display gender is with recognizably gendered characteristics.

 

And the failure to denote gender amounts to abandoning the issue. It amounts to saying "we're trying to write a story, but whatever, you can ascribe whatever gender or personality you like to the set". And while to an adult who HAS learned the values of diversity that might seem like a good thing, to kids it amounts to "go ahead and make all the characters like you, with the same prejudices your parents have taught you, the same gender as you, the same personality". That's a problem, and more to the point it's TOTALLY counter to the values of the Bionicle theme—values like the union of different personalities for a noble cause.

 

You don't have to use the same characteristics to denote gender for every set. Not every female character has to have smooth outlines. Not every one has to have narrow shoulders. But to fail to use ANY contextual clues is a failure of character design. It results in sets like Toa Mahri Hahli—sets that, when I show them the set and describe her character to a kid OR adult they ask "That's a girl?" incredulously, as if the thought never occurred to them. Because it didn't. Because they saw robot heroes and, because of years of gendered marketing, thought that weird robot characters couldn't POSSIBLY be girls, and their were no context clues to tell them otherwise. That's a much bigger problem for Bionicle to overcome than adding comparably harmless identifying features to a set design could ever be.

 

The thing is, they already released Hahli Mahri, and someone did go, "That's a girl?" And then, later, that person will look at future sets and think, "hey, what if that's a girl too? I can't be sure anymore, because I have learned that girls don't need to look a certain way. I should consider it to be a possiblity." People aren't goldfish. It's not more important to show "hey look, GIRLS EXIST!" than it is to say "You see this character? That's a girl. And they're not a stereotype. Taadaa."

 

Kids failing to identify a character as female immediately if she's not built a certain way isn't the set's fault, or the kid's fault, it's the environment they were raised in. Changing the kid or the set will not solve the root problem and the countless others that stem from it. If you keep feeding that flawed thinking, you're just digging yourself deeper. It'll be harder and harder to make a set that looks feminine without overdoing it, 'cause anything less will look "normal" and "not girly enough." And again, you are completely ignoring the MOCing side of the equation, since I don't think anyone really intends to go and change the official sets themselves before they're released. A lot of the arguments you make against the suggests towards differing body types involve the young demographic not being able to tell that there are girls among their heroes, and that's completely irrelevant to anyone building a nice figure at home on their carpet with a box of plastic construction toys.

 

I went over it way more in my previous post, I just editted in a couple paragraphs so you didn't get to see it at first.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Aanchir]

 

Yeah, honestly? Gender is one of many ways that people relate to each other and to fictional characters. Saying that there's no reason for BIONICLE characters to have genders at all is the single dumbest idea to appear in this topic so far, and that's INCLUDING all of the stereotypes about sex and gender that have cropped up.

 

If all that matters is that they're robots, then for that matter, why even give them personalities? It's not like kids need to identify with them or anything...

 

Remember that sex and gender are different things. Sex relates to a person's reproductive organs and the biological differences that result. Gender is more of a social construct, and relates to how you identify yourself. A character not having actual reproductive organs has NOTHING to do with whether they have a gender.

 

To be frank, the dumbest and most uncreative thing BIONICLE could ever do is strip away every single personality trait that doesn't make sense for a robot to have in real life. The LEGO Group tried having robot action figures with no well-defined genders or personalities. The series in question were called Slizer and Roboriders. Neither was ever anywhere near as successful as BIONICLE or even Hero Factory.

How did you reach that conclusion?  Just because somebody makes the argument that Bionicles are robots and therefore need no gender means that Bionicles shouldn't have character traits or a personality.  Gender is not tied to character traits and personality.

 

For what it's worth I agree that they shouldn't throw out gender, I just think that your logic is faulty and you're reaching.

 

My understanding of gender is that it's a matter of how you identify yourself. Does that not qualify as an element of your personality? I always thought of it that way, but if I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. :/ Perhaps "characterization" would have been a better word than "personality", but you also seem to be saying gender doesn't even qualify as a character trait, so I guess I'm completely lost.

 

In any case, my wider point is that there's not any reason for "robots" to be human-like in any way at all. The reason BIONICLE characters are human-like to begin with is so that people can relate to them, and gender is just one perfectly valid way in which we as viewers relate to fictional characters. "They're robots" is a mind-numbingly stupid reason to throw ANY aspect of their characterization out the window.

[Zidonaro]

Yeah, honestly? Gender is one of many ways that people relate to each other and to fictional characters. Saying that there's no reason for BIONICLE characters to have genders at all is the single dumbest idea to appear in this topic so far, and that's INCLUDING all of the stereotypes about sex and gender that have cropped up.

So, you're saying I can't relate to Gali because she's a Woman and I'm man ? She can have an amazing personality but I can't like her because of the gender I identify with is different than hers ? And nobody said genders shouldn't exist, It's just the fact that people give a focus it shouldn't deserve. Why don't people give more focus on how the characters are written instead of a dumb Idea that our society put in our minds ? Are kids these days really that stupid that they will not buy a female set just because she's female ?

Edited October 23, 2014 by Zidonaro

[Pomegranate]

My understanding of gender is that it's a matter of how you identify yourself. Does that not qualify as an element of your personality? I always thought of it that way, but if I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. :/ Perhaps "characterization" would have been a better word than "personality", but you also seem to be saying gender doesn't even qualify as a character trait, so I guess I'm completely lost.

In any case, my wider point is that there's not any reason for "robots" to be human-like in any way at all. The reason BIONICLE characters are human-like to begin with is so that people can relate to them, and gender is just one perfectly valid way in which we as viewers relate to fictional characters. "They're robots" is a mind-numbingly stupid reason to throw ANY aspect of their characterization out the window.

It's an element of your personality, but it does not define what any part of your personality should be like. Saying "I identify as female" does not mean "I wish to be associated with this whole set of characteristics." It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

The argument isn't "they're robots so it doesn't matter," it's "they're robots so it isn't necessary." You don't absolutely need to match them to everything a human has, you can ignore some things if it's problematic and it doesn't take away from them that much. Humanoid robots aren't just metal humans, they're a separate entity. You're allowed to change them up, that's the beauty of it. Not "there's NO reason for Bionicle characters TO have gender" but rather "there IS a reason for them NOT to have gender." It's completely different when you look at it from the opposite angle.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Kevin Owens]

I would prefer that female robots look like female robots, you know? I know that's a preference thing, but since when is that wrong?

It's wrong since assigning characteristics to gender is problematic and shouldn't be done since you're boiling down a really complex issue into a simple one.

[Pomegranate]

 

I would prefer that female robots look like female robots, you know? I know that's a preference thing, but since when is that wrong?

It's wrong since assigning characteristics to gender is problematic and shouldn't be done since you're boiling down a really complex issue into a simple one.

 

Basically, if you think your female robot doesn't look like a female robot because she lacks distinct, obviously secondary physical characteristics or has a particular body type, you have a very skewed vision of what females look like. It's not wrong to have a preference for a certain look, not at all, but it's wrong to say that's the only acceptable one and that others just aren't "female enough", and that if you can't immediately tell then it undermines the character's identity. Same for male characters, and all other genders out there, obviously. It's just especially egregious when you're into the Bionicle story, so you know exactly what each character is supposed to be, so why does their appearance not matching what you expect them to look like exactly matter to how you interpret the character? It really shouldn't. Neither should their personality traits "clashing" with their gender. Switching around absolutely everything that isn't their appearance, for Lewa and Gali for example, should not make you say, "Lewa is female and Gali is male because of the way they act." You should be aware that that's just not how it works and you should try to be more open about it.

 

This is getting off topic, I think, though the topic starter did say "eh just discuss anything that the title covers" so it's up to the mods to rule on that one.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Makaru]

This is an absolutely fascinating exchange of ideas and experiences, and if no one is really too upset by what each other is saying I would really like to see it continue, personally.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Makaru

[Click]

 

Believe me, if there were a way to show gender in set design in a way that DIDN'T involve common characteristics, it would be perfect. The problem is that there are none. Nada. Zero. Bionicle sets don't talk. They don't display mannerisms. The ONLY way that they can display gender is with recognizably gendered characteristics.

What if I were to tell you that what you "recognizable gender characteristics" is a sexist notion and that supporting such a notion is sexist?

 

"Recognizable gender characteristics" are not inherently sexist. It's biology. Giving a female character narrower shoulders is not the same thing as saying "all women have narrow shoulders, and men do not," it is saying this character is female, and has narrow shoulders, because that is her body type, NOT "this character is female, therefore she must have narrow shoulders."

 

When these characteristics are applied to an entire population with no diversity, then it becomes sexist. Lyichir is not saying "give all women narrow shoulders," he is saying "give all women body types that can be recognized as realistic body types seen on women, but not the same ones."

[Kevin Owens]

This is an absolutely fascinating exchange of ideas and experiences, and if no one is really too upset by what each other is saying I would really like to see it continue, personally.

u wot m8 fite me ill slap u silly swear on me mum

 

[Abusing my mod powers to remind you that spam is still against the rules ~Makaru]

Edited October 23, 2014 by Makaru

[Pomegranate]

 

 

Believe me, if there were a way to show gender in set design in a way that DIDN'T involve common characteristics, it would be perfect. The problem is that there are none. Nada. Zero. Bionicle sets don't talk. They don't display mannerisms. The ONLY way that they can display gender is with recognizably gendered characteristics.

What if I were to tell you that what you "recognizable gender characteristics" is a sexist notion and that supporting such a notion is sexist?

 

"Recognizable gender characteristics" are not inherently sexist. It's biology. Giving a female character narrower shoulders is not the same thing as saying "all women have narrow shoulders, and men do not," it is saying this character is female, and has narrow shoulders, because that is her body type, NOT "this character is female, therefore she must have narrow shoulders."

 

When these characteristics are applied to an entire population with no diversity, then it becomes sexist. Lyichir is not saying "give all women narrow shoulders," he is saying "give all women body types that can be recognized as realistic body types seen on women, but not the same ones."

 

The problem there is that "give all women body types that can be recognized as realistic body types seen on women, but not the same ones" implies that there are body types that aren't recognizably female, as only stereotypical, cliched traits are the recognizable ones, which is a bad way of thinking and should be avoided when building your MOCs or revamping official sets. I have yet to see him say anything regarding giving them varied body types where not all of them are recognizable, only that not giving them recognizable traits will hurt sales and hurt the poor kiddies, which, again, is irrelevant to MOCing and would be a very unlikely result when applied to the official sets too. Additionally, since he's so adamant that our humanoid robots reflect humanity, "give all of them recognizably female builds" is just wrong because that is not an accurate parallel to what women look like in real life. Not everyone is "recognizably female", with the most consistently telling trait being their face, which is kinda lost in the translation to masks, especially because in Bionicle masks are just, well, masks, and interchangeable. "Recognizably [gender]" should not mean it's painfully obvious and leaves no room for variety and subtlety, and it definitely should not be an absolute requirement for any character.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Click]

I just meant don't give them Onua's build, which would be fairly recognizably male. Give them builds that you would see on human women. Give them petite builds, larger builds, just something that you can look at and think "that could be a girl." Something more distinct than the clone build that all the males use.

[Noxryn]

I just meant don't give them Onua's build, which would be fairly recognizably male. Give them builds that you would see on human women. Give them petite builds, larger builds, just something that you can look at and think "that could be a girl." Something more distinct than the clone build that all the males use.

I'd be happy if they gave a female character Onua's build. Because, you know, women can have builds like that.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

on the subject of "robots don't have genders":

 

The vahki are genderless, the bohrok are genderless, the visorak too, are genderless.

 

gosh, when was the last time someone found Oohnorak relatable, i wonder? :u

[Pomegranate]

I just meant don't give them Onua's build, which would be fairly recognizably male. Give them builds that you would see on human women. Give them petite builds, larger builds, just something that you can look at and think "that could be a girl." Something more distinct than the clone build that all the males use.

Onua's build could be a girl, that's the point. That is a build you would could see on a human woman. There's nothing wrong with the clone build that all the males use because at least then they're all relatively equal, instead of the women being singled out and perpetuating harmful stereotypes about body image, and, male sets already do have different body types even with waves of clone builds. The ladies should be getting those too, and it shouldn't be completely limited to "that's clearly a girl." You could think "that could be a girl" of any of the sets when you look at them, if you want to. Aside from feminine masks in some cases, if you looked at a wave of sets without knowing the color rule, you wouldn't be able to immediately guess which one is the girl, and that's not always a bad thing. If you are going for the whole diversity thing, then you're obligated to show varied builds, 'cause otherwise it's not helping anyone and defeating the purpose of diversity. "Obvious characteristics" like bigger breastplates or scary slender waists is just not trying hard enough. 

 

Obviously a little bit of everything is the best solution, and I'm not saying "avoid your average telling female physical traits at all costs", but if you're gonna use 'em you need to let go off them for the most part for at least a few other builds too.

[Click]

 

I just meant don't give them Onua's build, which would be fairly recognizably male. Give them builds that you would see on human women. Give them petite builds, larger builds, just something that you can look at and think "that could be a girl." Something more distinct than the clone build that all the males use.

I'd be happy if they gave a female character Onua's build. Because, you know, women can have builds like that.

 

Let me know when you find one.

 

on the subject of "robots don't have genders":

 

The vahki are genderless, the bohrok are genderless, the visorak too, are genderless.

 

gosh, when was the last time someone found Oohnorak relatable, i wonder? :u

You're not supposed to relate to villains, silly.

[Pomegranate]

on the subject of "robots don't have genders":

 

The vahki are genderless, the bohrok are genderless, the visorak too, are genderless.

 

gosh, when was the last time someone found Oohnorak relatable, i wonder? :u

I did, when the Visorak got kicked around doing housework and plummeted to their deaths The thing about those genderless robots is that they're not painfully boring because they're genderless, they're just boring. You kept everything about Bionicle the same but just took away everyone's genders, switched all references to "brother" and "sister" to anything neutral like "comrade"( ) or "partner", the characters and stories would not be any less interesting, just a little more awkward to read cause of all the lack of pronouns and such-- which is the only reason they're there. After the first few years, we never got any romantic, sibling, familial, or other relationships where gender would be important, and the only thing resembling them, Roodaka and Sidorahk's "marriage", was a political thing, and really could've exclusively been called an alliance. If you never noticed, a lot of people hate on Web of Shadows and Roodaka and her interactions and her set because of how unnecessarily sexed up it all was.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

 

on the subject of "robots don't have genders":

 

The vahki are genderless, the bohrok are genderless, the visorak too, are genderless.

 

gosh, when was the last time someone found Oohnorak relatable, i wonder? :u

You're not supposed to relate to villains, silly.

 

 

exactly why they give them "no concept of gender at all" a trait, alongside "no concept of personality" and "no sense of humour, dignity, or righteousness"

^(eh, um. not to accidentally offend any agender people out there though, oops. s: )

 

but basically, by stripping recognizable human concepts, all you do is alienate your audience, nobody wants to see a generic robot fighting hordes of other nameless goonbots. (well, not all the time anyway.)

[Pomegranate]

 

 

I just meant don't give them Onua's build, which would be fairly recognizably male. Give them builds that you would see on human women. Give them petite builds, larger builds, just something that you can look at and think "that could be a girl." Something more distinct than the clone build that all the males use.

I'd be happy if they gave a female character Onua's build. Because, you know, women can have builds like that.

 

Let me know when you find one.

 

Shall I go on? It's kind of obvious. Onua already plays the role of the wise, earth-bound one... Now that the new Onua is a sleeper, he fits the Old Lady mold perfectly Except the new Onua's build is a lot easier to compare to a female bodybuilder/heavy lifter.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Zidonaro]

 

 

I just meant don't give them Onua's build, which would be fairly recognizably male. Give them builds that you would see on human women. Give them petite builds, larger builds, just something that you can look at and think "that could be a girl." Something more distinct than the clone build that all the males use.

I'd be happy if they gave a female character Onua's build. Because, you know, women can have builds like that.

 

Let me know when you find one.

 

Onua is clearly supposed to be the bulkier character, but the way they did him was really exaggerated. I don't think there are any real people with shoulders as big as that. Of course, we're talking about bionicle here, so nothing should stop the possibility of a female character of having that build.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

Unrelated to building (related to drawing), but i still think on-topic about diversity of body types in bionicle, buth Hahli and Gali do a fair share of swimming and hahli's sets have always had broad shoulders, (hush about the inika-clone stuff for now. :t)

 

i think i'll keep gali's build the way it's been in my renditions, but mix it up by working on giving my depiction of hahli a more worked upper body. (thanks to this thread, without which i wouldn't have bothered noticing i gave them near-identical bodies before. o:)

[fishers64]

Basically, if you think your female robot doesn't look like a female robot because she lacks distinct, obviously secondary physical characteristics or has a particular body type, you have a very skewed vision of what females look like.

True.

It's not wrong to have a preference for a certain look, not at all, but it's wrong to say that's the only acceptable one and that others just aren't "female enough", and that if you can't immediately tell then it undermines the character's identity. Same for male characters, and all other genders out there, obviously.

True.

 

I just want something - I don't care how subtle or how small - that says "hi, I'm a girl." There's just a little bit of a difference. Otherwise the other people are sorta right that there's no point in assigning genders to them at all. They might as well all be guys.

 

It's just especially egregious when you're into the Bionicle story, so you know exactly what each character is supposed to be, so why does their appearance not matching what you expect them to look like exactly matter to how you interpret the character? It really shouldn't.

True.

 

Okay, let's try this out - let's say I sit down tommorrow and build five recognizably female MoCs. One would be slim, one would be a bit chunky, one would have bewbs, one would be muscular, and one would be like me (I'm a girl), who is none of those things. And then I would do the same for the guys. Am I now sexist for celebrating female and male diversity? I assigned characteristics to all of these MoCs, remember, and I said half of the ten are male and half of them are female.

 

Or let's say I make one female MoC, and make it look like me. Am I saying that all five of those other MoCs can't exist, and that all MoCed girls must look like me? Of course not. That isn't true.

 

 

 

I just meant don't give them Onua's build, which would be fairly recognizably male. Give them builds that you would see on human women. Give them petite builds, larger builds, just something that you can look at and think "that could be a girl." Something more distinct than the clone build that all the males use.

I'd be happy if they gave a female character Onua's build. Because, you know, women can have builds like that.

 

Let me know when you find one.

 

I have seen one - she's a friend of a friend. Female bodybuilders do exist.

[Click]

I know there are female body builders. I have yet to see one that has a body as wide as she is tall. This exaggerated build is generally reserved for male figures, though I guess I could see where you are coming from. If it can be given to males, it can just as easily be assigned to females.

 

For those that are saying to not include any feminine characteristics, if you see a stranger from the back, with no view of the facial features or any other major characteristics, how do you identify their gender? Their clothes, their hair? If you do that, you are bound to make mistakes (and it could be a fairly sexist way to look at them). By looking at proportions and comparing to others you have seen, you can make much more accurate guesses, though there are those that are a bit more ambiguous and could be either gender. The purpose of the topic is to determine what your eyes are subconsciously picking up on, and porting that over to sets to give them a recognizably feminine or masculine build.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Click

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

And here i thought the purpose of this topic was to point out all the pieces that are TOO BIG for Bionicle boobs. :b

[Pomegranate]

Okay, let's try this out - let's say I sit down tommorrow and build five recognizably female MoCs. One would be slim, one would be a bit chunky, one would have bewbs, one would be muscular, and one would be like me (I'm a girl), who is none of those things. And then I would do the same for the guys. Am I now sexist for celebrating female and male diversity? I assigned characteristics to all of these MoCs, remember, and I said half of the ten are male and half of them are female.

Or let's say I make one female MoC, and make it look like me. Am I saying that all five of those other MoCs can't exist, and that all MoCed girls must look like me? Of course not. That isn't true.

Never called it sexism outright, that doesn't necessarily apply to every situation that's been brought up in the topic. But it would problematic, as Seth puts it. Not in your example, though, no. There's no problem there 'cause you're making varied builds, how many males are there isn't really important. You're celebrating diversity really well. When you make just one it's not a problem either. It is a problem if someone looks at your MOC and says "needs more bewbs", 'cause that's a no-no. They shouldn't need that, and it's not your job to provide it.

 

I'm not the High Almighty Authority on Women and Bonkles by any means, I'm just trying to help.

 

I've written paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs on the last two pages so just refer back to those if anyone hasn't read 'em, 'cause I'm at the point where I've said all I have to say and don't want to go into Broken Record mode. I'm glad everyone got something out of this, the last two pages are definitely an improvement over the first two  I'm outtie, gon' give y'all your space.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Kevin Owens]

I know there are female body builders. I have yet to see one that has a body as wide as she is tall. This exaggerated build is generally reserved for male figures, though I guess I could see where you are coming from. If it can be given to males, it can just as easily be assigned to females.

 

For those that are saying to not include any feminine characteristics, if you see a stranger from the back, with no view of the facial features or any other major characteristics, how do you identify their gender? Their clothes, their hair? If you do that, you are bound to make mistakes (and it could be a fairly sexist way to look at them). By looking at proportions and comparing to others you have seen, you can make much more accurate guesses, though there are those that are a bit more ambiguous and could be either gender. The purpose of the topic is to determine what your eyes are subconsciously picking up on, and porting that over to sets to give them a recognizably feminine or masculine build.

I don't think you understand that assigning physical characteristics is problematic and shouldn't be done.

 

Also how can you say that trying to assign certain hairstyles or clothing to a gender is sexist but assigning physical characteristics to gender isn't.  What.

[Noxryn]

I know there are female body builders. I have yet to see one that has a body as wide as she is tall. This exaggerated build is generally reserved for male figures, though I guess I could see where you are coming from. If it can be given to males, it can just as easily be assigned to females.

 

For those that are saying to not include any feminine characteristics, if you see a stranger from the back, with no view of the facial features or any other major characteristics, how do you identify their gender? Their clothes, their hair? If you do that, you are bound to make mistakes (and it could be a fairly sexist way to look at them). By looking at proportions and comparing to others you have seen, you can make much more accurate guesses, though there are those that are a bit more ambiguous and could be either gender. The purpose of the topic is to determine what your eyes are subconsciously picking up on, and porting that over to sets to give them a recognizably feminine or masculine build.

You don't identify their gender. You ask, politely, what pronouns they may prefer because not everyone who your particular schema dictates as female is female, nor male. There are people who fit with other pronouns and genders, there are transgender people, there are people who are not cisgender in existence and a lot of my arguments are sort of coming from that point: body type and structure does not define someone's gender, and it's a bit of a disrespectful move to assert so much that it does. Yes. Even for toys that are representative of people.

 

Women can look like anyone. They can be tall. They can have broad shoulders. They can have massive muscles (I've seen it, I've seen a woman take a pan and roll it up like it was made out of paper). Are they "not feminine" because they have those features? Who gets to dictate what is and is not "feminine" when the term feminine refers to traits women have? Or is it only to reassert the common portrayal of women as what is "feminine" which completely ignores huge, huge swathes of people who simply don't fit that one incredibly narrow perspective?

 

Point is: Women can look like anyone. This means you don't need all these limited traits that supposedly purport what "feminine" is, as those traits aren't inherent in all women. It'd be better for Bionicle and people in general not to fit women into such narrow views and builds, it'd be a boon to see some actual diversity without trying to force any specific schema of who or what a woman "is". At least then kids might think "wow, women really do look diverse and have a wide range of forms and body types and personalities" rather than "women need to be represented with sleekness, small shoulders, big hips and slender, hourglass bodies."

[fishers64]

 

Okay, let's try this out - let's say I sit down tommorrow and build five recognizably female MoCs. One would be slim, one would be a bit chunky, one would have bewbs, one would be muscular, and one would be like me (I'm a girl), who is none of those things. And then I would do the same for the guys. Am I now sexist for celebrating female and male diversity? I assigned characteristics to all of these MoCs, remember, and I said half of the ten are male and half of them are female.

Or let's say I make one female MoC, and make it look like me. Am I saying that all five of those other MoCs can't exist, and that all MoCed girls must look like me? Of course not. That isn't true.

Never called it sexism outright, that doesn't necessarily apply here. But it would problematic, as Seth puts it. Not in your example, though, no. There's no problem there 'cause you're making varied builds, how many males are there isn't really important. You're celebrating diversity really well. When you make just one it's not a problem either. It is a problem if someone looks at your MOC and says "needs more bewbs", 'cause that's a no-no. They shouldn't need that, and it's not your job to provide it. 

 

Yes, but what Seth's post implies, if I'm reading it correctly, is that assigning any characteristics to any gender is bad. So if I say that certain characteristics *insert long list of possible female characteristics here* is something women can have, then I'm sexist. 

 

At that point, the only thing that is acceptable is genderless MoCs. Because if I make a MoC and assign it a gender, I'm implying that the characteristics of that MoC are in that gender. So what Seth is saying is wrong. 

 

In further case, we were arguing about what Lego should do. They built one female, Gali, and made her look muscular. Does that mean that other female Toa can't be skinny or chunky or somewhere in between? No. 

Edited October 23, 2014 by fishers64

[Kevin Owens]

 

Yes, but what Seth's post implies, if I'm reading it correctly, is that assigning any characteristics to any gender is bad. So if I say that certain characteristics *insert long list of possible female characteristics here* is something women can have, then I'm sexist. 

 

At that point, the only thing that is acceptable is genderless MoCs. Because if I make a MoC and assign it a gender, I'm implying that the characteristics of that MoC are in that gender. So what Seth is saying is wrong. 

 

You are correct.  Assigning any kind of characteristics to any gender of any stripe is a pretty terrible thing and it should not be done in any circumstance.  This does not mean that you can only make genderless MoCs or artwork.  This simply means that gender is not and should not be associated with any sort of characterisics.

 

I am suddenly of the sneaking suspicion that my Firefox is not pointing out my spelling mistakes.

[Makaru]

Saying Onua's build cannot be feminine because "Women do not have those exact proportions" is a very flimsy argument.

[Click]

Saying Onua's build cannot be feminine because "Women do not have those exact proportions" is a very flimsy argument.

Isn't that the definition of feminine?

 

At that point, the only thing that is acceptable is genderless MoCs. Because if I make a MoC and assign it a gender, I'm implying that the characteristics of that MoC are in that gender. So what Seth is saying is wrong. 

 

In further case, we were arguing about what Lego should do. They built one female, Gali, and made her look muscular. Does that mean that other female Toa can't be skinny or chunky or somewhere in between? No.

 

So...I'm confused. After all that discussion on how to build feminine MOCs, the agreement we come to is it is impossible to build one without being entirely sexist, and so our characters should just be genderless? Unless you're being sarcastic, and I'm just thick (which apparently is the case based on how every point I raise has been ripped to smithereens as of yet). So...great. Lego's been right all along, because apparently any build is feminine or no builds are feminine, and this topic is thus pointless. Yay.

[fishers64]

 

Yes, but what Seth's post implies, if I'm reading it correctly, is that assigning any characteristics to any gender is bad. So if I say that certain characteristics *insert long list of possible female characteristics here* is something women can have, then I'm sexist. 

 

At that point, the only thing that is acceptable is genderless MoCs. Because if I make a MoC and assign it a gender, I'm implying that the characteristics of that MoC are in that gender. So what Seth is saying is wrong.

You are correct.  Assigning any kind of characteristics to any gender of any stripe is a pretty terrible thing and it should not be done in any circumstance.  This does not mean that you can only make genderless MoCs or artwork.  This simply means that gender is not and should not be associated with any sort of characterisics.

 

I am suddenly of the sneaking suspicion that my Firefox is not pointing out my spelling mistakes.

 

And what I'm saying is that you can't call something "female" without associating any of the characteristics of that object with femininity. Therefore making a female MoC is, in your point of view, sexist and wrong.

 

At the extreme of your argument would be "genders are arbitrary". In this case, they are because I assign them to them, but I do so based on genders that exist in real life, which aren't arbitrary IMO - they are what they are. But just because I assign something arbitrarily to something doesn't make me evil.

 

And the extreme of the "genders are arbitrary" argument is that genders don't exist. Because if they don't have characteristics, then they are invalid categories. All of us know that genders exist and have characteristics of themselves. You're basically saying genders are evil because they have characteristics that distinguish people. And that means that we should have no categories to distinguish people, because that's evil...and so on until everything is arbitrary. And if everything is arbitrary, it shouldn't matter if I decide to arbitrarily decide to assign characteristics to a nonexistant category that doesn't affect anything. Right?

 

Your argument doesn't add up to sound logic. Truth is, genders do exist, they are valid categories, and they do have characteristics. The amount of characteristics in these categories is probably larger than most people think, but they still have characteristics in and of themselves. The only difference is whether you choose to acknowledge these characteristics or not. And if you choose not to acknowledge them, you are living in denial.

 

Genders in humans have inherent characteristics; genders in MoCs have what I assign, and such creativity is not wrong.

Edited October 23, 2014 by fishers64

[The Undertaken]

Yeah,but what people should and what people will do are often two different things.

 

I have two very good friends with whom I would sometimes walk to school. One was a guy, you could tell just by looking at his face and the growing mustache that he was a guy(that and the adam's apple and deep voice). My other friend was a girl who stands about a head shorter than me and does not look like society has trained to believe girls should look. Sure, I knew she was a girl, but my friend, well he assumed she was a guy. He was legitimately surprised when I referred to her using gender specific pronouns, a couple weeks/months after they first met.

 

Yeah, he probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions, but at thee same time our minds like to classify stuff. We base our initial assumptions on a combination of what we see and hear about a person, and unless we receive information proving our assumptions wrong we will believe them true.

 

That's how people work. Should it be changed? I can't see the harm in improving it if possible, but removing all visual cues seems a rather rash decision imho. 

Look, we are looking at how to get the point across that Gali is a girl, using only the medium of the sets themselves. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, in which case we seem to be looking at how to make all the sets completely androgynous, in which case go right ahead, though I'm even more useless in that regard than the previous.

 

Look, physically women are different than men. There are certain physical proportions that will be more common in one than the other, and if you are working in a primarily visual medium you need to figure out how to use those trends well, and how to use all the variable shapes within those trends, as well as when and where to break them. But seriously, attributing certain physical traits to be more common in women than men(and vice versa), if backed by real world evidence, is not inherently sexist. If you then take a trait and say all women/men have this trait(or conversely anyone without this trait is not a man/woman) then you have sexism, objectification perhaps, and would be just plain wrong.

Edited October 23, 2014 by The Undertaken