LEGO responds to complaint about historically inaccurate women inclusion
The LEGO Group has responded to a complaint about the women minifigures in 10320 Eldorado Fortress, perfectly summing up why inclusion is important.
LEGO Icons 10320 Eldorado Fortress includes three women as minifigures, including two who, judging from the plumes on their hats, hold leadership positions within the navy on the brick-built island. The third woman is a swashbuckling pirate with long black hair, leading the way onto the island with a sword.
One person reviewing the set on the LEGO Group’s public forum on the set’s listing took umbrage with the inclusion of these three women, describing 10320 Eldorado Fortress as “another set with too many [women]”
“Come on guys, stop with the [women[ in sets that historically don’t have them,” they continued. “Sailors were not [women], naval leadership [were] not [women]. Stop with the lies.”
However, the LEGO Group were quick to defend their inclusion of women on the high seas, writing back a day later: “Thanks for sharing your feedback about the Eldorado Fortress and the minifigures we’ve included. Representation in toys is incredibly important and play has a big impact on children. Sets such as this one are designed for play and aren’t meant to be historically correct.
“Our goal is to inspire kids through playful learning—this is a responsibility we take very seriously. We’ll continue developing and inspiring the builders of tomorrow by making our toys more inclusive so that everyone playing can see themselves in their LEGO adventures.”
It’s no secret that the LEGO Group has made diversity and inclusion a central part of a number of sets recently. From a wide range of diverse minidolls across the LEGO Friends theme to unique elements to represent disability in themes like LEGO Marvel (to name but a few), more and more sets have featured a variety of skin tones, disabilities, genders, and more.
As the company’s response to the complaint points out, LEGO sets are designed to inspire people’s imaginations. If we’re building a brick-built pirate island, it’s important for girls and young women to see themselves represented as well.
When the complaint and its response were shared to reddit, other commenters also pointed out that saying women weren’t involved in piracy or the navy is simply not true, naming a few examples such as Brittany pirate Jeanne de Clisson in the 14th Century and Chinese pirate Zheng Yi Sao in the 19th Century. Perhaps one of these famous figures could feature in some people’s imagination with 10320 Eldorado Fortress, or other fictional pirates. Whatever the case, there’s certainly no reason for female minifigures to be missing from LEGO sets based on earlier time periods.
Of all the other reviewers of 10320 Eldorado Fortress on LEGO.com, 96% would recommend the product, so clearly the inclusion of women isn’t dampening the experience for other builders too harshly.
Support the work that Brick Fanatics does by purchasing your LEGO sets using our affiliate links, and make sure to bookmark our Black Friday page for all the latest LEGO deals.
Author Profile
- I write about all the very best fandoms – and that means LEGO, of course. Spending so much time looking at and talking about LEGO sets is dangerous for my bank balance, but the LEGO shelves are thriving. You win some, you lose some.
Latest entries
Best Deal24/05/2024Your chance to save on the best LEGO set from the Disney 100 celebrations- Latest24/05/2024Rumoured LEGO D2C based on new IP coming in 2025
- June 2024 sets23/05/2024Behind the scenes with LEGO Icons 10333 Barad-dûr designer
- News23/05/2024Vision confirmed to return in his own Marvel TV series
Its Lego, if you don’t like the way something is designed then build it differently, replace all the minifigure heads with skulls or robot heads if you like ?
I can’t find any historical references saying that women were not allowed to serve in the Lego Imperial Navy.
I love how these obviously sexist, infantile jerks never complain about anything else being inaccurate historically in a bloody toy. Like you know blue clothing in an era where blue and purple was unaffordable. Or extreme building colors. Or skull shaped islands. It’s a bloody toy. As a little girl all I could “be” as a toy character was a shopping stupid gal, pregnant woman, or already a mum, or the damsel in destress/queen of the king who obviously had the swords and the cool stuff. I always envied the boys. And lego thought for a while it was popular with boys only due to the minifigs not being doll shaped. Not because you know, there were no female cowboys, doctors, pirates, heroes and fighters… How dumb.
I don’t think they should have this set at all. Even if the fortress is all male the piece stinks of colonial nostalgia. What kind of representation are we aiming for by allowing our children to identify with imperial brutes? That’s LEGO’s idea of inclusive? Certainly these fully grown anti-woke types shouldn’t have more to work with either through complaining or role-playing. The women pirates I don’t mind.
I question the wisdom of making it easier for children to identify with colonial nostalgia. The pirates I can understand but the naval officers? Thes were imperial regimes, and it’s one thing to accept that members of all minorities are human beings capable of evil deeds but when you rewrite history to be a vessel to teach “inclusiveness and tolerance” when the rulers of period valued neither, what are you actually saying? That you want the children to see themselves in brutal characters that no-one should want for representation? That these regimes were fine because now we get to see how inclusive they were/could have been?
I’d rather they’d have never brought this set back, that way you’d also avoid give the weird salary earning nerds who rail against it because it’s not nostalgic _enough_ or “too woke” less to work with even if it had an all male fortress.
I live in Ireland and one of the most famous women in Irish history was Grace O’Malley. She was a Pirate.
The reply from the Lego company is ridiculous pandering, as are all the comments claiming that women were pirates and sailors in the navy.
This is an ideas set that recreates a 1980s pirate base. it is nostalgia bait for adult collectors, who are overwhelmingly 40+ year-old men.
I have two sons age 9 and 4. They are interested in Ninjago, sports cars, and spaceships, not historical sets like the Eldorado fortress. Even the box art says age 18+, so Lego know exactly who they are marketing this to. it’s also a £190 set! How many young Lego fans are getting kits that expensive? None obviously.
As for the historical accuracy. lol! The British navy weren’t press ganging women into service in the British Navy during the 16th century, and nor were any other colonial navies. The idea that there was a woman officer aboard those ships is beyond laughable. They did not exist!
I also shouldn’t need to spell out what most pirates did to most women they captured. Let’s just say that they weren’t offering them a place on the crew. It’s common knowledge that pirates considered women aboard a ship to be unlucky. I’m also well aware that there are a number of supposed historical female pirates. The ratio must be less than 1:10,000 of male to female pirates, with those women invariably sleeping with the pirate Captain. They were not regular crew.
Attempting to rewrite history doesn’t make it true. Lego gender swapping half the men into women is just more pc propaganda targeted at men. This does not make us more accepting. You’re not making more allies with this nonsense. Learn to pick your battles. You are angering neutral people with this obsessive pandering and making them less tolerant.
“ Lego gender swapping half the men into women is just more pc propaganda targeted at men. This does not make us more accepting. You’re not making more allies with this nonsense. Learn to pick your battles. You are angering neutral people with this obsessive pandering and making them less tolerant.” – wow, you must be a real hoot at parties. Thanks for sharing your ignorance. Tolerance and acceptance is a choice, no one forces you one way or another. You complaining about companies trying to be more inclusive only betrays your biases. Be better.
You know you put all of those on a public forum right?
yup this. end of discussion. anything else is feel good emotion fairy tale nonsense
The fortress contains 8 minifigs, and 3 of them are women. 3 is not half of 4. Your ridiculous complaint isn’t even mathematically accurate. If you’re bothered by LEGO including ‘historically inaccurate’ minifigs, you may be surprised to learn that real sailors did not have yellow skin or claw hands
Everyone trying to drag this comment are ignoring the crux of the issue which is that they used a “won’t somebody please think of the children” pearl clutching defence on a set that as the OP pointed out is an 18+ set explicitly targeted at 40+ year olds, and which is a remake of a previous set, so the defence, much like the boat, holds no water.
If they’d gone ahead and said some combination of “we just think they’re neat”, “we wanted to add some variety” or “historical accuracy wasn’t the goal” no one could really argue with it, but the response they gave is clearly dishonest.
It’s a toy set.
Women have been allowed in the (UK) navy since 1917 and been pirates since around 800 BC so I’d say that it was historically accurate.
I fully support LEGO’s stance for inclusion and representation; they make toys that are meant to appeal to everyone with an interest in LEGO and its various themes. The complainant’s claim that women and girls were not sailors is inaccurate, demonstrating their ignorance of history; a simple search will prove most educational to those of similar thinking as SpeedySloth086. Moreover, it is highly likely that many more women than is known to history assumed roles that were traditionally male-centric but whose memories have not survived. However, as Nelson at CS points out, LEGO sets are indeed meant for play, and while they may capture certain aspects of history, at the end of the day, they are toys, not museum exhibits with an obligation to historical accuracy.
So, if it isn’t historically accurate, why set it in a past era of human history that, well, didn’t have – if any – any women sailors/naval captains to begin with? Say what you want regardless of what side of the argument you stand with, but…I’m sorry, but that “official” answer stinks of a cop-out to me more than anything. The smart answer would have been not to respond; but then again, methinks this article wouldn’t exist if any answer wasn’t given, so…
K, lol.
Anonymous, says all I need to know
I mean, even if inclusion wasn’t important (it is) this knuckle dragger would still be wrong about the significance of women in Naval history. Especially among pirates.
Honestly I’m surprised that these guys like LEGO at all.
“Stop teaching people you can CREATE things with your IMAGINATION because your IMAGINATION isn’t even real. Checkmate, Lego.”
– One of these weirdos maybe. I dunno.