Do girls need "special" Legos?

[Magic Mom]

[


My dd too she's 14 and wants to paint her room pink. She went from light pink to light teal, but now wants hot pink walls and black accessories. I'm so sick of painting

We did DD's room last year, she couldn't decide, so we havetwo green walls, two perrywinkle blue walls, and her bay window inset is hot pink. Not my taste at all......

but she likes it, for now.

She really wants a 1969 (why?) Ford F150... and she wants to paint it yellow. She'd better get herself a job.

 

[iheartdisney]

MANY people have already pointed out that this line is likely to be aimed at the child who hasn't been building these sets for awhile and, as a result, would need to start with an easier set. Perhaps they are even going for those on the younger end of the spectrum as older girls not already into legos will be less likely to now suddenly say 'hey legos!!" It's quite likely that if the line takes off, they will start to introduce more complex sets which will allow these girls to grow with the product. I don't understand why don't you want to acknowledge thiese explanations. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp is it?

Why won't you acknowledge the validity of any of my arguments?
And why so rude?

 

[luvmy3]

We did DD's room last year, she couldn't decide, so we havetwo green walls, two perrywinkle blue walls, and her bay window inset is hot pink. Not my taste at all......

but she likes it, for now.

She really wants a 1969 (why?) Ford F150... and she wants to paint it yellow. She'd better get herself a job.

I keep telling my dd that when she starts driving I'm getting a new car and she can have the minivan. I'll tell her she can paint it yellow, maybe that will sweeten the deal

 

[pacrosby]

And yet even in that ad, the only thing that marks that child as a girl is the long hair. If you laid those clothes out and took a random survey, I would bet a whole lot of money most people would pick those out as clothes belonging to a boy. They are not marketing to a traditional girls market even in the 80's.

I'm not at all saying that girls didn't play with them, just saying that Lego wasn't shooting for the mainstream girl market even back then.

This is actually a very interesting observation

But see you really can't win. To break stereotypes I suppose some would argue that they should have had her in a dress looking more 'girly' to show that even girly girls play with legos. But if she were in a dress than some would say "why" do girls have to be portrayed as girly? Now we have the observation that she was dressed like more of a tomboy. So some would argue why do only tomboys like legos? See. Can't win

 

[curious3069]

Why won't you acknowledge the validity of any of my arguments?
And why so rude?

Maybe she doesn't think they are valid.

 

[pacrosby]

Why won't you acknowledge the validity of any of my arguments?
And why so rude?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it to be rude, honest. I just meant that LOTS of people have explained it and yet you keep acting like you aren't reading the explanations. It's a very valid explanation and really shouldn't be so hard to understand. Not that you'd have to 'like' it but seems to me that you should be able to 'understand' it. By refusing to at least acknowledge the explanation you kind of come across closed minded (not saying you are, just saying that's how it comes across).

 

[Wishing on a star]

WOW, all of this.... 13 pages now of frustration and drama and anger, over... L E G O S

Just a PS:
I love the post where the two sets are compared directly...
One is fewer pieces, mostly accesories...
And the other set is way more pieces, mostly building block pieces.

All of this illustrates, EXACTLY, the play dynamic that has been mentioned here.

Many boys like to build (and then tear down/destroy)
And many girls are all about the accesories!!!!

Anyhow, flame me for those generalizations if you want.
But, if I am correct, this has been shown/proven time and time and time again.

If this LEGO set is successful with girls... It is because it is more like My Little Pony or Pocket Pets than it is LEGO building blocks.

And, you know what... THAT IS FINE!!!!

 

[pacrosby]

Maybe she doesn't think they are valid.

I actually am only responding the point about the sets being simple and how that's sending a message. Many have provided great explanations as to why that may be. I just don't get why those explanations are being ignored and the same complaint keeps being registered. No offense to her. I just don't get it

 

[curious3069]

This is actually a very interesting observation

But see you really can't win. To break stereotypes I suppose some would argue that they should have had her in a dress looking more 'girly' to show that even girly girls play with legos. But if she were in a dress than some would say "why" do girls have to be portrayed as girly? Now we have the observation that she was dressed like more of a tomboy. So some would argue why do only tomboys like legos? See. Can't win

Bingo, it's a completely circular argument (that's a dumb word, but it's all I've got right now!) unless there is some agreement that boys & girls play differently and are attracted to different things. Both are equally valid methods of play, they are just different. And this little girl is adorable (that hair!) but as a child, that wouldnt' have appealed to me at all. I was too busy playing barbies and baby dolls. Other girls would have had a completely different reaction. Boys a completely different reaction. Companies pick their market and aim for it, doing whatever it takes to appeal to that market. Lego apparently feels it's a good thing to get more girls interested rather than having sets that are a brick by brick comparison with, say, a Star Wars set.

 

[Scurvy]

But the point of these sets is to appeal to girls who do not have any interest in Legos. I don't see them as dumbed down, I see them as a cross between Poly Pocket type toys and Lego sets. They did their research, and I'm sure they came up with these less advance sets because of the way girls in general play. If they weren't interested in building a house out of bricks before, just making a version with pink and purple bricks isn't going to make them suddenly interested. Adding some "toys" like the minifigs and their accessories bridges that, and suddenly these girls are getting into building that house for their minifigs. I'm sure Lego has the hope that after time, these girls will be asking their parents to buy those more advance sets. And if not, who cares, if a 5 year old girl, or even a 12 year old girl likes these toys the way they are, why does it matter.

I don't think there is anything at all wrong with this line as something intended to attract the Polly Pocket/Littlest Pet Shop crowd to Legos. If Lego can get parents to buy their product instead of those other things, that's obviously a smart move. The thing that rubs me the wrong way, and probably led to many of us viewing these as "dumbed down" or "simplified" Legos, is that the CEO himself presented them as "Legos for the other 50% of the population". That's what made me take notice of these. I never would have cared one way or the other about them otherwise, since they are clearly meant for the girly girls who love things like Polly Pocket and don't like normal Legos and I don't shop for anyone like that. But by presenting them as "Legos for girls" rather than "Legos for the Polly Pocket crowd" they sent the wrong message to many of us. I absolutely think it's smart to create a product that can attract a segment of the population you haven't appealed to before. I think it's offensive to imply that this type of thing is what all girls want, and that regular Legos are just for boys.

 

[cecily318]

Not imflammatory. I find the term dumbed down offensive. What kind of child loves and wants a dumbed down toy?

Your dislike of a toy doesn't negate it's value. Why is a pink vet clinic less intellectual than a magic pirate ship or a wookie?

i don't think she meant that pink/purple = dumbed down.

i think she meant that they made the pink/purple sets less complex to build = dumbed down.

which sends the subtle message 'because you are a girl and like pink and purple you must not be that smart or capable of complicated spacial building tasks'

so, if lego added sets that featured characters/colors generally considered 'girly' but maintained the same level of complexity as the current sets that would probably be less controversial.

or maybe the sets in the current lego friends collection could have include more advanced sets in addition to the current offerings.

my dd is turning 4 this week and is in a decidedly pink and sparkly phase. so i like the idea of lego sets for children (regardless of gender) who are into pink and sparkly things. but those sets should have the same level of (age-appropriate) complexity as the more 'neutral' or 'boy' sets.

i agree with your point "what child wants to play with a dumbed down toy?"

i don't so much mind there being a couple of 'remedial' sets in any collection, regardless of theming. the lego website is acting up for me so i can't confirm if there are some in all their current sets. but there should be an equality of complexity, regardless of the target demographic.

the problem is, children don't necessarily think critically about the toys they are presented (i'm sure some do, but most just want to play) so it's our job as the grown ups to think critically about the toys that our kids are presented with.

so probably, just as many girls would be attracted to the lego friends sets if they contained more complex building tasks. but they aren't given that option.

sorry that was rambly. i'm sure this will have been discussed by the time i hit post.

 

[curious3069]

I actually am only responding the point about the sets being simple and how that's sending a message. Many have provided great explanations as to why that may be. I just don't get why those explanations are being ignored and the same complaint keeps being registered. No offense to her. I just don't get it

Sorry, I shouldn't have spoken for you!!!!!

 

[iheartdisney]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it to be rude, honest. I just meant that LOTS of people have explained it and yet you keep acting like you aren't reading the explanations. It's a very valid explanation and really shouldn't be so hard to understand. Not that you'd have to 'like' it but seems to me that you should be able to 'understand' it. By refusing to at least acknowledge the explanation you kind of come across closed minded (not saying you are, just saying that's how it comes across).

What explanation have I not acknowledged? Many I have even offered a counter-argument. Without getting rude. (It's really not that hard a concept to grasp is it? is not meant to be rude? I have never heard someone say that in a nice way.)
But no one on the "Yay for Girl Legos" camp can see why not everyone is so pleased. A Google News search can shows MANY people don't see this as a move towards progress.
To call me out for not embracing your arguments while you refuse to acknowledge mine seems a bit like a check valve to me.

 

[smitch425]

i think she meant that they made the pink/purple sets less complex to build = dumbed down.

which sends the subtle message 'because you are a girl and like pink and purple you must not be that smart or capable of complicated spacial building tasks'

If Lego is trying to reach out to girls who have never been interested in Legos before, then they likely know (with good reason) that the girls themseves would not even notice that there are less pieces than in some of the other Lego lines. Again, if their parents don't make an issue of it, it would likely go unnoticed by the children--they just like the toys for what they ARE, and NOT for what they AREN'T. If the line does well, then I foresee them coming out with bigger more complex sets. Again, you either buy them for your child or you don't, but I think it should be based off of the CHILD'S opinion of the toy, and not the PARENT'S opinion.

 

[Wishing on a star]

i don't think she meant that pink/purple = dumbed down.

i think she meant that they made the pink/purple sets less complex to build = dumbed down.

which sends the subtle message 'because you are a girl and like pink and purple you must not be that smart or capable of complicated spacial building tasks...

I am just NOT seeing any message, no matter how subtle, at all.

Maybe, Just MAYBE, they are smart enough to know that, for these girls, their target market, it is NOT about building from a million-piece set... But about a whole different play dynamic, with all the extraneous accessories.

That would then be called smart design and marketing to provide what the target market would like, NOT 'dumbing down'.

 

[smitch425]

What explanation have I not acknowledged? Many I have even offered a counter-argument. Without getting rude. (It's really not that hard a concept to grasp is it? is not meant to be rude? I have never heard someone say that in a nice way.)
But no one on the "Yay for Girl Legos" camp can see why not everyone is so pleased. A Google News search can shows MANY people don't see this as a move towards progress.
To call me out for not embracing your arguments while you refuse to acknowledge mine seems a bit like a check valve to me.

The comment we are trying to get you to acknowlege is that they could in fact be planning to make bigger more complex sets once they see how these introductory sets are recieved. You have stated that you think they are "dumbed down" when they are only actually meant for a more diverse age group. Comapring a house for made for ages 5-12 with a pirate ship made for ages 9-12 isn't a reasonable argument. Do you honestly think the 5 year old could put together an 800-pc Lego set when she has never been interested in Legos before??? That is what these sets are starting at. Same goes for a 9 year old. I mean, my DD is 9 and she gravitated to the smallest "Friends" set they sell at our Target because it was a new and unexperinced toy for her to take an interest in. I would bet that any child owning an 800-pc set STARTED with something MUCH smaller. If these new toys are for a previously uninterested audience then why would they start making 800-pc sets without seeing if the smaller sets sell well. It's just good business sense. Does that make sense? I am not trying to be snarky AT ALL. I just have a hard time putting my thoughts into print sometimes.

 

[pacrosby]

I don't think there is anything at all wrong with this line as something intended to attract the Polly Pocket/Littlest Pet Shop crowd to Legos. If Lego can get parents to buy their product instead of those other things, that's obviously a smart move. The thing that rubs me the wrong way, and probably led to many of us viewing these as "dumbed down" or "simplified" Legos, is that the CEO himself presented them as "Legos for the other 50% of the population". That's what made me take notice of these. I never would have cared one way or the other about them otherwise, since they are clearly meant for the girly girls who love things like Polly Pocket and don't like normal Legos and I don't shop for anyone like that. But by presenting them as "Legos for girls" rather than "Legos for the Polly Pocket crowd" they sent the wrong message to many of us. I absolutely think it's smart to create a product that can attract a segment of the population you haven't appealed to before. I think it's offensive to imply that this type of thing is what all girls want, and that regular Legos are just for boys.

I think you make very valid points. Perhaps he should have chosen his words more carefully. But at the same time perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to be so sensitive. Instead of getting all worked up and assuming that he meant to be so sexist, why couldn't people have have come to the conclusion that he misspoke; that he didn't mean to come across 'that' way? This is when personal baggage tends to get in the way and clouds our ability to be objective.

 

[curious3069]

i don't think she meant that pink/purple = dumbed down.

i think she meant that they made the pink/purple sets less complex to build = dumbed down.

which sends the subtle message 'because you are a girl and like pink and purple you must not be that smart or capable of complicated spacial building tasks'

so, if lego added sets that featured characters/colors generally considered 'girly' but maintained the same level of complexity as the current sets that would probably be less controversial.

or maybe the sets in the current lego friends collection could have include more advanced sets in addition to the current offerings.

my dd is turning 4 this week and is in a decidedly pink and sparkly phase. so i like the idea of lego sets for children (regardless of gender) who are into pink and sparkly things. but those sets should have the same level of (age-appropriate) complexity as the more 'neutral' or 'boy' sets.

i agree with your point "what child wants to play with a dumbed down toy?"

i don't so much mind there being a couple of 'remedial' sets in any collection, regardless of theming. the lego website is acting up for me so i can't confirm if there are some in all their current sets. but there should be an equality of complexity, regardless of the target demographic.

the problem is, children don't necessarily think critically about the toys they are presented (i'm sure some do, but most just want to play) so it's our job as the grown ups to think critically about the toys that our kids are presented with.

so probably, just as many girls would be attracted to the lego friends sets if they contained more complex building tasks. but they aren't given that option.

sorry that was rambly. i'm sure this will have been discussed by the time i hit post.

Maybe what I'm not understanding is how more complex = better. So what if the sets are not as complex or don't have as many bricks as a Star Wars set. If a girls focus is not on the building but more on playing with the characters, wouldn't that indicate an emotional complexity that building a set wouldn't have??? Is that a bad thing???

 

[Wishing on a star]

It's just LEGOS, people!!!!!

 

[curious3069]

It's just LEGOS, people!!!!!

This is The Dis, it's never just about Legos! Bwahahahahah