Do girls need "special" Legos?

[pacrosby]

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

Oh, no apology necessary Just trying to clarify.

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 explanation is that they are likely creating simpler sets because they are trying to appeal to a crowd that is not lego savvy as yet. That perhaps as that market grows they will expand that line and offer more difficult options. It's been said over and over and yet it's a complaint that you continue with. It's not an 'argument' to be embraced. It's a possible explanation.

And if you want to believe I'm being rude than so be it. Honestly I'm not and although I'm sorry that you feel that way I can't apologize for an attitude I do not own. And honestly, yes I can indeed say those words in a kind way (lower your voice while you say it and take the attitude out of it...........say it in a perplexed way, not a sarcastic way).

And lastly, I can't be swayed because others also have issues with girls embracing girly things if that's what they want. The world is full of women who love to scream about sexism. In some cases it may be valid. But in others it sounds like nothing but excess baggage leading to nothing but overreaction

 

[Wishing on a star]

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

Ohhhhh, so true... so true....

 

[PeterPan09]

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

If you don't find the discussion worth your time, there are other threads.

I'm glad I started it, I've enjoyed reading people's thoughts on it and how people either do or do not see larger implications of marketing strategy. Some of us do see a message, others don't and the reasons on both sides are interesting.

 

[HelenePA]

If you don't find the discussion worth your time, there are other threads.

I'm glad I started it, I've enjoyed reading people's thoughts on it and how people either do or do not see larger implications of marketing strategy. Some of us do see a message, others don't and the reasons on both sides are interesting.

Ya know I just dont see the big deal about the girl lego sets your right... I wonder if there would be this same uproar if they came out with a baby doll geared towards boys...

 

[Jey12]

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'.

Exactly my thought process. My DD is 5, and will be 6 tomorrow. For her she views duplos as a baby toy and has no interest in them. She never had an interest in them, unless you count trying to kill me by leaving blocks hidden in places I'd never imagined until I stepped on them. The large 800 piece sets are not age appropriate for her. So what would some suggest she play with in the way of legos?

She doesn't see the real play value in building something just to build it. She wants to actually "use" the toy for its designed purpose. If she builds a cafe, she will see the value of play to be using the accessories and characters going to the cafe and having lunch or whatever she dreams up. Building the cafe will be fun for her but not the "point" of the set. Spending hours and using 800 plus pieces to achieve her desired end result (to have a cafe for her characters to use) would be nothing more than pure frustration and I doubt she'd want any more lego sets. She sure isn't going to want to look at the completed project and think cool, let's tear it down and make something else.

For DD the complexity of these sets will be through role play of the characters and their surroundings. It will just a an added bonus that she built the environment herself and it wasn't preassembled.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Ohhhh, I agree that this is, for the most part, an interesting conversation...
I am the one who has been posting the whole play-dynamic thing. I think there is room for both. Why villianize pinkified toys? Why would anyone ever assume that everything has to be non-gender specific or targeted???


It wasn't the original post that I was going after.
It is all the pages of judgement and personal drama and angst that I was referring to.

And, really, that little comment is my whole answer to the question in the original post... "Hey, it's just LEGOS...."

 

[Scurvy]

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.

I guess it's possible that he didn't intend to be sexist and that he misspoke, but his statement was pretty clear and I'm not sure what else he could have been trying to convey with his "the other 50% of the world's population" comment. There's been quite an outcry online about it, so I imagine if he misspoke or if somehow people misunderstood the comment Lego will release some sort of statement to clarify what he really meant. I'll be interested to see if they do that! Regardless, I don't see anyone getting all worked up about it. It's an interesting discussion, and obviously people have very different opinions about it. I must admit it I've been surprised by many of the comments. Before this thread, I thought it went without saying that most of the themes of normal Lego sets appealed equally to both girls and boys. I'm surprised to see that so many people disagree so strongly with that assumption. What girl wouldn't like Star Wars or Pirates, for example? There's adventure, romance, exotic locations, handsome heroes and beautiful girls - who, male or female, wouldn't love that? I assumed those were universally appealing. That's certainly been the case with most people (children and adults) that I've known. Even back when I was a child, the girls played with the Star Wars action figures almost as much as the boys did, though there were a lot more weddings and Han and Luke ended up visiting the doll house more when some of the girls were playing!

 

[iheartdisney]

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.
This argument in particular I have addressed several times. For instance, the existing houses in the creator series offer kits that provide three levels of difficulty in one box, depending on your child's skill and interest level. Rather than do something along those lines, they made simple sets only.
And to answer your question- no, my children didn't put together the complex sets by themselves right out of the gate. It is something we did together. I know it is outdated, but Legos provide an excellent parent/ child bonding activity. Where does that go when the set takes less than 10 minutes to build?
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.
Another great example from the existing catalog: The Alien Conquest line. You have different sizes and abilities from the the 879 piece Earth Defense HQ to the simple 42 piece Alien Striker. Again, different sets depending on the skill level and ability. The Friends line doesn't offer as much diversity. You have easy and simple. No complicated builds for the girly girls.
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.

The skill level of the sets is just one aspect of the "Friends" line that I dislike. But it is the one area that I have been accused of "being close-minded. So again, I offer my counter-points. With more examples.

 

[DopeyDame]

The skill level of the sets is just one aspect of the "Friends" line that I dislike. But it is the one area that I have been accused of "being close-minded. So again, I offer my counter-points. With more examples.

I'm strongly in the Pro-Friends line camp, but I think you bring up some fair points, and it'll be interesting to see how the line plays out over time. I agree that some people could interpret the message of the new line to be "girly-girl toys are by necessity simple, because girls just can't "do" complex" and that we DO need to be on the look out for those subtle messages being thrown at our girls. (And the more I think about it, the more I dislike the "other 50%" marketing line.)

For me, though, the value of getting some of those grily-girls who currently do not play with legos engaged in legos (and the associated problem solving, spatial, critical thinking skills that go along with them, even in the "dumbed-down" versions) outweighs the potential damage of the marginally (if at all) negative message.

 

[pacrosby]

The skill level of the sets is just one aspect of the "Friends" line that I dislike. But it is the one area that I have been accused of "being close-minded. So again, I offer my counter-points. With more examples.

You know, now I am going to be a tad bit snarky (just a tad bit ) because it seems to me that you 'want' to be offended. I never accused you of being 'close minded'. In fact I specifically said that that was not what I was implying; just that it was coming across that way based on the way you were presenting your argument and refusing to even acknowledge when people repeatedly presented logical explanations for your concerns.

And I focused on that aspect because............that was what caught me off guard. And you are still doing it. Three ways, one way? What's the difference? It's an introductory set likely put out there to test the market. Simple, straight forward. See how it flies and then go from there. If years from now the line is extremely popular and they are still only making such simple sets than YES, you have something to gripe about But now you simply come across like you are looking to be offended. And when we want to be offended, believe me, there will always be a way.


Interesting I just got my 11 yo's opinion on the matter. She has 3 brothers. We have thousands upon thousands of legos. She has never been into them but immediately agreed that if they had had these sets when she was younger she would have been more interested. There.....out of the mouth of babes. No, she doesn't like castles and dungeons and aliens. She doesn't like cars and airplanes. And it has nothing to do with my steering her in any direction as our playroom is one big room where ALL the toys hang out. She is who she is. She knows what she likes. I want one person to please tell me (and I know no one will, you'll just ignore the question)....why is that NOT okay?

 

[Wishing on a star]

She is who she is. She knows what she likes. I want one person to please tell me (and I know no one will, you'll just ignore the question)....why is that NOT okay?

Well said.

 

[pacrosby]

I'm strongly in the Pro-Friends line camp, but I think you bring up some fair points, and it'll be interesting to see how the line plays out over time. I agree that some people could interpret the message of the new line to be "girly-girl toys are by necessity simple, because girls just can't "do" complex" and that we DO need to be on the look out for those subtle messages being thrown at our girls. (And the more I think about it, the more I dislike the "other 50%" marketing line.)

For me, though, the value of getting some of those grily-girls who currently do not play with legos engaged in legos (and the associated problem solving, spatial, critical thinking skills that go along with them, even in the "dumbed-down" versions) outweighs the potential damage of the marginally (if at all) negative message.

I didn't hear the 'other 50%" marketing line so I can't really comment on that. But I have to continue to state that it seems this is starting to sound like an argument about political correctness. Maybe it would have been better if he said 35%, or 30%. Maybe that would have made people feel that at least he acknowledge that 'some' girls like legos just the way they are. But again......it to me just starts to sound like people looking to be offended. That segment of the population who feel like women are still not being treated equal. That we are continuing to do our children an injustice. Girls will always be second to boys. And see...look........that big bad toy company is doing it too!



ok...I'm out for awhile as it's time for me to go sew some ribbons on my girly girls new pointe shoes for class tonight. I know...the horror! She should be playing basketball shouldn't she? ()

 

[Goofyluver]

I thought about this thread today after working with one of my students. This student is one of my more severely disabled students and he is nonverbal. In class today, he picked princesses over Toy Story.

I think many posters have great points on this thread, all along the spectrum.

In days gone past, *ahem* when gender stereotypes weren't just stereotypes, when boys all grew up to be the bread-winners and were firemen or office workers, when girls all grew up to be mommies and housewives, toys were very much the same as they are now (just more limited in scope). Certain toys were thought of as "girl toys" while others were thought of as "boy toys". The difference between then and now is that gender roles were rigidly defined. It was inappropriate and improper for girls to involve themselves in "boy play" and vice versa. For instance, choosing to play with dolls if you were a boy was wrong.

As we have seen on this thread, those societal rules are changing. It is no longer ALWAYS wrong to be a boy and to play with dolls, or to be a girl and to play with Legos. (Although, don't tell that to some posters on this board ) We've come away from defined gender roles and expectations and moved towards individuality. Many parents lean towards supporting their child's choice in play things and they encourage exploration across the spectrum. (Not all parents...as unfortunately, ignorance still abounds in some nests of this country)

As society and technology have advanced, so have our playthings. And naturally, options for all children have increased as well. Increased options means increased opportunities for marketing to specific populations, whether they be defined by gender or other demographics. And in a capitalistic society, where emphasis is placed on the almighty dollar, we should expect nothing less.

I think it's ridiculous to say, "What has happened to our society?" while using toy marketing as some indicator of how our society is limiting itself or perpetuating stereotypes. Because as it was in the past, and as it is now, it's not the toys. It's not the toy companies. It's not the marketers. They're only doing what we want them to do. It's those who are ignorant who continue to spread ignorant opinions.

Remember the thread from a few weeks ago about the little girl who railed against the pink toys in the toy aisle? (Loved her) Her parents educated her in regards to gender stereotypes. They ensured that she knew that she didn't have to be pigeonholed by the toy companies, that she could be an individual. That didn't come from the toy companies. That came from her parents. We need more parents like them should we even hope to continue to evolve and move further away from defined gender roles.

 

[smitch425]

For instance, the existing houses in the creator series offer kits that provide three levels of difficulty in one box, depending on your child's skill and interest level. Rather than do something along those lines, they made simple sets only.
And to answer your question- no, my children didn't put together the complex sets by themselves right out of the gate. It is something we did together. I know it is outdated, but Legos provide an excellent parent/ child bonding activity. Where does that go when the set takes less than 10 minutes to build? The skill level of the sets is just one aspect of the "Friends" line that I dislike. But it is the one area that I have been accused of "being close-minded. So again, I offer my counter-points. With more examples.

Have you even looked at the details for this house? It has 695 pieces. Are you honestly telling me that a child who has never been interested in Legos before can put together a 695 piece set in 10 minutes? That seems to be exatly what you are saying. "They made simple sets only" are your exact words. If a 695 piece set is "simple" then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Scurvy]

You know, now I am going to be a tad bit snarky (just a tad bit ) because it seems to me that you 'want' to be offended. I never accused you of being 'close minded'. In fact I specifically said that that was not what I was implying; just that it was coming across that way.

And I focused on that aspect because............that was what caught me off guard. And you are still doing it. Three ways, one way? What's the difference? It's an introductory set likely put out there to test the market. Simple, straight forward. See how it flies and then go from there. If years from now the line is extremely popular and they are still only making such simple sets than YES, you have something to gripe about But now you simply come across like you are looking to be offended. And when we want to be offended, believe me, there will always be a way.


Interesting I just got my 11 yo's opinion on the matter. She has 3 brothers. We have thousands upon thousands of legos. She has never been into them but immediately agreed that if they had had these sets when she was younger she would have been more interested. There.....out of the mouth of babes. No, she doesn't like castles and dungeons and aliens. She doesn't like cars and airplanes. And it has nothing to do with my steering her in any direction as our playroom is one big room where ALL the toys hang out. She is who she is. She knows what she likes. I want one person to please tell me (and I know no one will, you'll just ignore the question)....why is that NOT okay?

As long as we're being snarky . . . I think the difference is that one of them has two more ways to build it than the other does.

I won't ignore your last question, but I can't answer it. I think it's fine for your daughter to like whatever she likes, and if that's the girly, more simple Lego sets then that's great. So I'd never say it's not okay for her to like the Friends line, though I would definitely say it's not okay for her to be told that she's supposed to like the Friends line instead of the other Legos. But then I'm not sure anyone else on the thread said it's not okay for a child to like the Friends line. If they did, I missed it.

 

[NotUrsula]

Someone earlier referenced the recent BusinessWeek article about the market research that LEGO did for this line. I thought that the most striking thing in that article was this paragraph:

The Lego Friends team is aware of the paradox at the heart of its work: To break down old stereotypes about how girls play, it risks reinforcing others. “If it takes color-coding or ponies and hairdressers to get girls playing with Lego, I’ll put up with it, at least for now, because it’s just so good for little girls’ brains,” says Lise Eliot. A neuroscientist at the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in Chicago, Eliot is the author of Pink Brain Blue Brain, a 2009 survey of hundreds of scientific papers on gender differences in children. “Especially on television, the advertising explicitly shows who should be playing with a toy, and kids pick up on those cues,” Eliot says. “There is no reason to think Lego is more intrinsically appealing to boys.”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/lego-is-for-girls-12142011.html


Note that she mentions color-coding. I have no objection to pink or purple as a color when it is just a color, but when it is used by marketing forces to send a universal "this is girl stuff" message then it bothers me.

Back in the 1960's I used to spend a fair amount of time in NYC with an aunt of mine. One of the highlights for me was always a trip to just browse at FAO Schwartz. These days one of the things that most sticks in my memory about those visits to that store was that it had no "pink aisles" -- they just didn't exist then. Back then pink was just a color that might or might not be on a doll's outfit or a book cover; it wasn't yet used as a code that said "this is for GIRLS". It bothers me that these days if a product is being designed for use by girls, then it apparently MUST be pink &/or purple in color in some way, and be in a pink &/or purple package, as if it was a signal to girls that this item is OK for them to play with. It's like some kind of Good Housekeeping seal. (And yeah, that's kind of a pun.)

I've got a 4 yo who is the spit and image of Tinkerbell, right down to being very petite. At least three times a day she gets indignant with some stranger who is trying to be friendly and says, "Don't call me Princess!!" She won't touch any toy that is pink, not because she doesn't think pink is pretty, but because the boys of her aquaintance have told her that "girl toys" are lame, and she doesn't want to play with lame toys. She has one baby doll and an antique wicker stroller to push it around in -- the stroller is white, and the doll may never be dressed in pink or use a pink blanket, says my little misogynist. She likes a fair number of stereotypical "girly" pastimess, but she hates all associations with pink playthings, because it is the pink color-coding that makes her male friends refuse to play those games with her. I've noticed that as long as the toy isn't colored pink or purple, boys will happily play with it, even if it is a "girly" thing like a doll in a buggy. It is the color that they have been conditioned to avoid, not the activity. Thus to me it follows that many girls may be being conditioned in reverse by marketing: that if pink or purple is NOT present, then girls are not supposed to like it.

PS: As someone else said, she likes what she likes, and that's OK; what I question sometimes is WHY she chooses to like or dislike something. Very often I find that the preference is deriving from peer pressure. Luckily I happen to be a saver, and I've got lots of old "girl" toys that are not pink or purple. She plays with those very happily. (My sister also gifted me with a big box of 20 year old girls toys that she found when her daughter moved to college. Lovely things in blue and green and red and yellow, LOL.)

 

[iheartdisney]

You know, now I am going to be a tad bit snarky (just a tad bit ) because it seems to me that you 'want' to be offended. I never accused you of being 'close minded'. In fact I specifically said that that was not what I was implying; just that it was coming across that way based on the way you were presenting your argument and refusing to even acknowledge when people repeatedly presented logical explanations for your concerns.

And I focused on that aspect because............that was what caught me off guard. And you are still doing it. Three ways, one way? What's the difference? It's an introductory set likely put out there to test the market. Simple, straight forward. See how it flies and then go from there. If years from now the line is extremely popular and they are still only making such simple sets than YES, you have something to gripe about But now you simply come across like you are looking to be offended. And when we want to be offended, believe me, there will always be a way.


Interesting I just got my 11 yo's opinion on the matter. She has 3 brothers. We have thousands upon thousands of legos. She has never been into them but immediately agreed that if they had had these sets when she was younger she would have been more interested. There.....out of the mouth of babes. No, she doesn't like castles and dungeons and aliens. She doesn't like cars and airplanes. And it has nothing to do with my steering her in any direction as our playroom is one big room where ALL the toys hang out. She is who she is. She knows what she likes. I want one person to please tell me (and I know no one will, you'll just ignore the question)....why is that NOT okay?

But the point that so many of you are missing is that this ISN'T a test launch. This is- as Lego says- "the largest product launch in a decade" This is the result of 4 years of research. This is a $40 million advertising campaign. It is far beyond an introductory set to see how they sell. It is Lego's version of Duffy.
And their research tells them that girls (and parents of girl) want gender-specific, simple construction, Kardashian lifestyle sets.
That is what they launched. That is what they are selling.

And no, I am not going to ignore your question. I'll counter it with my own question: Why is it not OK for me to object to what I object to for my own personal reasons.
Nowhere did I tell anyone not to purchase.
Nowhere did I tell anyone to sign a petition.
Nowhere did I say there is anything wrong with anyone else's children.
Nowhere did I belittle anyone else's point of view.

 

[Scurvy]

I thought about this thread today after working with one of my students. This student is one of my more severely disabled students and he is nonverbal. In class today, he picked princesses over Toy Story.

I think many posters have great points on this thread, all along the spectrum.

In days gone past, *ahem* when gender stereotypes weren't just stereotypes, when boys all grew up to be the bread-winners and were firemen or office workers, when girls all grew up to be mommies and housewives, toys were very much the same as they are now (just more limited in scope). Certain toys were thought of as "girl toys" while others were thought of as "boy toys". The difference between then and now is that gender roles were rigidly defined. It was inappropriate and improper for girls to involve themselves in "boy play" and vice versa. For instance, choosing to play with dolls if you were a boy was wrong.

As we have seen on this thread, those societal rules are changing. It is no longer ALWAYS wrong to be a boy and to play with dolls, or to be a girl and to play with Legos. (Although, don't tell that to some posters on this board ) We've come away from defined gender roles and expectations and moved towards individuality. Many parents lean towards supporting their child's choice in play things and they encourage exploration across the spectrum. (Not all parents...as unfortunately, ignorance still abounds in some nests of this country)

As society and technology have advanced, so have our playthings. And naturally, options for all children have increased as well. Increased options means increased opportunities for marketing to specific populations, whether they be defined by gender or other demographics. And in a capitalistic society, where emphasis is placed on the almighty dollar, we should expect nothing less.

I think it's ridiculous to say, "What has happened to our society?" while using toy marketing as some indicator of how our society is limiting itself or perpetuating stereotypes. Because as it was in the past, and as it is now, it's not the toys. It's not the toy companies. It's not the marketers. They're only doing what we want them to do. It's those who are ignorant who continue to spread ignorant opinions.

Remember the thread from a few weeks ago about the little girl who railed against the pink toys in the toy aisle? (Loved her) Her parents educated her in regards to gender stereotypes. They ensured that she knew that she didn't have to be pigeonholed by the toy companies, that she could be an individual. That didn't come from the toy companies. That came from her parents. We need more parents like them should we even hope to continue to evolve and move further away from defined gender roles.

Great post!

You know though, I have noticed a change in recent years. Way back when I was in school, or even more recently when I first started practice teaching, if you asked the students to tell you their favorite colors you'd get all sorts of answers. Both boys and girls would say red, blue, green, yellow, orange, purple, even brown or gray or other more unusual colors . . . and some girls would also say pink, though I don't remember a boy ever saying that. Over the years, though, I've noticed more and more girls say pink, purple or lavender. There are girls who say other colors but they seem to be getting much more few and far between. And I wonder which came first? Did more girls just start preferring these colors, and so more products for girls started coming in those colors? Or did girls start gravitating more toward those colors because more of the products intended for girls came that way?

 

[smitch425]

But the point that so many of you are missing is that this ISN'T a test launch. This is- as Lego says- "the largest product launch in a decade" This is the result of 4 years of research. This is a $40 million advertising campaign. It is far beyond an introductory set to see how they sell. It is Lego's version of Duffy.
And their research tells them that girls (and parents of girl) want gender-specific, simple construction, Kardashian lifestyle sets.
That is what they launched. That is what they are selling.

And no, I am not going to ignore your question. I'll counter it with my own question: Why is it not OK for me to object to what I object to for my own personal reasons.
Nowhere did I tell anyone not to purchase.
Nowhere did I tell anyone to sign a petition.
Nowhere did I say there is anything wrong with anyone else's children.
Nowhere did I belittle anyone else's point of view.

WHAT is "simple" about a 695 piece house? That is what I would like someone in this thread to tell me. Those of you who say that they are only making simple sets, PLEASE I want to know! Tell me what is "simple" about 695 pieces???

 

[Goofyluver]

Great post!

You know though, I have noticed a change in recent years. Way back when I was in school, or even more recently when I first started practice teaching, if you asked the students to tell you their favorite colors you'd get all sorts of answers. Both boys and girls would say red, blue, green, yellow, orange, purple, even brown or gray or other more unusual colors . . . and some girls would also say pink, though I don't remember a boy ever saying that. Over the years, though, I've noticed more and more girls say pink, purple or lavender. There are girls who say other colors but they seem to be getting much more few and far between. And I wonder which came first? Did more girls just start preferring these colors, and so more products for girls started coming in those colors? Or did girls start gravitating more toward those colors because more of the products intended for girls came that way?

What grade do you teach?

I'm a Speech Pathologist with the schools and I work with age 3 through 8th grade. The young girls often say pink, you're right. However, when you ask the older ones, I most often get "black". Whaddya' think that means?