Do girls need "special" Legos?

[NotUrsula]

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???

Well, it isn't exactly "simple", but in the modern Lego world, that many pieces normally does not denote a high degree of difficulty. It isn't how many pieces a particular set has that indicates that, it is how many pieces the largest set in a line has. When there are several lines that have kits containing well over 2000 pieces, a line that tops out at 695 doesn't qualify as allowing for a truly complex build experience.

In modern LEGO set terms, 695 pieces is very middle of the road; not really easy but not really difficult, either. My DS14 is a serious LEGO kid; he could easily do a set with 695 pieces in under 15 minutes. IME, a set of that size would probably take a spacially-inclined beginner around 90 minutes to do if he or she was concentrating on it.

Here is something else about LEGO sets to consider, and it is something that I think is going to prove problematic with the structures in the Friends line: IME, LEGO objects that are meant for active play but that do not hold together well will fail to succeed; kids will tell other kids that they are junk. The one of these that I most remember is the Undersea line from about 8 years ago; the builds were designed to be hollow to use fewer pieces and be lower-priced, but they fell apart any time you tried to play with them, even though they had moving parts. The marketing was dropped very quickly because sales fell like a rock once kids had a chance to try them; every time you put any force on them they collapsed. Since the Friends structures are almost all facades, I'm betting that some of them will have the same problem.

 

[Scurvy]

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?

I had forgotten about that - when I was in school lots of kids did go through the black phase! I guess that hasn't changed.

I don't teach now - I've gone back to school and only substitute or volunteer with the younger grades occasionally. But when I did, it was third grade. You're right - it's definitely the younger grades that do this more than the older ones. Now that my son is in high school I see lots of high school kids and I rarely see the girls there in pink, unless it's hot pink paired with black!

 

[cecily318]

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???

sorry, i may not have been clear. and for the record i am all for emotional complexity. i was a theatre major, not an engineering major.

but as others pointed out, this collection came out full of only simplified sets and then the ceo stated that this was lego's way of reaching out to girls ('the other 50%') after primarily focusing on marketing to boys.

so, to be clear as mud, i think imaginative play and emotional complexity are great! but why can't you be emotionally complex and have a little left brain stimulation at the same time?

would girls really not be interested in the lego friends set if they were more complex? from previous posts i thought the reaction from daughters was positive in relation to the theming, not the fact that the sets were less complicated. so why can't they have the cutesy theming and be complex? even if kids wanting these sets are older and haven't played with legos in a while, why not offer complex options in addition to the remedial sets? or like a pp suggested, include plans of various complexity in each set? that way, there would be a warm up option to get things started and then once the kid conquered that they could move up to a more complex option if they wanted to.

there a lot of accusation of 'over-thinking' starting to come up, but why shouldn't we think about things? isn't this a good conversation to have? shouldn't adults talk to each other about the merits of the toys that the toy companies are schlepping to our kids? isn't it a good thing to think critically? and even argue/debate with each other a little bit? as long as people can keep it civil, i can't see the harm.

this conversation has been enlightening for me. i hadn't looked at legos much because we haven't graduated from the duplo aisle yet. so i wasn't aware that lego had been marketing mostly to boys. so what i take from this conversation is:

pros:
1. some girls who previously may have felt left out by lego marketing are feeling more included, like legos could be for them also.
2. these sets could be 'gateway' legos for those girls, uncovering a latent interest that could be cultivated down the line into an interest in engineering that those girls may not have considered.
3. lego developed characters for these sets that cover a range of career ambitions (inventor, musician, designer, vet).


cons:
1. limited complexity throughout the collection send the message: your interest in legos can only go so far
2. could have probably pushed the envelope more with the career options
3. lego assumes that all girls need things to be pink/purple and simple
4. prevalence of sexist imagery in packaging (yes not all the images are horribly sexist and they do let the girl mow the lawn, but they could do better)


now i'll go really on you. isn't it important for all children, regardless of gender, to have plenty of exposure to both right and left-brained activities? plenty of art, music, dance, storytelling, writing, math, biology, fine motor activities, gross motor activities, sports, photography, engineering, architecture, politics , history, civics, chemistry, sociology, and even cooking and baking?

boys and girls should play with toys that develop both their emotional and intellectual skills. we shouldn't pigeonhole boys into guns and girls into barbies. we shouldn't have 'boy' aisles and 'girl' aisles at the toy stores, we should have 'art' aisles and 'building' aisles and 'dress-up' aisles and kids should feel as though they can play with toys in all of them. but for that kind of thing to happen, the adults have to be critical of toy companies and how they design and market their toys. right?

again with the rambling. i really must have overloaded on disney planning for me to spend this much time typing my theory on toys and gender!

 

[smitch425]

Well, it isn't exactly "simple", but in the modern Lego world, that many pieces normally does not denote a high degree of difficulty. It isn't how many pieces a particular set has that indicates that, it is how many pieces the largest set in a line has. When there are several lines that have kits containing well over 2000 pieces, a line that tops out at 695 doesn't qualify as allowing for a truly complex build experience.

In modern LEGO set terms, 695 pieces is very middle of the road; not really easy but not really difficult, either. My DS14 is a serious LEGO kid; he could easily do a set with 695 pieces in under 15 minutes. IME, a set of that size would probably take a spacially-inclined beginner around 90 minutes to do if he or she was concentrating on it.

It is nice to have some perspective. I still cannot imagine a kids putting something with 700 peices todgether in 15 minutes, but at least you are acknowledging that that many pieces is by no means "simple" like some others have repeatedly stated. Again, I feel that they are marketing to girls that have never thought to play with legos until seeing this new line, like my 9 year old DD. Since it is marketed to age 12, I would think by that age she could put together a 700 piece set, but also as with most toys, she may lose interest and be on to the next big thing before she could build it so easily that it would take 15 minutes. Again, thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

 

[cecily318]

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 was hoping you would chime back in, because i thought your post earlier was so interesting.

your points are good, and i'm probably 96% with you. i just think they could have done better. and hopefully all the talk happening on message boards and blogs across the internet will give them a push to make improvements.

 

[Scurvy]

It is nice to have some perspective. I still cannot imagine a kids putting something with 700 peices todgether in 15 minutes, but at least you are acknowledging that that many pieces is by no means "simple" like some others have repeatedly stated. Again, I feel that they are marketing to girls that have never thought to play with legos until seeing this new line, like my 9 year old DD. Since it is marketed to age 12, I would think by that age she could put together a 700 piece set, but also as with most toys, she may lose interest and be on to the next big thing before she could build it so easily that it would take 15 minutes. Again, thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

I'm one who referred to the line as simple compared to other lines. I still feel that it is, for the same reasons previously mentioned. I do agree that a 600+ piece set would not be simple for someone new to Legos. However, as a whole I feel that the Friends line seems significantly more simple than many other Lego lines. And that is absolutely fine, especially if this is marketed to girls who aren't into Legos and might be branching out from other toy lines to try this one. But I'd expect a range of difficulty more comparable to that of the existing sets if this is being marketed as the one suggested option for all girls, which is how it has been presented.

 

[HelenePA]

who says this is the only sets lego will come out with? whos to say they wont come out with bigger harder sets... ya gotta start some place! I'm sure all these sets that are out for boys now didn't come out in a week... did lego say this is it girls.. enjoy these few sets this is all we are making for you? they probably did easier set first to get them out faster.. at least that would make sense to me... then again what do I know.. I'm just a girl who likes pink legos

 

[NotUrsula]

It is nice to have some perspective. I still cannot imagine a kids putting something with 700 peices todgether in 15 minutes, but at least you are acknowledging that that many pieces is by no means "simple" like some others have repeatedly stated. Again, I feel that they are marketing to girls that have never thought to play with legos until seeing this new line, like my 9 year old DD. Since it is marketed to age 12, I would think by that age she could put together a 700 piece set, but also as with most toys, she may lose interest and be on to the next big thing before she could build it so easily that it would take 15 minutes. Again, thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

You're welcome. The most complex kit my DS owns is the SW Death Star II, it is the 5th largest set ever issued in terms of pieces. He got it when he was 9, and it is the only set he ever had to give up on and go to bed before finishing. I think it took him a total of about 10 hours to build at that age. Now he could probably do it faster, but it would still take a while; it is 3441 pieces, and nearly all of them are similar in color and shape, which makes it a particularly difficult build.

LEGO really is not just a toy for kids anymore; there are HUGE numbers of adult hobbyists who grew up with them and still love building things with them. Some people even use them to build real furniture.

 

[Shutterbug]

LEGO really is not just a toy for kids anymore; there are HUGE numbers of adult hobbyists who grew up with them and still love building things with them. Some people even use them to build real furniture.

Yep, I bought the 100.00 Space Shuttle Expedition model before Christmas.
Have yet to put it together though. I always do a time lapse vid of putting these kits together.

 

[Planogirl]

It'll be funny if these "girly" Legos fail or blow the other sets out of the water. Girls themselves (with parents) will ultimately decide.

 

[PeterPan09]

Yep, I bought the 100.00 Space Shuttle Expedition model before Christmas.
Have yet to put it together though. I always do a time lapse vid of putting these kits together.

All this Lego talk the last couple of days has made me miss them too. Too rich for my blood these days though..

The color thing really is interesting. My main issue was with what I saw as a simplified version of "real" Lego for girls and what I see as another way of drawing hard and fast lines between the genders. I wasn't thinking that much about color. I don't really remember a lot of pink toys growing up, except for Barbie. Now there really are pink aisles in stores almost to tell the girls where they belong. I remember my goddaughter going through a pink phase, followed by a purple phase that lasted a bit longer, and it seems most little girls do now. Did the desire come first or was it something they learned to like? Do children bully others who choose "incorrectly" because they have some innate sense that it's wrong or because they were taught? Now I'm not trying to say that anyone deliberately strong arms children into rigid roles and deliberately teaches them to bully-but how does it start?

How do we decide what our roles are? Maybe that's the real question we've been trying to answer all day.

 

[luvmy3]

I'm one who referred to the line as simple compared to other lines. I still feel that it is, for the same reasons previously mentioned. I do agree that a 600+ piece set would not be simple for someone new to Legos. However, as a whole I feel that the Friends line seems significantly more simple than many other Lego lines. And that is absolutely fine, especially if this is marketed to girls who aren't into Legos and might be branching out from other toy lines to try this one. But I'd expect a range of difficulty more comparable to that of the existing sets if this is being marketed as the one suggested option for all girls, which is how it has been presented.

Have you looked at what sets are in those other lines, because I can tell you that all of them have some simple sets, and some complex sets. Some lines have more of the latter, but having a few simple sets within a particular line is not uncommon for Lego. Being that the friends line right now has all of 13 sets, nobody knows what will come next. The friends sets are comparable to many of the City sets. I think since this line just came out, and the fact that many of the other lines have triple the number of sets offered, its a little premature to get up in arms about the simplicity of it. Sure none of them are as complex as the SW turbo tank set, but its pretty close to a number of the City sets, like the ambulance, garbage truck.
I'd also like to point out that Lego has the Hero Factory line which is marketed for boys, and they are very simple plans compared to all the other sets (with the exception of the duplo). I don't recall anyone up in arms about those (Not saying you are up in arms, just generally speaking).

ETA, for the pp who asked what happens after the 10 minutes of putting it together with your kid is up, well, you sit down and play with them.

 

[DopeyDame]

would girls really not be interested in the lego friends set if they were more complex? from previous posts i thought the reaction from daughters was positive in relation to the theming, not the fact that the sets were less complicated. so why can't they have the cutesy theming and be complex?


I think that's actually the $64,000 question. I'd argue that, in fact, the girls being targeted here (ie, the girls not already interested in the existing legos) would NOT be interested in the lego friends set if they were more complex. I'm an engineer and plenty tech saavy, but I HATE playing most video games with my husband because I simply don't have the experience to play the more complex games. The one game series that I actually got into was the Harry Potter series, and that's because, in addition to my liking the theme, it was also SIMPLE. (Yes, I like video games marketed at 8 year olds, apparently ;-) The game walked me through the skills I needed and gave me lots of simple practice. So instead of being frustrated after 5 minutes and giving up, I actually really enjoyed playing. If a task is too complicated and complex for someone, they will get frustrated and give up. Give them an appropriate entry point, and they may really get hooked!
...

pros:
1. some girls who previously may have felt left out by lego marketing are feeling more included, like legos could be for them also.
2. these sets could be 'gateway' legos for those girls, uncovering a latent interest that could be cultivated down the line into an interest in engineering that those girls may not have considered.
3. lego developed characters for these sets that cover a range of career ambitions (inventor, musician, designer, vet).

Great summary!

cons:
1. limited complexity throughout the collection send the message: your interest in legos can only go so far; unless you now spend some time in the lego store, which previously you avoided, and find that you really want the Harry Potter set, the city sets, the Disney sets, etc., etc., etc.
2. could have probably pushed the envelope more with the career options I suppose, but it doesn't seem like a bad set to me.
3. lego assumes that all girls need things to be pink/purple and simple; This ones been discussed in a lot more detail, so I'll just leave that be...
4. prevalence of sexist imagery in packaging (yes not all the images are horribly sexist and they do let the girl mow the lawn, but they could do better) We can always do better, and should keep striving for that - fair enough.


now i'll go really on you. isn't it important for all children, regardless of gender, to have plenty of exposure to both right and left-brained activities? plenty of art, music, dance, storytelling, writing, math, biology, fine motor activities, gross motor activities, sports, photography, engineering, architecture, politics , history, civics, chemistry, sociology, and even cooking and baking? Absolutely!

boys and girls should play with toys that develop both their emotional and intellectual skills. we shouldn't pigeonhole boys into guns and girls into barbies. we shouldn't have 'boy' aisles and 'girl' aisles at the toy stores, we should have 'art' aisles and 'building' aisles and 'dress-up' aisles and kids should feel as though they can play with toys in all of them. but for that kind of thing to happen, the adults have to be critical of toy companies and how they design and market their toys. right? Again, absolutely!

again with the rambling. i really must have overloaded on disney planning for me to spend this much time typing my theory on toys and gender! Join the club!

..

 

[DopeyDame]

i was hoping you would chime back in, because i thought your post earlier was so interesting.

your points are good, and i'm probably 96% with you. i just think they could have done better. and hopefully all the talk happening on message boards and blogs across the internet will give them a push to make improvements.

Thanks! I'll take 96% agreement any day
My Masters Thesis was about Middle School girls STEM education, so clearly this is an area of passion for me.

And to prove that sometimes little boys and little girls just ARE different... my two year old son is currently snuggled up in bed with his matchbox car. Yup, matchbox car. Doesn't seem really snuggly to me!

 

[bellarella]

I haven't read the whole chain, so maybe this has been mentioned, but I wonder why, if Ninja's, Pirates, Star Wars, and other more aggressive, largely dark colored legos are not gender specific and are just fine for girls, why pink and purple legos of schools and pools and tree houses also can't be viewed as gender neutral and perfectly fine for boys?

"Gender neutral" doesn't need to conform to previously masculine stereotypes.

 

[Scurvy]

Have you looked at what sets are in those other lines, because I can tell you that all of them have some simple sets, and some complex sets. Some lines have more of the latter, but having a few simple sets within a particular line is not uncommon for Lego. Being that the friends line right now has all of 13 sets, nobody knows what will come next. The friends sets are comparable to many of the City sets. I think since this line just came out, and the fact that many of the other lines have triple the number of sets offered, its a little premature to get up in arms about the simplicity of it. Sure none of them are as complex as the SW turbo tank set, but its pretty close to a number of the City sets, like the ambulance, garbage truck.
I'd also like to point out that Lego has the Hero Factory line which is marketed for boys, and they are very simple plans compared to all the other sets (with the exception of the duplo). I don't recall anyone up in arms about those (Not saying you are up in arms, just generally speaking).

ETA, for the pp who asked what happens after the 10 minutes of putting it together with your kid is up, well, you sit down and play with them.

Yes, there are other simple sets available as well. I haven't checked out the Hero Factory line, but I'll take your word that it's comparable to the new girl's line. That means that currently, Lego offers a wide array of choices intended for boys, with various lines that offer everything from simple sets to extremely elaborate ones. And for girls, they offer one line that consists of mostly simple sets and one semi-difficult set. Given that this was supposedly so well researched and such a huge launch for them, I'm surprised they didn't flesh out this line a little more before releasing it. But maybe in the future they'll add a few more challenging sets to this line.

Honestly even if this line did have a wide range of difficulty levels that still wouldn't fix the main problem I have with Lego right now, which is their implication that this one thing out of all the Lego products is supposed to appeal to girls while only boys are supposed to like the other lines they offer. If they would just start marketing the other lines to girls as well, or at the very least issue a statement that all Legos are intended for both boys and girls, I would have no problem at all with them. My only objection is the fact that by saying the Friends line is for "the other 50% of the world's population", they are saying that all of their other wonderful products are just for boys. And though I'd love to think that kids would disregard that sort of message or that they would miss it entirely, kids pick up on messages like that and often the people shopping for them reinforce the idea without even meaning to, just because they tend to buy from the "correct" section of the store for boys or girls. Too often kids do make fun of or exclude the children who choose to play with the "wrong" toys (as happened with Katie, the girl whose story I linked to earlier). I'd hate for that to happen with Legos.

And no, I'm not up in arms but I am a little bit troubled by this and somewhat disappointed in Lego. Lego sets are one of my go-to gifts for all the kids I buy for and they typically love them, but I'm saddened to think by buying the product I'm supporting a company that seems to think girls aren't the appropriate audience for the bulk of their products.

Bellarella - Posters are viewing this line as being intended for girls because the CEO of the company said that they were intended to be for girls. Lego doesn't consider any of their lines to be gender neutral, apparently.

ETA - I know I seem worked up about this and I'm really not. It just bugs me a bit. This kind of thing is one of my pet peeves - I don't like seeing girls discouraged from liking things like Lego, Star Wars, science fiction, comic books and other things that aren't stereotypical "girly" things so a statement like the "50%" thing irks me.

 

[cecily318]

I think that's actually the $64,000 question. I'd argue that, in fact, the girls being targeted here (ie, the girls not already interested in the existing legos) would NOT be interested in the lego friends set if they were more complex. I'm an engineer and plenty tech saavy, but I HATE playing most video games with my husband because I simply don't have the experience to play the more complex games. The one game series that I actually got into was the Harry Potter series, and that's because, in addition to my liking the theme, it was also SIMPLE. (Yes, I like video games marketed at 8 year olds, apparently ;-) The game walked me through the skills I needed and gave me lots of simple practice. So instead of being frustrated after 5 minutes and giving up, I actually really enjoyed playing. If a task is too complicated and complex for someone, they will get frustrated and give up. Give them an appropriate entry point, and they may really get hooked!

this is a really great point.

and i hear you on husbands and video games. for me it was several brief stints of wow . and pixeljunk monsters. we didn't have video game systems in our house as kids and so i did find a barrier to entry with most video games as an adult. that does put it in perspective.

thanks for reading/responding

 

[cecily318]

Yes, there are other simple sets available as well. I haven't checked out the Hero Factory line, but I'll take your word that it's comparable to the new girl's line. That means that currently, Lego offers a wide array of choices intended for boys, with various lines that offer everything from simple sets to extremely elaborate ones. And for girls, they offer one line that consists of mostly simple sets and one semi-difficult set. Given that this was supposedly so well researched and such a huge launch for them, I'm surprised they didn't flesh out this line a little more before releasing it. But maybe in the future they'll add a few more challenging sets to this line.

Honestly even if this line did have a wide range of difficulty levels that still wouldn't fix the main problem I have with Lego right now, which is their implication that this one thing out of all the Lego products is supposed to appeal to girls while only boys are supposed to like the other lines they offer. If they would just start marketing the other lines to girls as well, or at the very least issue a statement that all Legos are intended for both boys and girls, I would have no problem at all with them. My only objection is the fact that by saying the Friends line is for "the other 50% of the world's population", they are saying that all of their other wonderful products are just for boys. And though I'd love to think that kids would disregard that sort of message or that they would miss it entirely, kids pick up on messages like that and often the people shopping for them reinforce the idea without even meaning to, just because they tend to buy from the "correct" section of the store for boys or girls. Too often kids do make fun of or exclude the children who choose to play with the "wrong" toys (as happened with Katie, the girl whose story I linked to earlier). I'd hate for that to happen with Legos.

And no, I'm not up in arms but I am a little bit troubled by this and somewhat disappointed in Lego. Lego sets are one of my go-to gifts for all the kids I buy for and they typically love them, but I'm saddened to think by buying the product I'm supporting a company that seems to think girls aren't the appropriate audience for the bulk of their products.

Bellarella - Posters are viewing this line as being intended for girls because the CEO of the company said that they were intended to be for girls. Lego doesn't consider any of their lines to be gender neutral, apparently.

ETA - I know I seem worked up about this and I'm really not. It just bugs me a bit. This kind of thing is one of my pet peeves - I don't like seeing girls discouraged from liking things like Lego, Star Wars, science fiction, comic books and other things that aren't stereotypical "girly" things so a statement like the "50%" thing irks me.

 

[curious3069]

sorry, i may not have been clear. and for the record i am all for emotional complexity. i was a theatre major, not an engineering major.

but as others pointed out, this collection came out full of only simplified sets and then the ceo stated that this was lego's way of reaching out to girls ('the other 50%') after primarily focusing on marketing to boys.

so, to be clear as mud, i think imaginative play and emotional complexity are great! but why can't you be emotionally complex and have a little left brain stimulation at the same time?

would girls really not be interested in the lego friends set if they were more complex? from previous posts i thought the reaction from daughters was positive in relation to the theming, not the fact that the sets were less complicated. so why can't they have the cutesy theming and be complex? even if kids wanting these sets are older and haven't played with legos in a while, why not offer complex options in addition to the remedial sets? or like a pp suggested, include plans of various complexity in each set? that way, there would be a warm up option to get things started and then once the kid conquered that they could move up to a more complex option if they wanted to.

there a lot of accusation of 'over-thinking' starting to come up, but why shouldn't we think about things? isn't this a good conversation to have? shouldn't adults talk to each other about the merits of the toys that the toy companies are schlepping to our kids? isn't it a good thing to think critically? and even argue/debate with each other a little bit? as long as people can keep it civil, i can't see the harm.

this conversation has been enlightening for me. i hadn't looked at legos much because we haven't graduated from the duplo aisle yet. so i wasn't aware that lego had been marketing mostly to boys. so what i take from this conversation is:

pros:
1. some girls who previously may have felt left out by lego marketing are feeling more included, like legos could be for them also.
2. these sets could be 'gateway' legos for those girls, uncovering a latent interest that could be cultivated down the line into an interest in engineering that those girls may not have considered.
3. lego developed characters for these sets that cover a range of career ambitions (inventor, musician, designer, vet).


cons:
1. limited complexity throughout the collection send the message: your interest in legos can only go so far
2. could have probably pushed the envelope more with the career options
3. lego assumes that all girls need things to be pink/purple and simple
4. prevalence of sexist imagery in packaging (yes not all the images are horribly sexist and they do let the girl mow the lawn, but they could do better)


now i'll go really on you. isn't it important for all children, regardless of gender, to have plenty of exposure to both right and left-brained activities? plenty of art, music, dance, storytelling, writing, math, biology, fine motor activities, gross motor activities, sports, photography, engineering, architecture, politics , history, civics, chemistry, sociology, and even cooking and baking?

boys and girls should play with toys that develop both their emotional and intellectual skills. we shouldn't pigeonhole boys into guns and girls into barbies. we shouldn't have 'boy' aisles and 'girl' aisles at the toy stores, we should have 'art' aisles and 'building' aisles and 'dress-up' aisles and kids should feel as though they can play with toys in all of them. but for that kind of thing to happen, the adults have to be critical of toy companies and how they design and market their toys. right?

again with the rambling. i really must have overloaded on disney planning for me to spend this much time typing my theory on toys and gender!

I totally agree with most of your pros and cons! (if parents want to expose a girl to a more complex building experience, just buy more bricks. I don't know, I didn't play with Legos, maybe that's not as easy as it sounds??) And yes, I think that both boys and girls should be exposed to all different kinds of experiences and types of play, I just don't think you can win a child over to a specific type of play if they are not interested. Kids are going to play with what they want to play with and adapt toys to how they play rather than their intended purposes. Adults can be as critical as they want, but that still doesn't mean a kid is going to play. As far as boy/girl aisles, the only way that is going to change is if people start voting with their $$'s. Obviously toys sell in that manner and until they don't, it really isn't going to change.


It's very interesting to see the difference between my nieces and nephew and how they play. It's totally different, even the way my two nieces play is different. One is very much into sorting and categorizing pieces before she plays (sorting blocks by size, sorting clothes by color, etc) the other just jumps right in. One loves to color, the other doesn't. (Both have the exact same access and exposure to art supplies.) My nephew like to play then destroy...yet they all like to play together.

As a kid I wouldn't have touched a lego with a 10 foot pole, mainly because it was a boy toy and I couldn't find the fun in building something out of a pile of blocks. Now I'm jonesing for a Harry Potter set and see it like a jigsaw puzzle rather than a building set. I guess even a girl-toy kid can change!!!

 

[PeterPan09]

Yes, there are other simple sets available as well. I haven't checked out the Hero Factory line, but I'll take your word that it's comparable to the new girl's line. That means that currently, Lego offers a wide array of choices intended for boys, with various lines that offer everything from simple sets to extremely elaborate ones. And for girls, they offer one line that consists of mostly simple sets and one semi-difficult set. Given that this was supposedly so well researched and such a huge launch for them, I'm surprised they didn't flesh out this line a little more before releasing it. But maybe in the future they'll add a few more challenging sets to this line.

Honestly even if this line did have a wide range of difficulty levels that still wouldn't fix the main problem I have with Lego right now, which is their implication that this one thing out of all the Lego products is supposed to appeal to girls while only boys are supposed to like the other lines they offer. If they would just start marketing the other lines to girls as well, or at the very least issue a statement that all Legos are intended for both boys and girls, I would have no problem at all with them. My only objection is the fact that by saying the Friends line is for "the other 50% of the world's population", they are saying that all of their other wonderful products are just for boys. And though I'd love to think that kids would disregard that sort of message or that they would miss it entirely, kids pick up on messages like that and often the people shopping for them reinforce the idea without even meaning to, just because they tend to buy from the "correct" section of the store for boys or girls. Too often kids do make fun of or exclude the children who choose to play with the "wrong" toys (as happened with Katie, the girl whose story I linked to earlier). I'd hate for that to happen with Legos.

And no, I'm not up in arms but I am a little bit troubled by this and somewhat disappointed in Lego. Lego sets are one of my go-to gifts for all the kids I buy for and they typically love them, but I'm saddened to think by buying the product I'm supporting a company that seems to think girls aren't the appropriate audience for the bulk of their products.

Bellarella - Posters are viewing this line as being intended for girls because the CEO of the company said that they were intended to be for girls. Lego doesn't consider any of their lines to be gender neutral, apparently.

ETA - I know I seem worked up about this and I'm really not. It just bugs me a bit. This kind of thing is one of my pet peeves - I don't like seeing girls discouraged from liking things like Lego, Star Wars, science fiction, comic books and other things that aren't stereotypical "girly" things so a statement like the "50%" thing irks me.

You summed up everything I'm feeling about this and why I started the thread in the first place. Thanks!!

Before anyone says it-it's one of my pet peeves that boys get discouraged from liking "girl" things as well. I remember a thread not that long ago about a boy being allowed to dress up as a Princess at Disney and I was on the same side in that debate.