Do girls need "special" Legos?

[fairestoneofall]

I have a DD and a DS who play with Legos. And while you can call some Lego sets "gender-neutral," they are definitely geared a little more towards the boys. DD does have the holiday sets (bakery, post office and toy shop). She also has some Star Wars sets. That said, she is excited about the new Legos because they are more geared towards girls. She isn't a girly girl. She doesn't play with Barbie and barely plays with any doll. But she still likes that these new sets are different and more girly than the other sets.

She also likes that DS will absolutely not mess with them, since they are girly.

Honestly, it hurts NO ONE that they are marketing a new line to girls. I guess I just don't see why people are making such a big deal of it.

 

[luvmy3]

[QUOTE=TinkPinkPoem;43700434]
I agree. I've always been under the impression that Legos were probably the most gender-neutral toys out there. My father is an engineer and he bought me many kits and bricks while I was growing up. I was always fascinated by just how many things I could do with them and how little was there to "guide me". I know many people, both boys and girls who went on to study engineering or architecture and who showed their love of building things through loving Legos from a very young age. It saddens me that a game company that let so many people use their imagination in such a creative way or even find their calling through playing with its toys would think that girls' interests are so confined to the typical gender stereotypes. I know that a parent can always choose which sets he or she will buy for their child but I can't help but feel disappointed.[/QUOTE]

Like what? Did you look at the sets in this line? There is a cafe, a treehouse, convertible, beauty shop, vet, house, outdoor bakery, pool, stage with musical instruments, invention workshop, puppy house, pet patrol ATV, fashion studio and a dog show. Out of those 13 sets, there are 2 that I would say are typical gender stereotype sets. And, lets face it, somebody has to do our hair and design our clothes. Those professions exist and the majority of those interested in them are female. When Lego comes out with the barefoot and pregnant SAHM set, complete with laundry basket, vacuum and mop, I'll worry about gender specific stereotypes.
Regardless of the fact that these are geared toward girls, there are definitely sets within this line that could appeal to either gender. This isn't really anything new for Lego, they do make gender neutral sets, but they make many sets geared toward boy's interests. To me POTC, SW, Prince of Persia or any other set that involves fighting, and weapons, spies is geared toward boys. Girls can play with and like that stuff too, but in general those types of toys are marketed and geared toward boys. Just because Lego hasn't specifically come out and said those are for one gender, like they did with the Friends line, doesn't mean they weren't targeting one.

 

[NotUrsula]

Really, if you want to slam companies for "pinkening" their toys, take a look at FP. The one that annoys the heck out of me is this one:

This is the "regular" version of the toy, neutral as can be:

However, about 3 years ago they apparently felt the need to re-market this toy especially for girls, so they added THIS version:

As if the pink weren't enough, look closely at the "little people" figurine that is included: the neutral one has a character dressed as pilot in a peaked cap, but the pink one has a character dressed as a flight attendant.

 

[wdw_girl_18]

I loved having girl legos (this was in the mid 90's) . Since they were all pink and purple my brother wouldnt even touch them!

 

[design_mom]

Really, if you want to slam companies for "pinkening" their toys, take a look at FP. The one that annoys the heck out of me is this one:

This is the "regular" version of the toy, neutral as can be:

However, about 3 years ago they apparently felt the need to re-market this toy especially for girls, so they added THIS version:

As if the pink weren't enough, look closely at the "little people" figurine that is included: the neutral one has a character dressed as pilot in a peaked cap, but the pink one has a character dressed as a flight attendant.

That's a shame. We have the original one (or maybe we've donated it by now) but it was a favorite with both my kids. I did not see the pink-i-ified version.

 

[TinkPinkPoem]

From the Bloomberg Businessweek article, quoted before:

But unlike tiaras and pink chiffon, Lego play develops spatial, mathematical, and fine motor skills, and lets kids build almost anything they can imagine, often leading to hours of quiet, independent play. Which is why Lego’s focus on boys has left many parents—especially moms like Orenstein—frustrated that their daughters are missing out. “The last time I was in a Lego store, there was this little pink ghetto over in one corner,” Orenstein says. “And I thought, really? This is the best you can do?”

So obviously more options are offered for people who search for them.

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.”

But Lego has been ignoring the fact that girls like their other sets anyway. I think that should they have aknowledged that fact then they would push the other sets equally for both boys and girls. There are always assumptions like these:

Recently, Knudstorp attended a Lego robotics contest and spoke to a Berkeley (Calif.) professor whose daughter excelled. “We’re seeing lots of girls perform extremely well, but her mother said to me, she won’t say that she’s a ‘Lego kid’ because that’s a boy thing,” Knudstorp says. “I don’t have any illusions that the girls business will be bigger than the boys business, but at least for those who are looking for it, we have something to offer.”

Like what? Did you look at the sets in this line? There is a cafe, a treehouse, convertible, beauty shop, vet, house, outdoor bakery, pool, stage with musical instruments, invention workshop, puppy house, pet patrol ATV, fashion studio and a dog show. Out of those 13 sets, there are 2 that I would say are typical gender stereotype sets. And, lets face it, somebody has to do our hair and design our clothes. Those professions exist and the majority of those interested in them are female. When Lego comes out with the barefoot and pregnant SAHM set, complete with laundry basket, vacuum and mop, I'll worry about gender specific stereotypes.
Regardless of the fact that these are geared toward girls, there are definitely sets within this line that could appeal to either gender. This isn't really anything new for Lego, they do make gender neutral sets, but they make many sets geared toward boy's interests. To me POTC, SW, Prince of Persia or any other set that involves fighting, and weapons, spies is geared toward boys. Girls can play with and like that stuff too, but in general those types of toys are marketed and geared toward boys. Just because Lego hasn't specifically come out and said those are for one gender, like they did with the Friends line, doesn't mean they weren't targeting one.

I can see both boys and girls playing with all of the new games, just I can see them play with all of the already available games. The fact that their previous attempts at launching a "girl-line" did not go that well could be telling. Maybe girls like the games that are already available, maybe they don't like them at all. Maybe there is not a strong enough market for "girl Legos". Maybe it's not a gender specific-game after all but we tend to think of it as a boy's game, as it seems by the mom's quote in the article above. Anyway, if this is going to get more girls to play with Legos, I'm happy. But I for some reason I never thought that there are "boy" and "girl" Legos, so I was kind of thrown off that it is considered a foray into the market of "the other 50% of the population". That is all.

 

[dngnb8]

As if the pink weren't enough, look closely at the "little people" figurine that is included: the neutral one has a character dressed as pilot in a peaked cap, but the pink one has a character dressed as a flight attendant.

Well do you blame them? Have you seen women drive!?!?! Sheesh, imagine them flying! OMG!


*runs from thread in flame protection suit*

 

[Wishing on a star]

Seriously, I have no problem with girly legos, or masculine toys either...
There is room for both!!!! There is not shame...
Why do we have to go ballistic just because we see something that could possibly be considered gender-specific, and start calling negatives???

But, here is my thing....
If I am correct, this has been proven time and again.
Overall, time and again, this kind of building sets, and things like video games, have NOT been show to be successful for girls (ie: feminine girls)

Barbie shopping and fashion video games... No go...
etc.. etc.. etc...

There is a whole different play dynamic to building blocks and video games... (and to barbies and baby dolls and princesses) and the type of child who enjoys that type play,... And, a change of color (to pink) is NOT going to change that dynamic. A pink color of lego is not going to affect whether this little girly girl wants to play with little building block sets.

It is a simple equation, but once again, somebody in marketing thinks that they have some big new idea and ignores the obvious.

 

[HelenePA]

I don't see anything wrong with Lego coming out with new sets that might be geared more toward girls who are into more typically "girlish" things. More choices are always a good thing. And from a company standpoint, if Lego thinks that these sets will tap into a market that they've previously been unable to reach then obviously it's a good move for them to try to attract those new customers.

I am, though, really surprised that so many people don't consider most of the previous sets to be gender neutral. I definitely consider Pirates, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Ninjas, Indiana Jones, pharoahs, Cars and aliens to be equally appropriate for both girls and boys. Off the top of my head I can't think of any recent Lego sets that struck me as being intended specifically for boys, and I can't think of any I wouldn't have loved to have when I was a child. Most of my son's friends when he was smaller were girls and they enjoyed the same things he did. They'd all go to each other's houses and play with Pokemon, Playmobile, Legos, Matchbox cars and video games, and none of the girls seemed to care that nothing was pink. I have known a few girly girls who didn't like anything unless it was pink or purple and covered in sparkles and flowers and who refused to play "pretend" unless they got to be a princess, fairy or mommy, but they've been the exceptions. Most of the girls I've known enjoyed things like Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Harry Potter, and they pretended to be pirates, astronauts, adventurers and other things like that. None of those things strike me as being particularly boyish.

ETA - It does really bother me if Lego is really promoting these as being for "the other 50% of the population". I find that to be completely ridiculous and somewhat offensive. Are they trying to imply that girls shouldn't (or can't) enjoy Star Wars, Indiana Jones, space, pharoahs, robots, racecars, ninjas and Harry Potter? Or that they aren't supposed to enjoy building things with the generic Legos? Sure, there are girls who only like "girly" things but I think the vast majority of girls are much more well rounded than that. Girls have been a significant part of Lego's customer base for many years even without "girl-specific" Legos.

(Now that I've seen the sets I can say that I hate the new figures that come with them. One great thing about the previous minifigs was that they were mix and match, and almost any figure -with the exception of some aliens or droids- would work with any set and any accessories. These new things don't even look like Lego people!)

You might consider them to be neutral but as a little girl I can assure you I'd never have played with any of those sets... we just had buckets of them but I dont remember having any pink/purple ones at all My girls are not into any of those things either... maybe the priates but even that's streching it... they just aren't into them... not because I dont want them to be or havent allowed them to play with any of those things.. I have 2 girls 2 boys.. we have a toy store full of toys to choose from to play with.. they like animals so the vet set would rock for them

Another thing they've "pinkified" are car seats! In 2000 when my dd was born NONE of them were pink... a few years later someone finally figured out HEY there are girls born too lets make some girly car seats.. should we not buy those for girls either? I soooo wanted a pink car seat because she had no hair and was called a boy for the longest time even wearing pink dresses

 

[Wishing on a star]

Exactly!!!
There is not shame in anything being what is considered gender-specific...
Either for girls or for boys...
Always room for both!

Don't hear any complaints when a toy is geared to a boys-boy...
But, all of the sudden 'pinkified' is a sin??????

But, the play dynamic thing, if I am right, has been well documented.

 

[bumbershoot]

Growing up, my brother and I had a basic set of Legos. We built everything we could think of with them. We both had fun with them. They were OUR Legos, not a boy's or a girl's.

I don't think that legos have been gender neutral for a long time. MOST of them are very masculine.

I think that maybe some kids don't like the asthetics of a certain lego set, but to others, they ARE neutral. I see nothing particularly masculine about DS's sets. I LOVED Star Wars growing up, and I am of an age where I saw the first one released in the theater on its first run. My brother and I BOTH had light sabers, we BOTH owned the huge Millenium Falcon, we BOTH played with them and our figures for ages.

The current-until-this-new-thing Legos appealed to me as well as to DH and DS.

What I don't like about Legos now is that they are sold almost entirely in kits with directions. When I was a kid in the 70's and 80's, the sets may have had a few ideas for buildings and such, but they weren't so specific as they are now. Now you can buy a Staw Wars kit, follow the directions, and voila, you have a SW figure. Where is the imagination in that???

I used to think that, until DS started getting the sets. And now I see their beauty.

Not every kid is born with an innate sense of "if I do this, that, and the other thing, I will get an AMAZING ship". Having the sets allows a person to see how some grownup engineer-type decided to put something together, and then they can use that for the future. DS would have NEVER thought of doing xyz and then getting a working gear that turns wheels etc etc, but now he has it in his brain, and he can use it for the future.

He has two basic sets and many, many "set" sets, and they all get used together to build amazing things, with the ideas that he learned from the "set" sets along with his imagination.

I dislike the girly figures. Why do legos need ****ies?

I SO agree. Because of the Lego figurines, the ones not even in the pink sets, he's now drawing females with the little lines for breasts. There's absolutely no reason for him to be doing this.

I'm not "afraid" of breasts, for whoever wrote that in response to your post, I just don't think a 7 year old needs to be including them in his otherwise very simple drawings, where males and females already were distinct from each other in the ways he was drawing them. He learned this from the female Lego figures.

So what do we do with the girls who ARE interested in bakeries and pet grooming and like the color pink? They can't play with Legos?

And what do we do with the boys who want to play with these new sets, but don't want them in pink? Every other color can be easily used by boys and girls, but PINK is a hard one for kids in western civilization to see as for boys. DS has a slight advantage b/c he's also Korean, and his outfit for his first birthday was half pink, as their color palette allows for pink for both sexes, but still, he doesn't play with other kids from that culture, he plays with western kids, and he has learned (with no help from me and DH) that pink is "for girls". And he doesn't want pink Legos, though he DOES want those sets, because there's NOTHING LIKE THEM that's NOT in pink.

Unless they are trying to steer kids towards Playmobil, that is!

Of course, that expensive star wars ship does end up as a pile of bricks after a month or two

Why put the ROTL figure after that? It's totally fine and normal and OK for the set to become other things. It's not amusing, it's awesome.

DS made his own set from POTC, using pieces from all sorts of other sets, and it's completely cool!

...and a high level of detail.

They said girls need a higher level of detail, and these sets are what they came up with for that? I've seen the sets in the stores, and it *seems* that many of the blocks are HUGE. That's not detail, that's dumbing it down. It's one of the reasons we haven't bought ANY Cars Legos sets, because they are almost Duplos, meant for little children or those who can't work with the smaller blocks.

Standard blocks might be gender neutral but Star Wars, motor cycles and the like are definitely not gender neutral sets.

I completely and totally disagree.

If a particular girl doesn't like a motorcycle, that's HER like or dislike. It's not because she's a girl; it's b/c she's a girl that also happens to not like a motorcycle.

...it's heavily boy oriented legos. They have several themes I've seen over the past year: Alien, Star Wars, Pharoah's Quest, Ninjago, Harry Potter, Cars, etc. None of those seem too appealing to my 7 year old daughter who really wants to play with lego.

I just don't see what's so "boy" about those things. I want the whole set of Alien Conquest, b/c the rounded domes and the bright greens really attract my eyes.

Pharaoh's Quest is Egypt, and I *loved* ancient Egyptian stuff as a kid.

Harry Potter, just for boys? Who says so?

etc

The point of this lengthy post is this, more options=more sales. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Lego company offering these toys

And they would get even MORE sales if they hadn't gone with the bubblegum pink, but made the sets appealing to everyone.


And that's the thing I see as a female who has a boy child. Girls get to be ANYTHING THEY WANT TO BE. Boys can be anything they want to be, except for when something comes in pink or has skirts. (and this is something I've watched happen in DS, without assistance from me and DH...as he has grown, as he has made friends and watched the ways of the world, he has figured out on his own that he doesn't normally wear skirts, and he doesn't wish to play with pink, because boys just don't "do" pink, and boys in this culture don't wear skirts (though he doesn't remember hubbys' Utilikilt, and it's going to blow his mind when hubby can fit into it again))

DS would love to have these more "homey" type of sets*, but the figures won't "go" with his other sets (they are even *taller* than the other figurines? WHY? don't they get that there's a strong chance that the new sets will end up in a house with other sets, and might want to be played with? in the other sets, men and women are all the same size, except for characters like Short Round, Flitwick, and Hagrid), and there's just too much pepto bismol color to them.


*he's a total romantic, even at 7, and just the other day created Cho Chang out of other characters so that Harry Potter could have his girlfriend with him (we're only on book 5, and he thinks their relationship will last forever, sigh).

 

[Wishing on a star]

Why put the ROTL figure after that? It's totally fine and normal and OK for the set to become other things. It's not amusing, it's awesome.

Sorry, but I have to disagree..
At the PRICE of some of those sets!!!!

And, for them to end up in a pile of what-not, sucked up in the vacuum, under the bed, as trash in DS garbage truck....

NOT awesome.
Almost a sin!

 

[brookmey]

I'm a girl, an engineer, and I teach a class about the history of women in science, so clearly I have a strong opinion about this... I LOOOOVE it!
I think it's wonderful that girls who like pink and flowers and girly-girl things now may find some Legos that they like so they, too, can get the intellectual, spatial-awareness, building, and just plane fun benefits of playing with Legos.
I'm really concerned that so many times our message to little girls often only seems to be "It's OK to like math and science and Star Wars and castles and tools and ..." That's a great message for the little girls who do like Star Wars et al. But what about the little girl who LIKES My Little Poney and kitchens and flowers? What she hears is "Since I don't like Star Wars and guns, I guess I shouldn't like math and science either."

Because there aren't a lot of building-type toys designed with girly-girls in mind, they often don't get the critical play-skills of building and spatial awareness and shapes, etc. that are so critical to developing a mathematicaly and scientifically inclined mind. As the kids get slightly older, even things like the questions used in math and science classes send the message that, while it's OK for girls to like these "boy" things, they are still "boy" things. Danika Miller's middle school math books are FANTSTIC - they are laid out like Seventeen Magazine or something and are very girly-girl centric, but with hard-core math. Alas, they get a lot of the same negative criticism that you see in these threads.

I love anything that sends the message to little girls that they can be beautiful and Princess like and as pink as they want to be, and ALSO be smart and do as much math and science as anyone else in the world.[/QUOTE]

Agree with everything in this post, especially the bolded part.

My DD's best subjects are math and science and she is determined to study bugs or fish when she grows up. She gets dirtier than her younger brother when they play outside. But she also loves the princesses, to dress up and do "girly" things. Nothing wrong with that and I'm going to encourage her to just be who she is.

If any parent is afraid that Legos are going to force their kids into a gender stereotype, then that parent needs to talk with their kids and let them know it's OK to like what you like, regardless of what others say. And instead of getting upset that there's a beauty salon in the Lego Friends line, why not point out to our daughters that it's a beauty salon owned by a girl? Same with the cafe and fashion studio. Emphasize that the Legos show girls can own their own businesses and still be feminine.

 

[DopeyDame]

But, here is my thing....
If I am correct, this has been proven time and again.
Overall, time and again, this kind of building sets, and things like video games, have NOT been show to be successful for girls (ie: feminine girls)

Barbie shopping and fashion video games... No go...
etc.. etc.. etc...

There is a whole different play dynamic to building blocks and video games... (and to barbies and baby dolls and princesses) and the type of child who enjoys that type play,... And, a change of color (to pink) is NOT going to change that dynamic. A pink color of lego is not going to affect whether this little girly girl wants to play with little building block sets.

It is a simple equation, but once again, somebody in marketing thinks that they have some big new idea and ignores the obvious.

From the reserach I've seen, you're right and you're wrong. For SOME girls, they really will be more attracted to a lego set (or computer game) if it's pink (or barbie or whatever). The "girly" nature of it gives them a familiarity and comfort level so they are willing to try the new type of play. Of course, there are some girls (and boys) who just don't want to play with blocks or legos. OK, cool. Don't buy them legos of any color. Easy-peasy. But for a lot of girls, getting a "hook" into a new form of play is all they need to get excited about something. Many of them won't play with the legos the same way the boys do, but i can see lots of little girls happily building Barbie's house out of legos or whatever.

The same is true in reverse of pretend play. Most "dress-up" corners have princess costumes and tiaras and ballet shoes. So of course there aren't a lot of little boys playing dress up! If you add some fire fighter helmets, police uniforms, and dino costumes to the mix, suddently a lot (not all, of course) of the boys are playing dress up. We were actually at the National Building Museum with my son last weekend, and they have a dress-up corner there full of construction outfits and firefighter outfits and stuff. You should have seen the dozens and dozens of little 3 and 4 year old boys running around playing dress-up!

As for computer games, it's an unfortunate reality that nearly all computer game programers are guys. So, when they try to make "girl" games they generally are really, really, really, really crappy games that NO ONE would like to play. (The Barbie Horse game in particular was a travesty.) QUALITY computer games for girls, taking into account how girls really like to play, are few and far between, but are often succcessful. There are a lot of girls who like playing SimCity, and I know of an entire middle school class of girls who fell madly in love with Where in the World is Carmen San Diego.

It even goes further than games, though. You can easily teach AP Chemistry using oceanagraphy as your basis. Offering a course called Oceanagraphy that happens to prepare the kids for the AP Chemistry exam is almost certainly guaranteed to get a lot more girls taking (and exceling!) in the class than just repeating "Come on girls, you can do science too!" And yet... that happens very, very seldomly...

So you're right in that you can't just "shrink it and pink it" and expect it to be a hit with girls. But putting some real, quality thought into making some computer games, building toys (and science classes!) for girls can actually produce a successful product that both boys AND girls may really enjoy.

Phew. This was longer than I intended. Sorry!!!!

 

[luvmy3]

And they would get even MORE sales if they hadn't gone with the bubblegum pink, but made the sets appealing to everyone.

I don't think the point of this line was to get more general sales, it was to attract a new customer base.

My ds just got his MBA kit today and there was an insert with the Friends sets on one side and some City sets on the other. As I looked at the City sets pictured I noticed that there were no female minifigs in any of the sets. I was curious so I went online to look at other sets, and the male minifig population far outnumbers the female in these lego sets. While the buildings/professions/activities can be considered gender neutral, a little girl isn't going to want to play with something she can't relate to. If there aren't female minifigs for her to use then she isn't going to see that set as something for her, she is going to see it as a toy for boys. I think the Friends line is something that gets those young girls interested in Legos, and soon enough they will end up wanting sets from other lines.

 

[Uncle Remus]

From the reserach I've seen, you're right and you're wrong. For SOME girls, they really will be more attracted to a lego set (or computer game) if it's pink (or barbie or whatever). The "girly" nature of it gives them a familiarity and comfort level so they are willing to try the new type of play. Of course, there are some girls (and boys) who just don't want to play with blocks or legos. OK, cool. Don't buy them legos of any color. Easy-peasy. But for a lot of girls, getting a "hook" into a new form of play is all they need to get excited about something. Many of them won't play with the legos the same way the boys do, but i can see lots of little girls happily building Barbie's house out of legos or whatever.

The same is true in reverse of pretend play. Most "dress-up" corners have princess costumes and tiaras and ballet shoes. So of course there aren't a lot of little boys playing dress up! If you add some fire fighter helmets, police uniforms, and dino costumes to the mix, suddently a lot (not all, of course) of the boys are playing dress up. We were actually at the National Building Museum with my son last weekend, and they have a dress-up corner there full of construction outfits and firefighter outfits and stuff. You should have seen the dozens and dozens of little 3 and 4 year old boys running around playing dress-up!

As for computer games, it's an unfortunate reality that nearly all computer game programers are guys. So, when they try to make "girl" games they generally are really, really, really, really crappy games that NO ONE would like to play. (The Barbie Horse game in particular was a travesty.) QUALITY computer games for girls, taking into account how girls really like to play, are few and far between, but are often succcessful. There are a lot of girls who like playing SimCity, and I know of an entire middle school class of girls who fell madly in love with Where in the World is Carmen San Diego.

It even goes further than games, though. You can easily teach AP Chemistry using oceanagraphy as your basis. Offering a course called Oceanagraphy that happens to prepare the kids for the AP Chemistry exam is almost certainly guaranteed to get a lot more girls taking (and exceling!) in the class than just repeating "Come on girls, you can do science too!" And yet... that happens very, very seldomly...

So you're right in that you can't just "shrink it and pink it" and expect it to be a hit with girls. But putting some real, quality thought into making some computer games, building toys (and science classes!) for girls can actually produce a successful product that both boys AND girls may really enjoy.

Phew. This was longer than I intended. Sorry!!!!

You're doin' a great job explainin' it.

 

[Scurvy]

You might consider them to be neutral but as a little girl I can assure you I'd never have played with any of those sets... we just had buckets of them but I dont remember having any pink/purple ones at all My girls are not into any of those things either... maybe the priates but even that's streching it... they just aren't into them... not because I dont want them to be or havent allowed them to play with any of those things.. I have 2 girls 2 boys.. we have a toy store full of toys to choose from to play with.. they like animals so the vet set would rock for them

Another thing they've "pinkified" are car seats! In 2000 when my dd was born NONE of them were pink... a few years later someone finally figured out HEY there are girls born too lets make some girly car seats.. should we not buy those for girls either? I soooo wanted a pink car seat because she had no hair and was called a boy for the longest time even wearing pink dresses

I don't doubt that there are girls that have no interest in Legos, Star Wars and the other things that have been mentioned, but in my experience those girls have been in the minority. And I'm not convinced that the girls don't like those things because they are girls - I think it's just because they are kids who don't enjoy building with Lego or acting out Star Wars or pretending to be pirates or astronauts. When I was a girl my girl friends and I played with Star Wars figures and Matchbox cars just as much as the boys did, though we also played with My Little Pony and Care Bears which the boys didn't seem to like very much. Girls weren't too into G I Joe, except when they used them to interact with their Barbies, but most of the toys that were marketed to boys back then were used just as much by the girls. Of course the Barbies did get kidnapped by the boys so their G I Joes could rescue them on occasion, too.

Even when I was working on my education degree and working in the college daycare, the majority of girls tended to play with all the "boy" toys at least as much as they played with "girl" ones. There would always be a little cluster of girls who stuck to the pink, frilly things and liked to play house but most of the girls were right there playing with the same toys the boys liked.

I actually agree with something Bumbershoot touched on - in my experience, most toys tend to be gender neutral when it comes to most kids, except for those toys intended for girls. It seems like there are toys for "children in general" and then there are the pepto-pink and purple things that are designed specifically for girls. Even things like plain wood colored toy kitchens often got used by both girls and boys, but the plastic pink things were mostly used only by the girls. I rarely have seen toys - with the exception of G I Joes - that were used almost exclusively by boys but I've seen lots of toys that were only ever used by girls. It's possible that somehow the kids that I've known have been vastly different from the ones I haven't been around, but I've worked with kids in several different parts of the country and this has been my experience everywhere I've been.

 

[Kimbysmom]

This thread is making me sad. For the person who asked what happens to kids of the opposite gender who play with gender specific toys, let me tell you a little story about my childhood.

I grew up in a rural area in a tiny neighborhood with one other kid, a boy my age, next door. We grew up together and spent everyday playing with our toys outside on his patio during summer vacation.

We both loved Legos. Back then, they had a girlie set that I believe was called Paradise Island. I had the cafe and the horses stable from that line, as well as a ton of Lego City sets. I absolutely loved them all.

My neighbor, a boy, also had quite a few Paradise Island sets that we'd set up together and play with, as well as regular Lego sets. It never seemed weird that he had them; I thought it was just awesome that we had such a wide variety between us.

He also had Barbie-sized GI Joes that my Barbies dated (because everybody knows that GI Joe is way hotter than Ken .) And my neighbor actually went to the toystore and bought the Barbie Corvette for all of our dolls to use.

He's now a father and a husband, and no one has ever given a rip about the fact that he bought girlie Lego sets and a Barbie Corvette. The thought of blackmailing him for buying these toys never even occurred to me, ever! Who cares?

Kids are kids and like what they like, whether it's a girl who likes Star Wars Legos or a boy who likes play kitchens and dressup clothes. I say kudos to Legos for giving a bigger variety to kids that may have never played with Legos before, because now there is something they'll want. And btw, my seven year old dd is stoked about this new line.

 

[HelenePA]

My 6 yr old likes to play with the barbie corvette! They drive webkinz around in it... my 3 yr old also likes to have his toenails painted like me... I still have no idea why people are in such an uproar over some pink legos... lol

 

[NotUrsula]

Exactly!!!
There is not shame in anything being what is considered gender-specific...
Either for girls or for boys...
Always room for both!

Don't hear any complaints when a toy is geared to a boys-boy...
But, all of the sudden 'pinkified' is a sin??????

But, the play dynamic thing, if I am right, has been well documented.

Well, if we're going to talk about shame ... it has always been rather OK for girls to casually cross-over into male domains in terms of play/leisure, but it has pretty much never been OK for boys to cross over in the other direction, with the possible exception of softball. Women have been wearing trousers for utilitarian reasons pretty commonly since the 1930's, but you're going to have a hard time finding boys who feel comfy wearing a skirt. (A grown man might comfortably wear a kilt these days, but boys just won't do it unless there is a strong family tradition of commonly wearing them, and you're really not going to find that in the west, outside of the Scottish upper classes.)

IME (and historically, sales performance has borne this out), girls who are really LEGO fans are fairly unlikely to want to play with LEGO sets that are specifically designed for girls, because the company has always made those sets kind of simplistic in their construction. They tend to lack challenge. Kids who really like building want challenge, and I don't think that we will ever see a Friends set with 1254 pieces (see the current standard-size Millenium Falcon model.)

So, at that point you are left with marketing to the more casual LEGO fan, and while they are an underserved market for sure, IME they are not sufficiently interested in LEGO to really push for the most complex sets, which are also the most profitable ones for the company.

What bothers me about "pinkification" is the literal pinkification -- it is as if the things that are meant for girls must wear a badge. Why isn't the stable brown or green or grey or even white, like a real stable would be? These days it is a given that any toy meant for a girl must ALWAYS include some variant of pink or purple or both.

All this pink is very new, you know. When I was kid EZBake ovens were NOT pink; they didn't even have any pink on them, but somehow we still knew they were meant for us. I've never owned a pink bike in my life, but I rode girl's bikes: all the ones that I had in the sixties and early seventies were either blue or red. What I believe that the pinkification is all about is selling more product, which will happen if the oldest child is female, because once into preschool, male children will NOT use or wear their older female siblings' pink stuff. The pink baby gear thing is the same, because parents will feel that they have to buy a new carseat/stroller for a boy if the first one that the bought was pink.

I've got two kids, an older boy and a younger girl. The little one happily wears her brother's old clothes that are solid-colored, but if the situation were reversed I bet anything that I'd be battling every time I wanted him to wear one of her old tees. Luckily she really isn't into pink, because I'm into resale, and I've only got 50% as much opportunity to re-sell a pink scooter as I do a red one.