Do girls need "special" Legos?

[Magic Mom]

Re female vets:

In Canada, the gender breakdown basically 50-50:

Approximate number of veterinarians in Canada: 12,035
Female: 5,996
Male: 6,039
Source: http://canadianveterinarians.net/news-media-veterinarian.aspx




In the US, the breakdown is weighted toward female vets:

Total: 90,201
Female: 46,992
Male: 43,209

Source: http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/usvets.asp

What's your point. 50% in Canada, 52% in the US.

 

[DopeyDame]

I wonder what these girls think about the new Lego line:

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/08/05/girls-science-google

(warning: these kids will make you feel horribly inadequate and unaccomplished ;-)

 

[pacrosby]

DD LOVES her Lego Friends! She is a girly girl, so this is right down her alley! The colors are great, and DD loves that the girls look like real people instead of minifigs. And all the animals are great for her, too.

We've always had Legos, but we could only get buckets with the pinks. Now there are kits she's excited about--and can do on her own!

They may be anti--feminist, but I suspect we'll be buying more.

My daughter is a girly girl as well. She never expressed any interest in the thousands of lego pieces my boys play with hour after hour but there's no doubt that if there had been 'girly' sets available....she would have joined right in.

But I guess my daughter is wrong for liking pink and hearts and girly girl stuff. It's not okay for her to be who she is, and like what she likes. Should we get rid of dresses and skirts and headbands next?

 

[smitch425]

What's your point. 50% in Canada, 52% in the US.

I think the poster you are referencing was just providing info for the poster that said there were very few female vets in her area. I don't think it was information to necessarily make a point, but rather just to show how many there actually are.

 

[Andtototoo]

What's your point. 50% in Canada, 52% in the US.

My point was to provide context to the poster who said there were no female vets in her area/experience.

Too often, our own personal experience becomes "the truth", when it's often far from the truth. I'm just in favor of the truth over anecdotal evidence.

 

[diznygirl]

My daughter is a girly girl as well. She never expressed any interest in the thousands of lego pieces my boys play with hour after hour but there's no doubt that if there had been 'girly' sets available....she would have joined right in.

But I guess my daughter is wrong for liking pink and hearts and girly girl stuff. It's not okay for her to be who she is, and like what she likes. Should we get rid of dresses and skirts and headbands next?

And make sure she doesn't get breasts!!! That would be terrible!

 

[iheartdisney]

Why can't there be both technical and less technical sets. Sometimes its fun to build a really elaborate complex lego set, and sometimes its fun to build a doll house type set. I think its selling our daughters short to say they shouldn't play with the doll house sets (even if they really like it) because the technical sets are superior. It's play. What one child likes can and should be different than the next child. A girl can play with girly things and still be brought up to know she can be whatever she wants to be whether that's a vet (I still don't understand why that career choice seems so demeaning to some people) or an astronaut or a construction worker. If the parent is doing their job talking about self image and body image and empowerment, then it won't matter if the toys have hearts and flowers, that child will gravitate towards their own interests.

The tree is brown, but the treehouse itself is purple. Obviously made to be gender specific.
There already ARE technical and simple sets. Take the creator line for example. There is the $30 Apple Tree house or the $130 Family house set. Or the $40 Log Cabin set.
But Lego has decided that we need a house with pink siding, where the packaging shows Mom is in the kitchen while Dad is kicking back in the recliner. Nope, no typical gender sterotypes there!

I think they were designed to draw IN girls that do not find the other Lego sets interesting in the slightest bit-- like my 9 year old DD.

As for the "breasts" issue, women have breasts. All Barbies have them, Disney brand barbie-like dolls have them, Polly Pockets have them (built into their clothing)... Why can't female Lego dolls have them?
But why do they NEED them? Why does the emphasis need to be there from such a young age? American Girl dolls don't have breasts. Barbie's little sister Kelley dolls don't have breasts. I can think of many other examples of "girl" toys where the manufacturer did not feel the need to hyper-sexualize their products.

Has anyone seen the Star Wars Princess Leia "slave" figure? She is wearing a bra with drawn on cleavage. Personally, I'd rather my kid have a female Lego figure with an accurate body shape wearing a shirt than a flat figure in a bra.
That is a movie specific, role specific figure. What about the Standard Princess Leia Minifigure? Or the Endor Leia Figure? Or Elizabeth Turner? Or the postwoman?
In the original movie, George Lucas went so far as to tape down Carrie Fsher's breasts because he did not want Princess Leia's sexuality to be the focus of her character.
And as for the "skinny arms", as PP said, it is a LEGO FIGURE!!! All lego figures have skinny arms. Most of them are also the same height. It's not like they have singled out the women to be thinner than the men. Why not also have an issue that they make the male figures too skinny? I mean, there are a lot of overweight boys playing with skinny Lego figures, why is that not an issue for anyone???
Minifigures were always minifigure shaped. The legs were square, so i don't see the reference you are trying to make, sorry.
These new "friend" figures are designed more to a human body shape, and in proportion to the body the arms are very thin.
Also, the friend figures aren't the same height.

Kids play with what they like. If no kids like these new products then they will eventually disappear from the market. If people would stop being paranoid that their are "hidden agendas" on products and turning it into an issue, the world would be a better place. Just see it for what it truly is... A TOY.

Exactly! And so far, every incarnation of stereotyped girls-only lego sets have failed. Capitalism in action.
The fact of the matter is, EVERYTHING has a hidden agenda, the general public just doesn't know about it. Restaurants will color their walls depending on how long they want you to stay. They will bus your table with frequency depending on how much they want you to eat or drink.
No doubt Lego had teams of marketers and developers deciding what they wanted to go into their new line. I (and many others) are not happy with the result. What they think of the females of our society is clearly evident by the product they produced. Dad should hang out by the grill or watching TV while Mom is mowing the lawn or using the hand mixer in the kitchen. That is what they want to continue to portray. And it is not an ideal that I will support- with my money or with my words.

Also, to every poster who has brought up G.I. Joe... Do they even make those anymore? I DO know that they have made Ken so far beyond Metrosexual that my son even says he looks to "too girly."

 

[luvmy3]

My point was to provide context to the poster who said there were no female vets in her area/experience.

Too often, our own personal experience becomes "the truth", when it's often far from the truth. I'm just in favor of the truth over anecdotal evidence.

Yes I was using my own experiences, and I do appreciate the stats you provided. Being that its a very close ratio between males and females in that profession, I see that having not dealt with a female vet wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

 

[luvmy3]

The tree is brown, but the treehouse itself is purple. Obviously made to be gender specific.
There already ARE technical and simple sets. Take the creator line for example. There is the $30 Apple Tree house or the $130 Family house set. Or the $40 Log Cabin set.
But Lego has decided that we need a house with pink siding, where the packaging shows Mom is in the kitchen while Dad is kicking back in the recliner. Nope, no typical gender sterotypes there!

Actually I have a pic of the house set right here next to me, and it shows dad at the grill and mom mowing the lawn.
Yes Lego has decided that they need the house with pink siding, because some girls WANT a house with pink siding. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh and the house doesn't have pink siding, it is tan and it has a pink roof. and pink awnings over the windows. If you are going to criticize, at least look at the product.

 

[smitch425]

The tree is brown, but the treehouse itself is purple. Obviously made to be gender specific.
There already ARE technical and simple sets. Take the creator line for example. There is the $30 Apple Tree house or the $130 Family house set. Or the $40 Log Cabin set.
But Lego has decided that we need a house with pink siding, where the packaging shows Mom is in the kitchen while Dad is kicking back in the recliner. Nope, no typical gender sterotypes there!

This is what I don't get...
Lego has not decided that YOU need anything. They are giving this option for THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT WANT IT. Why is that so hard for people to understand.

Obviously they are a company who knows what they are doing. They have likely held focus groups and reviewed surveys, and found that there was a desire for these types of products. No company in their right mind would make THIS huge of an amount of product line if they weren't given the feedback that they were wanted by consumers. Yes, there are certain things that restaurants, for example, do to make you want to stay and eat more food, but do you honestly think I would walk into a restaurant and think "OMGoondess, they painted the walls blue to get me to stay here longer?" No, I stay and eat in a place where the food is good. Same goes for Legos... no girl at age 5 is going to look at that Lego set and think "OMGoodness...they put the mom in the kitchen and that is sexist". Besides just because a picture shows the mother in the kitchen (or mowing the lawn) does not mean she must be put there when a child plays with the set. I mean, unless they glued the mother's hands to the stove, I don't see what the big deal is.



ETA: It is clear that there are varying opinions on this issue, but I would like to remind everyone that there would be no issue with gender-appropriateness at all if PARENTS TAUGHT THEIR CHILDREN THAT LIKING ANYTHING THEY (not you as their parent) WANT TO IS OKAY. That is how it works in our house. My DS's second favorite color is purple. He could care less who knows it, and if anyone tells him it is a "girl color" he is quick to tell them there is no such thing.

 

[Magic Mom]

My point was to provide context to the poster who said there were no female vets in her area/experience.

Too often, our own personal experience becomes "the truth", when it's often far from the truth. I'm just in favor of the truth over anecdotal evidence.

I apologize for that sentence. It wasn't written with an attitude, but I'm sure it reads that way. "what's your point" is often said with a sarcastic tone, but that wasn't my intent. I should have worded it differently.

I think though that your stats match up with her experience if she is in a small town. This is not a significantly larger number of female vets to male vets. It would not be surprising in a small town to find more of one gender than another. In a large area you would tend to see a better balance because you're seeing a larger pool.

Either way, veterinary sciences aren't predominantly female professions by your numbers, so I still don't know why it is looked down upon by some people (not you necessarily) when girls say they want to be vets.

 

[Jey12]

The tree is brown, but the treehouse itself is purple. Obviously made to be gender specific.
There already ARE technical and simple sets. Take the creator line for example. There is the $30 Apple Tree house or the $130 Family house set. Or the $40 Log Cabin set.

The creator hillside house set has a blue car. That must mean that the dad is the only one to drive it right? To me this says lego thinks women are too simple to understand the complex thinking needed to operate a vehicle, and that's why they made it blue. In the picture online it shows the dad standing at the grill so that MUST mean mom is in the house cleaning? The men are only responsible for cooking outside. Lego must want us all to assume the mom is where she belongs, in the house cleaning.

The creator apple treehouse is far from being comparable to the friend's treehouse. The apple treehouse is an actual home. It also has a blue roof. So it must be for boys. Little girls would not want to associate themselves with something that contained blue.

I could keep going but I'm already bored with spending time to make up reasons why lego could have possibly done something using blue bricks. Honestly I don't see a problem with any of the sets. If your kid wants one, then buy it. If they don't want a particular line then don't buy it. If you don't like the line don't buy it.

Or we could all go another page or two, over thinking pink bricks and breasts.

 

[smitch425]

Or we could all go another page or two, over thinking pink bricks and breasts.

If any statement deserved to be given by the tag fairy it is THIS one. Best sentence on the Disboards EVER!

 

[curious3069]

I thought the feminist movement was all about choices for women. But sometimes it seems like when there are "traditional" choices then those are bad or oppressive.

I have a boy and a girl. They share a playroom so all the toys are together. They both play with "cross gender" toys but they mostly play with gender traditional toys especially my son. That's what they gravitate to. I never made a distinction to them or directed them to gender specific toys.

Before I had children I thought "genderless" toys were they way to go. My kids thought different.

Lego is a smart company they are trying to reach out to an untapped market (girls who have previously not played with Legos) and thus they designed something that would appeal to that group.

I have a friend with a boy & a girl also...same situation as your kids, they share a playroom and share toys, but they are each drawn to certain things. These are parents who would encourage all sorts of play regardless of gender, I've seen the playroom and it's a mix of traditional boy & girl toys. Her daughter has been exposed to Legos her entire life, but has had zero interest in them at all, until she saw the new Lego sets. Mom is thrilled to indulge her new interest!!!

 

[NotUrsula]

Ok, but where is that coming from? They're not born knowing those things, they're taught them. They're getting that message from the adults in their lives who express approval or disapproval for behaviors and choices. They're taught what is acceptable for boys and what is acceptable for girls and they are acting out according to those rules. Those rules are where bullying has it's roots.

Why would we want to see any more dividing lines? Why would we want to continue a trend of sending a message to children that they are supposed to like this or that and they will not get approval if they don't follow those rules? This is where I would love to see a company like Lego to buck the trend and make toys that don't continue to divide.

Well, let me say up front that I don't think that LEGO is being sexist on this front; they are just trying to sell toys. I happen to think that changing the toys to reach the girl market isn't necessary and has already been proven to be a failure -- what they need to do is change the marketing to appeal more to the kind of girls who like creating and problem-solving, and get them to buy more. Emphasize the challenge and the flexibility, and run the ads during things like nature shows and Umizoomi. Get them young and you've got them forever. I think that FP is a lot more sexist, really.

I don't want to see dividing lines, and I think pinkification creates one where it needn't exist; marketers have adopted pink as a badge, and I feel that the way the color is being used in toy design does more to reinforce stereotypes than eliminate them -- it furthers that dividing line

As to where kids get this, they get it from bullies, not friends. It only takes one big homophobic bully in a class to have almost every boy in the class shunning pink and purple, not because they agree with the bully, but because they don't want to get on his bad side. So the bully has a Dad or a Grandfather who is homophobic and passed that on; that one person has the power to influence a lot of kids because HIS kid is widely feared. I agree with you that bullying is bad and we need to do what we can to stamp it out, but as the mother of a son who has been beaten up for being "different" on several occasions, I cannot in good conscience see insisting that kids face down this kind of thing when simply not wearing a certain color shirt would keep the peace as long as he has to be in that class. (I imagine that most families who live in areas where gang violence is prevalent would agree with me; it isn't worth it to wear "outsider" gang colors in defiance just to make a point that shirt color shouldn't mean anything more than that you like that color.)

DS isn't homophobic, nor is anyone in our family. However, DS *is* conflict-averse, and if he chooses to duck low and try to avoid trouble in order to protect his academic status, I can't argue with that. (His schools have always had a no-tolerance rule when it comes to fighting; if you are involved you are punished, even if you are the victim.)

PS: Re female vets, I know plenty of them, including two who are related to me. IME they tend to be more common in small-animal practice, mostly because of the physical strength needed to manage large animals. However, I do know at least two female vets who work in large-animal practice. I will say, however, that I've never seen ANY veterinarian wear a skirt while working; it just isn't practical.

 

[iheartdisney]

This is what I don't get...
Lego has not decided that YOU need anything. They are giving this option for THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT WANT IT. Why is that so hard for people to understand.
I don't know? Why is it so hard to understand that dumbing down and sexing up toys for girls might not be well received? i can see where people LOVE this idea. So why can't the opposition see why some people *don't* love it?

Obviously they are a company who knows what they are doing. They have likely held focus groups and reviewed surveys, and found that there was a desire for these types of products. No company in their right mind would make THIS huge of an amount of product line if they weren't given the feedback that they were wanted by consumers. Yes, there are certain things that restaurants, for example, do to make you want to stay and eat more food, but do you honestly think I would walk into a restaurant and think "OMGoondess, they painted the walls blue to get me to stay here longer?" No, I stay and eat in a place where the food is good.
You restated my point! most people don't know they are lingering due in part to the subdued hues on the wall, just like most people don't know they are drinking less in part because they are served in a tall and skinny glass and not a short wide one. Just like little girls don't know they are being marketed to look at the bright pink box. By saying "set A is a girl set" by elimination they are saying, "Set B is not a girl set" They have taken away the gender neutral appeal and replaced it with limited, simple and (YES!!!) sexist selections aimed at girls.

ETA: It is clear that there are varying opinions on this issue, but I would like to remind everyone that there would be no issue with gender-appropriateness at all if PARENTS TAUGHT THEIR CHILDREN THAT LIKING ANYTHING THEY (not you as their parent) WANT TO IS OKAY. That is how it works in our house. My DS's second favorite color is purple. He could care less who knows it, and if anyone tells him it is a "girl color" he is quick to tell them there is no such thing.
That is great in theory, but most studies show in lifespan development context that between ages 8-12, the focus changes and peers replace parents in the influence department. You can go your whole life never saying one inappropriate word, but if your child goes to public school, I guarantee they have heard every word in the book by grade 3.

 

[Magic Mom]

I don't know? Why is it so hard to understand that dumbing down and sexing up toys for girls might not be well received? i can see where people LOVE this idea. So why can't the opposition see why some people *don't* love it?

Does that make girls who really want this toy dumb? If the toy is a "dumbed down" version of other Lego's, then the girls that are excited to play with this "dumbed down" toy must not be as intellectual as the girls that want to play with Pirate Lego's, right?



FTR DD doesn't play with any legos anymore so I'm not just feeling defensive.

 

[iheartdisney]

Actually I have a pic of the house set right here next to me, and it shows dad at the grill and mom mowing the lawn.
Yes Lego has decided that they need the house with pink siding, because some girls WANT a house with pink siding. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh and the house doesn't have pink siding, it is tan and it has a pink roof. and pink awnings over the windows. If you are going to criticize, at least look at the product.

I was looking at the product. (hence I knew that dad was kicking back watching TV while mom was in the kitchen.) I am so sorry for confusing siding with awnings and shutters. i will admit- I have no residential construction experience. I should have known better.

 

[iheartdisney]

Does that make girls who really want this toy dumb? If the toy is a "dumbed down" version of other Lego's, then the girls that are excited to play with this "dumbed down" toy must not be as intellectual as the girls that want to play with Pirate Lego's, right?



FTR DD doesn't play with any legos anymore so I'm not just feeling defensive.

That is not at all what i was saying, and I believe you are just being inflammatory.

 

[pacrosby]

Does that make girls who really want this toy dumb? If the toy is a "dumbed down" version of other Lego's, then the girls that are excited to play with this "dumbed down" toy must not be as intellectual as the girls that want to play with Pirate Lego's, right?



FTR DD doesn't play with any legos anymore so I'm not just feeling defensive.

I have to agree (and I'm not being defensive either because my daughter is older now and legos aren't her thing).

What is 'dumb' about pink? And hearts and flowers? Pink is a color on the color wheel. And hearts and flowers do exist. And people do actually like them..................usually girls. What's the problem?

And to the person who said that kids don't learn this stuff....it's taught? That is not entirely correct. There have been studies that have proven that boys and girls are in fact drawn to different things. It's not just their bodies that are different. They are wired differently as well.


IDK....as much as some people hate pink (and other things typically seen as associated with girls), I hate it when people hate pink LOL It's just a color. A color that girls tend to LIKE! Not letting your daughter gravitate to what interests her because you think it's 'girly' is just as bad as forcing her to avoid it because you think it's 'girly'. The point is to give them options and let them make their own choices. Who knows? You may find little boys playing with some of these sets as well. And why shouldn't they? Why should little boys be limited to castles and dungeons and police cars?

Clearly people are carrying around a lot of baggage here.