Do girls need "special" Legos?

[Magic Mom]

why should so many toys be saturated with it, then? Why isn't the little FP airplane ALWAYS pink, if pink is such a natural color for toy airplanes?

There must be a market for it or they wouldn't offer it. SOme kids (admittedly mostly girls) love pink things. Some kids don't. Why shouldn't there be pink and purple planes if there are kids that want them? It isn't natural for planes to be 10 inches long with pilots whose heads are interchangeable either, but they are out there because kids like to play with them.

 

[mtemm]

I have 2 sons (9 & 7) and a daughter (7). my boys are lego fiends! we have many many (many!) sets of legos. they have even done lego focus groups. trust me, the lego people didn't have any interest in girls, they wanted boys and boys only, at least for the sets that were part of the study. So I don't buy the argument that many of the sets aren't geared to boys. doesn't mean that girls can't have fun and play with them, just means that girls are not who lego had in mind when they created them.

my DD has little/no interest in legos. not even the ones I would say were more gender neutral. After reading this thread I showed her the more girlie ones, and they really did spark her interest. And you know what? I think that is great! I don't think its a bad thing at all. I wouldn't force her to only play with them, as opposed to her brothers sets, and I wouldn't forbid them from playing with hers. honestly they would all probably build a giant lego city that included all the sets together. I think its awesome that my DD might get interested in legos because of these sets because I think they are a fabulous toy.

no issues from this mom. the more the merrier! Just like I have no issue with boys playing with more traditionally girl toys. my DS7 still loves playing with his twin boy bitty baby from time to time.

As for whether the "girl" sets are easier than the boy ones for the same age group, well, if that is so (and I haven't examined them well enough to say that it is or not), I would wonder if that is because Lego is trying to target an audience, like my DD, who doesn't typically play with legos, and therefore doesn't have the background of building the easier sets. Those sets can be tricky to put together when you aren't used to building with them!

 

[smitch425]

We don't use "gay" as a pejorative term in our house, either. My son is quite a bit older than yours, and his classmates are not using the term to mean "geeky" or "stupid"; they are using it to mean homosexual, which doesn't really put it in the "swear word category".

Yes, "gay" isn't a swear word. I should have said that we also do not use derogatory words either.

 

[iheartdisney]

I think your thinking wayyyyyy more about this than most people... dividing lines with legos... I dont get why its such a big deal to have a toy geared towards, well, girls... there are girls out there who dont like pirates, star wars, cars, castles, ninjas, police... is it really such a horrible thing to have a tree house lego set? or a vet set? (which my dd9 wants she's never shown an interest in legos before I showed it to her after this thread last night) there are girls out there that are "girly" who like pink, who like doll babies, who like barbies, and everything there is about being a girl... because of some narrow minded people should my dd not have these sets? I bet my son would play with some of them too and none of his friends will call him gay because of it...

btw legos is diving by not having sets like this... they are geared more towards boys even if you dont think so...

By building a girl-specific line, **by association** the other sets now are divided as boy sets. They are designed to draw the girls away from the technical sets and toward the simple sets. As a mother of a 9 year old daughter who will spend 4 hours putting together a Creator set, I think Lego is selling ALL of our daughters short with this move.
And it isn't just a treehouse set. It is a PURPLE treehouse set, with a figure that continues to promote society's ideal body image- pronounced breasts and pencil thin arms and legs. Not just a vets office- but a vets office covered in hearts and the Dr. wearing a miniskirt and very open-neck shirt.

 

[Magic Mom]

I think your thinking wayyyyyy more about this than most people... dividing lines with legos... I dont get why its such a big deal to have a toy geared towards, well, girls... there are girls out there who dont like pirates, star wars, cars, castles, ninjas, police... is it really such a horrible thing to have a tree house lego set? or a vet set? ...

 

[Sorsha]

It is a PURPLE treehouse set, with a figure that continues to promote society's ideal body image- pronounced breasts and pencil thin arms and legs. Not just a vets office- but a vets office covered in hearts and the Dr. wearing a miniskirt and very open-neck shirt.

But women HAVE breasts!!! If it is a "female" figurine, why shouldn't it have breasts?!? Are we to teach our children that having breasts and being proud that we have them is bad?

And for pete's sake in a puddle it's a LEGO figurine, of COURSE it has thin arms and legs!! Did you want the Lego company to scale down "average woman" measurements to the micro-millimeter?? Or make an obese Lego? I myself am overweight, and I think that would NOT be a good idea.

Look, some people are getting WAY too worked up about this. If this annoys you so much, are you equally annoyed by GI Joe? After all, he is not only the "ideal man" - tall, muscular, perfectly sculpted - but he carries weapons and goes to war covered in CAMO! Egads...

 

[Jey12]

By building a girl-specific line, **by association** the other sets now are divided as boy sets. They are designed to draw the girls away from the technical sets and toward the simple sets. As a mother of a 9 year old daughter who will spend 4 hours putting together a Creator set, I think Lego is selling ALL of our daughters short with this move.
And it isn't just a treehouse set. It is a PURPLE treehouse set, with a figure that continues to promote society's ideal body image- pronounced breasts and pencil thin arms and legs. Not just a vets office- but a vets office covered in hearts and the Dr. wearing a miniskirt and very open-neck shirt.

Why would you think that your DD9 would all of a sudden not want the creator sets because a different line is available? If she was a fan of Star wars and POTC would you have assumed she'd stop liking one set once the other one was released? The same type of girl that likes to play with the creator/POTC/Star Wars and other sets will continue to do so. The girls that would normally not want these sets but would prefer another type of toy might like these new sets and they will play with them.

Where did you see a purple tree house? Was the tree, leaves, ground and birdhouse purple? No the "wooden" floor of the treehouse is purple and pink. If my DD had a treehouse purple is a color she'd ask to paint it, should I tell her no? If she paints her treehouse purple then she'll view any other color treehouse for the rest of her life as a "boys" treehouse?

I have to admit when I looked at the vet she did kind of look like a "naughty vet." Although the reason I think so is because I'm an adult and would have that reference to go with. DD would just see a female character that came with the set. Also why is everyone so scared of breasts? It's not like lego has designed a set of DD knockers that you assemble separately.

 

[luvmy3]

By building a girl-specific line, **by association** the other sets now are divided as boy sets. They are designed to draw the girls away from the technical sets and toward the simple sets. As a mother of a 9 year old daughter who will spend 4 hours putting together a Creator set, I think Lego is selling ALL of our daughters short with this move.
And it isn't just a treehouse set. It is a PURPLE treehouse set, with a figure that continues to promote society's ideal body image- pronounced breasts and pencil thin arms and legs. Not just a vets office- but a vets office covered in hearts and the Dr. wearing a miniskirt and very open-neck shirt.

If you think the introduction of this line will draw the girls away from the less technical sets, that is your own insecurity coming out. Our dd's aren't ALL being sold short.

And I have to laugh at the "pronounced" breasts. Girls have breasts, there is nothing wrong with a female toy having them too. Its not like these little figures have DDs She is also weaing a V neck shirt, far from a plunging neckline. Don't see the pencil thin arms and legs either, thin yes but hardly super thin. I think you are seeing things that just aren't there.

 

[Magic Mom]

By building a girl-specific line, **by association** the other sets now are divided as boy sets. They are designed to draw the girls away from the technical sets and toward the simple sets. As a mother of a 9 year old daughter who will spend 4 hours putting together a Creator set, I think Lego is selling ALL of our daughters short with this move.
And it isn't just a treehouse set. It is a PURPLE treehouse set, with a figure that continues to promote society's ideal body image- pronounced breasts and pencil thin arms and legs. Not just a vets office- but a vets office covered in hearts and the Dr. wearing a miniskirt and very open-neck shirt.

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.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't understand why being a vet is somehow demeaning either. I always wanted to be one but ended up as an engineer instead. I see the two disciplines as equal except that studying to be a vet was way more expensive!

 

[DopeyDame]

By building a girl-specific line, **by association** the other sets now are divided as boy sets. They are designed to draw the girls away from the technical sets and toward the simple sets..

There is no way in the universe Lego's goal is to draw people (girls, boys, or otherwise) AWAY from spending money on the larger, technical (and more expensive!) sets. Just the opposite, I assume. They want to get some girls (like several PPs daughters) to be willing to TRY a lego set because now it's something that they're more interested and comfortable with, and then, of course, Lego wants those girls to expand into all the other, far more expansive and expensive, sets.

Trust me, Lego wants your daughter buying as many complex Lego sets as she can possibly get her hands on.

 

[smitch425]

They are designed to draw the girls away from the technical sets and toward the simple sets. As a mother of a 9 year old daughter who will spend 4 hours putting together a Creator set, I think Lego is selling ALL of our daughters short with this move.
And it isn't just a treehouse set. It is a PURPLE treehouse set, with a figure that continues to promote society's ideal body image- pronounced breasts and pencil thin arms and legs. Not just a vets office- but a vets office covered in hearts and the Dr. wearing a miniskirt and very open-neck shirt.

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?

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. 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???

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.

 

[Jey12]

I don't understand why being a vet is somehow demeaning either. I always wanted to be one but ended up as an engineer instead. I see the two disciplines as equal except that studying to be a vet was way more expensive!

I'm with you on this one. Honestly vets have more schooling than your own medical dr.'s. A human Dr. only has to learn one species, a vet has to learn equal amounts about several. Some people might be amazed to learn how many human Dr's at one time were in vet school and couldn't make the grade. The only thing I see demeaning about being a vet is the amount of money they usually make coming out of school, and sometimes it's pretty close to nothing.

 

[Magic Mom]

I don't understand why being a vet is somehow demeaning either. I always wanted to be one but ended up as an engineer instead. I see the two disciplines as equal except that studying to be a vet was way more expensive!

Isn't that the truth! DD wants to be a vet (equine specialist). The go to A LOT of schooling. Apparently vet school is really difficult too. My friends daughter is at vet school now and she says her student loan debt will be astronomical and her study load is so heavy she can't have a job.

I told dd to be an orthodonist with a lot of pets. LOL

I shouldn't have let her play with those pink blocks when she was little or she would be making a better career choice..

 

[luvmy3]

I don't understand why being a vet is somehow demeaning either. I always wanted to be one but ended up as an engineer instead. I see the two disciplines as equal except that studying to be a vet was way more expensive!

The funny thing is around here there are very few female vets. In fact I don't believe any of my animals have ever seen a female one. So, what does that say to those who are arguing that these toys force girls into the traditional roles that society thinks they should be? Either the girls are ignoring it, or its just not true. Either way its a win-win

 

[Magic Mom]

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. Exactly!
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?

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. 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???

.

Lots of lego heads have those big lego connector bumps on them too. That isn't exactly accurate.

 

[Planogirl]

The funny thing is around here there are very few female vets. In fact I don't believe any of my animals have ever seen a female one. So, what does that say to those who are arguing that these toys force girls into the traditional roles that society thinks they should be? Either the girls are ignoring it, or its just not true. Either way its a win-win

I have never seen a female vet. I know that they're out there but we just haven't stumbled across one yet.

My cats don't care. They dislike them all equally.

 

[Andtototoo]

The funny thing is around here there are very few female vets. In fact I don't believe any of my animals have ever seen a female one. So, what does that say to those who are arguing that these toys force girls into the traditional roles that society thinks they should be? Either the girls are ignoring it, or its just not true. Either way its a win-win

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

 

[Tinkermommy]

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.

 

[luvmy3]

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

Still close enough to be 50/50 for Vet to not be a traditional female profession.