Do girls need "special" Legos?

[Magic Mom]

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

Not imflammatory. I find the term dumbed down offensive. What kind of child loves and wants a dumbed down toy?

Your dislike of a toy doesn't negate it's value. Why is a pink vet clinic less intellectual than a magic pirate ship or a wookie?

 

[luvmy3]

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 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.

The packaging shows a tan house with a pink roof and awnings, with dad grilling and mom mowing the lawn. Yet you fail to mention that. So while girls may see mom baking in the kitchen if they turn the box over (although I haven't seen the back so I don't know if that is what is on the back), they are also going to see mom in a non-sexist role. Unless of course you have an issue with them showing the mom mowing the lawn, while dad is at the grill.
I happen to think that both scenarios are pretty typical for most households, I help dh mow the lawn, and we both grill, but he has never baked a single thing in is life. Maybe you would have preferred that while they showed mom baking cookies, they showed dad on the toilet with a newspaper?
What you see as "sexist", I see as normal family behavior, and my kids who grew up seeing those scenarios in real life would feel the same. Of course I love being in the kitchen, and my dd shares that love. She even wants to go the CIA and become a pastry chef and open her own restaurant Darn, maybe I shouldn't have let her play with so much pink when she was little, I was hoping she'd want to be something normally dominated by males.

As far as the other part, you are the one telling us that Lego decided that we needed a pink house, I was merely pointing out that you were wrong since they didn't make the house pink. So if you do want us to take the points of your argument seriously, you should know better.

And to address the pink thing, my kids fight over the hot pink cereal bowl, and if you ask my ds what is favorite color is he will tell you pink. Of course that was awhile ago, before that it was green, so he does change his mind.

 

[Scurvy]

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

For what it's worth, I understood what you meant. I definitely think the new sets look - if not "dumbed down" - at least more simplified and less complex than the usual Lego sets. My first thought when I saw them was that they looked more like Duplos than like Legos. They aren't "girly" versions of the usual Lego sets. They are "girly" sets that seem (to me) to occupy the space between Duplo and Lego. And in light of the "other 50% of the population" comment, I think that's what bothers me about these sets.

It's not the pink and purple that bothers me, though I personally am not a fan of those colors and I dislike the trend of making everything that's marketed to girls contain those colors. What bothers me is that these sets are apparently intended for "the other 50% of the population", and they appear to be significantly less intricate and challenging than most of the sets that are (apparently) intended for boys. If there was a wider range of difficulty levels available in the "girl" Legos it would bother me much less.

Plus, I really resent the implication - again, based on that "50%" comment - that Star Wars, Indiana Jones, pharoahs, outer space, race cars, plain Legos, ninjas and pirates are just for boys. I think it's a ridiculous - and sad - suggestion that only boys like those things. After reading the idiotic "50%" comment, I can't stop thinking about little Katie, the Star Wars girl. There is nothing wrong with girls playing with treehouses or vet clinics or cafes or any of these other new sets. There is everything wrong with implying that those are the only things girls are supposed to be interested in and that the other stuff is just for boys, and that's what the "50%" comment says to me.

 

[PeterPan09]

For what it's worth, I understood what you meant. I definitely think the new sets look - if not "dumbed down" - at least more simplified and less complex than the usual Lego sets. My first thought when I saw them was that they looked more like Duplos than like Legos. They aren't "girly" versions of the usual Lego sets. They are "girly" sets that seem to occupy the space between Duplo and Lego. And in light of the "other 50% of the population" comment, I think that's what bothers me about these sets.

It's not the pink and purple that bothers me, though I personally am not a fan of those colors and I dislike the trend of making everything that's marketed to girls contain those colors. What bothers me is that these sets are apparently intended for "the other 50% of the population", and they appear to be significantly less intricate and challenging than most of the sets that are (apparently) intended for boys. If there was a wider range of difficulty levels available in the "girl" Legos it would bother me much less.

Plus, I really resent the implication - again, based on that "50%" comment - that Star Wars, Indiana Jones, pharoahs, outer space, race cars, plain Legos, ninjas and pirates are just for boys. I think it's a ridiculous - and sad - suggestion that only boys like those things. After reading the idiotic "50%" comment, I can't stop thinking about little Katie, the Star Wars girl. There is nothing wrong with girls playing with treehouses or vet clinics or cafes or any of these other new sets. There is everything wrong with implying that those are the only things girls are supposed to be interested in and that the other stuff is just for boys, and that's what the "50%" comment says to me.

You said it much better than I've been able to, thank you.

Take a look at this adorable ad from the 1980's. THIS is the Lego I remember and I wonder what happened to it-or what happened to us.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/07/17/vintage-lego-ad/

 

[Momvic5]

It is fascinating to see the different opinions on the new Lego sets. In my home, I guess we are very simple thinkers. My kids are all older now (ages10-15), but when Lego sets were their thing, they picked the Lego sets that matched their interests. My boys always wanted Legos, and my daughter just enjoyed the Legos with her brothers. For years, Lego was always apart of our Christmases and birthdays. My boys loved Star Wars and anything ninja or castle related so those type sets were always what we purchased. The figures and the speciality pieces were always what my kids were most attracted to. On occassion, my younger son would want a certain Lego set due to one figure or one speciality piece in the set. (He would want a $200 set because he wanted one figure out of it. ~Crazy!) However, our sets never stayed built as advertised. My kids created all kinds of things using the bricks from those sets. My dd never asked for a Lego set until she saw the Belville set, and like all of the other sets, it did not stay in its advertised state for very long. Of course, she was attracted to the set itself, but she loved that fact that it contained colors and speciality pieces that her brothers' sets did not. My kids were never really interested in building, keeping, and playing with a Lego set as advertised. Mostly, they wanted the pieces to add to their collection. At one time, my youngest started painting our Lego figures/bricks to create the characters he wanted. I guess I just have a different idea of how Legos are played with. I think most homes do the same thing...children build the set, admire and play with it for a little while, and then they take it apart and create something new with it. The set itself becomes a non-issue. It becomes a pile of bricks. If one was to come over to our house, one would not know what sets we actually have. They would just see bricks and speciality pieces organized into bins by color. (Yes - nothing screams neat freak like organized Legos.) I think we are overthinking things.

 

[pacrosby]

You said it much better than I've been able to, thank you.

Take a look at this adorable ad from the 1980's. THIS is the Lego I remember and I wonder what happened to it-or what happened to us.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/07/17/vintage-lego-ad/

I do like that ad

But...

Do you think it's at all possible that lego did some research before doing this? Do you think that perhaps they found that their product, as it is, has in fact been something that has been more appealing to boys? And if so, doesn't it kind of make sense for them to say....hey, how can we reach those girls who have historically not been as interested in this product?

You can give us as much anecdotal evidence as you want about your interest in the traditional legos as a kid, or your daughter's or your next door neighbor's but it doesn't change the fact that, as a general rule, boys have always been more drawn to this toy. Now in your mind's eye it appears the solution is just to buy those more traditional sets for our daughter's anyway and MAKE them play with them, whether they want to or not. But many of us don't think that makes sense. Nor would it be likely to work.

Naaaah. No offense but I think the big successful corporation has it right

 

[smitch425]

Why is a pink vet clinic less intellectual than a magic pirate ship or a wookie?

I can't believe it! Yet ANOTHER awesome tag worthy statement. LOVE THIS!!!

And to address some other recent comments...

As I said before... my DD has NEVER shown any interest in Legos whatsoever even though we have had them readily available in our home for the last 5+ years. She saw these new sets and and got excited about them. She likes that the people look like actual people (breasts and all) instead of generic looking blocks. There is nothing "dumb" about it-- or her. In fact, she has made straight As every year. And as a 3rd grader in public school, rest assured that there are still many words she has not yet heard or I would know about it. Besides, I have taught her how to act appropriately to others so if she knows of the word "gay" she would not dare use it because I have raised her to know that everyone is created equal and no one person is better than another.

If a your child shows an interest in these toys, and asks you to buy them one, but you disapprove of "the message" it is sending then you have two choices.

1. Don't buy it
2. Buy it and use it to teach your child that just because something looks a certain way, doesn't mean it HAS TO mean the same thing to everyone

 

[DopeyDame]

For what it's worth, I understood what you meant. I definitely think the new sets look - if not "dumbed down" - at least more simplified and less complex than the usual Lego sets. My first thought when I saw them was that they looked more like Duplos than like Legos. They aren't "girly" versions of the usual Lego sets. They are "girly" sets that seem (to me) to occupy the space between Duplo and Lego. And in light of the "other 50% of the population" comment, I think that's what bothers me about these sets.
.

I think part of the point of this new set is, exactly, to be an "entry level" less complex set. For kids that have been playing with mega blocks, than duplos, the legos, they are "easy" (how's that for a much nicer term than "dumbed down") But those kids - boys and girls - are NOT who the new line is marketed to. Lego will happily take the $100+ dollars from any boy or girl who wants to buy the more complex sets.

But girls who haven't been playing with legos all along often aren't interested in jumping right into the more complex sets and may get frustrated quickly. (I imagine a lot of us can relate to the experience of trying to play a video game with someone who plays them all. the. time.) So now, there's an entry-level option for them that isn't duplo (because if you think a girl doesn't want to play with a "boy" toy they CERTAINLY don't want to play with a "baby" toy!)

Clearly, Legos dream isn't for a little girl to buy a few items from this line and stop. Lego is in the business of selling as many legos as they possibly can. So Lego would be THRILLED for Suzy-Seven-Year-Old to get her first Lego set from this "girl" line, and eventually expand into all of the more complex and challenging sets.

I do agree that the phrase "the other 50%" is really poor, in this case, though. But I still love the new line!

 

[iheartdisney]

Not imflammatory. I find the term dumbed down offensive. What kind of child loves and wants a dumbed down toy?

Your dislike of a toy doesn't negate it's value. Why is a pink vet clinic less intellectual than a magic pirate ship or a wookie?

Making it pink doesn't "dumb it down". Making it a simpler build with fewer pieces does. The vet clinic- your example- is only 343 pieces, and looking at the description and the photos, at least 50 of those pieces are accessories- not buildable bricks. The building itself is not a building, only a facade.

The pirate ship you mention is 804 pieces, which don't include accessories like hand mixers and hair dryers. It is mostly bricks. I can't find a build-a-wookie set, but one that includes a wookie, the Battle for Endor kit is 890 pieces, including a At-At with movable walking legs. i don't see anything comparable skill or ability wise in the girls-specific line. Which means Lego thinks either:
A. Our girls are not interested in building workable moving pieces
OR
B. That they are not capable of complex builds.
Which is less offensive to you?

The creator sets allow for an easy, regular and advanced build within each set. Each of those 3 levels is an actual building- for walls and a roof, usually with a hinged wall or removable roof to allow play. not just a facade- which all of the Friends buildings are. They could aesthetically improve upon these existing sets to appeal to girls if that was the intention. Instead they made the girl versions simpler.
The most complex set (Olivia's house) is 695, which again, have a lot of accessories. Again, it is a simple facade not a complete building, making it a simpler build.
Should I just replace the word "dumbed down" with "simpler" and you'll be o.k. with the argument?

 

[Magic Mom]

And to address the pink thing, my kids fight over the hot pink cereal bowl, and if you ask my ds what is favorite color is he will tell you pink. Of course that was awhile ago, before that it was green, so he does change his mind.

LOL DD loved everything princess when she was 5 or so, then she hated pink because it was "to girly" and only liked blue and green things. Now she loooves pink again, but not pastel pink, only hot pink. I can't keep up with her changing tastes.

 

[smitch425]

Making it pink doesn't "dumb it down". Making it a simpler build with fewer pieces does. The vet clinic- your example- is only 343 pieces, and looking at the description and the photos, at least 50 of those pieces are accessories- not buildable bricks. The building itself is not a building, only a facade.

The pirate ship you mention is 804 pieces, which don't include accessories like hand mixers and hair dryers. It is mostly bricks. I can't find a build-a-wookie set, but one that includes a wookie, the Battle for Endor kit is 890 pieces, including a At-At with movable walking legs. i don't see anything comparable skill or ability wise in the girls-specific line. Which means Lego thinks either:
A. Our girls are not interested in building workable moving pieces
OR
B. That they are not capable of complex builds.
Which is less offensive to you?

The creator sets allow for an easy, regular and advanced build within each set. Each of those 3 levels is an actual building- for walls and a roof, usually with a hinged wall or removable roof to allow play. not just a facade- which all of the Friends buildings are. They could aesthetically improve upon these existing sets to appeal to girls if that was the intention. Instead they made the girl versions simpler.
The most complex set (Olivia's house) is 695, which again, have a lot of accessories. Again, it is a simple facade not a complete building, making it a simpler build.
Should I just replace the word "dumbed down" with "simpler" and you'll be o.k. with the argument?

and unfortunately, there is no way to really do that right now. The new house set is for ages 6-12. The previous sets are generally broken up into varying age groups. My guess is that they want to see how the new sets do in terms of sales before making more complex building sets.

 

[pacrosby]

Making it pink doesn't "dumb it down". Making it a simpler build with fewer pieces does. The vet clinic- your example- is only 343 pieces, and looking at the description and the photos, at least 50 of those pieces are accessories- not buildable bricks. The building itself is not a building, only a facade.

The pirate ship you mention is 804 pieces, which don't include accessories like hand mixers and hair dryers. It is mostly bricks. I can't find a build-a-wookie set, but one that includes a wookie, the Battle for Endor kit is 890 pieces, including a At-At with movable walking legs. i don't see anything comparable skill or ability wise in the girls-specific line. Which means Lego thinks either:
A. Our girls are not interested in building workable moving pieces
OR
B. That they are not capable of complex builds.
Which is less offensive to you?

The creator sets allow for an easy, regular and advanced build within each set. Each of those 3 levels is an actual building- for walls and a roof, usually with a hinged wall or removable roof to allow play. not just a facade- which all of the Friends buildings are. They could aesthetically improve upon these existing sets to appeal to girls if that was the intention. Instead they made the girl versions simpler.
The most complex set (Olivia's house) is 695, which again, have a lot of accessories. Again, it is a simple facade not a complete building, making it a simpler build.
Should I just replace the word "dumbed down" with "simpler" and you'll be o.k. with the argument?

MANY people have already pointed out that this line is likely to be aimed at the child who hasn't been building these sets for awhile and, as a result, would need to start with an easier set. Perhaps they are even going for those on the younger end of the spectrum as older girls not already into legos will be less likely to now suddenly say 'hey legos!!" It's quite likely that if the line takes off, they will start to introduce more complex sets which will allow these girls to grow with the product. I don't understand why don't you want to acknowledge thiese explanations. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp is it?

 

[luvmy3]

Making it pink doesn't "dumb it down". Making it a simpler build with fewer pieces does. The vet clinic- your example- is only 343 pieces, and looking at the description and the photos, at least 50 of those pieces are accessories- not buildable bricks. The building itself is not a building, only a facade.

But the point of these sets is to appeal to girls who do not have any interest in Legos. I don't see them as dumbed down, I see them as a cross between Poly Pocket type toys and Lego sets. They did their research, and I'm sure they came up with these less advance sets because of the way girls in general play. If they weren't interested in building a house out of bricks before, just making a version with pink and purple bricks isn't going to make them suddenly interested. Adding some "toys" like the minifigs and their accessories bridges that, and suddenly these girls are getting into building that house for their minifigs. I'm sure Lego has the hope that after time, these girls will be asking their parents to buy those more advance sets. And if not, who cares, if a 5 year old girl, or even a 12 year old girl likes these toys the way they are, why does it matter.

 

[curious3069]

You said it much better than I've been able to, thank you.

Take a look at this adorable ad from the 1980's. THIS is the Lego I remember and I wonder what happened to it-or what happened to us.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/07/17/vintage-lego-ad/

What happened is that in 2005, as a business strategy to up lagging sales, Lego decided to market specifically to boys, and adapted their sets as well as their marketing to appeal directly to boys. Lego has been saying for years, without saying the words, "here's a toy that we know will only appeal to 50% of kids". This is an excellent article about Lego's anthropological research into the how/why of the new girls line:

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

Do you truely believe that Star Wars/Indiana Jones/etc. appeal to MOST girls??? Please realize this is coming from a woman who loves those movies, but as a child, we turned our noses up at "boy toys" because that was just not how we played. This was the 70's, when not everything was pink too.

 

[HelenePA]

who's to say they wont make more advanced sets? I know they didn't have that 200$ star wars thingy (yes thingy I know nothing about star wars) around forever...

ETA until last year I had never seen any of the pirate movies, I still haven't seen any of the indy movies, I've seen the star wars ones but not for a very long time, not something I would watch over and over again... Oh and I have breasts and I like pink (actually I like purple more) and I'm a girl

 

[pacrosby]

You said it much better than I've been able to, thank you.

Take a look at this adorable ad from the 1980's. THIS is the Lego I remember and I wonder what happened to it-or what happened to us.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/07/17/vintage-lego-ad/

Also, I think what 'happened' is market research. They've come along way.

 

[luvmy3]

[

LOL DD loved everything princess when she was 5 or so, then she hated pink because it was "to girly" and only liked blue and green things. Now she loooves pink again, but not pastel pink, only hot pink. I can't keep up with her changing tastes.

My dd too she's 14 and wants to paint her room pink. She went from light pink to light teal, but now wants hot pink walls and black accessories. I'm so sick of painting

 

[curious3069]

You said it much better than I've been able to, thank you.

Take a look at this adorable ad from the 1980's. THIS is the Lego I remember and I wonder what happened to it-or what happened to us.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/07/17/vintage-lego-ad/

And yet even in that ad, the only thing that marks that child as a girl is the long hair. If you laid those clothes out and took a random survey, I would bet a whole lot of money most people would pick those out as clothes belonging to a boy. They are not marketing to a traditional girls market even in the 80's.

I'm not at all saying that girls didn't play with them, just saying that Lego wasn't shooting for the mainstream girl market even back then.

 

[Magic Mom]

Making it pink doesn't "dumb it down". Making it a simpler build with fewer pieces does. The vet clinic- your example- is only 343 pieces, and looking at the description and the photos, at least 50 of those pieces are accessories- not buildable bricks. The building itself is not a building, only a facade.

The pirate ship you mention is 804 pieces, which don't include accessories like hand mixers and hair dryers. It is mostly bricks. I can't find a build-a-wookie set, but one that includes a wookie, the Battle for Endor kit is 890 pieces, including a At-At with movable walking legs. i don't see anything comparable skill or ability wise in the girls-specific line. Which means Lego thinks either:
A. Our girls are not interested in building workable moving pieces
OR
B. That they are not capable of complex builds.
Which is less offensive to you?

The creator sets allow for an easy, regular and advanced build within each set. Each of those 3 levels is an actual building- for walls and a roof, usually with a hinged wall or removable roof to allow play. not just a facade- which all of the Friends buildings are. They could aesthetically improve upon these existing sets to appeal to girls if that was the intention. Instead they made the girl versions simpler.
The most complex set (Olivia's house) is 695, which again, have a lot of accessories. Again, it is a simple facade not a complete building, making it a simpler build.
Should I just replace the word "dumbed down" with "simpler" and you'll be o.k. with the argument?

Maybe lego is thinking there is a segment of toy buyers that would like the lego concept of being changeable and buildable but don't want the intricate sets ( or they would buy them). This set fills that niche (although I think Ursala may be right that the market isn't big enough for this to be a success).

This is about drawing in customers that aren't interested in the current sets, right? Lego is a business and wants to bring in new customers. This set is meant to draw in those people. Not everyone likes the huge intricate sets. We aren't all wired the same. So whats the harm in marketing to those people?

 

[hollyrose]

I had a ton of "girl" legos in the 90s and LOVED them- I had a beach house that had a ton of little pieces and took FOREVER to build- at least I thought it did back then. The only difference between them and the regular legos were that they were pink, green, yellow and grey pastel colors. I had regular legos too- I don't think it matters who they are trying to market to- bottom line- legos are a pretty good toy for children, developing motor skills and problem solving techniques- who cares what color or "shape" the legos make in the end.