Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Lego - how depressing

217 replies

EverybodysSnowyEyed · 05/01/2012 23:53

I've always loved Lego as a 'genderless' toy

And now they have launched Lego friends - aimed at the little ladies in your life. And guess what, there's a beauty parlour!

Even DH finds this depressing! Are we alone in this?

I thought toy manufacturers might be starting to realise how bad this all looks!

OP posts:
aviatrix · 06/01/2012 09:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EverybodysSnowyEyed · 06/01/2012 12:52

we bought DS bricks and more and some lego city. we try and avoid the sets too. DD (18m) adores the stuff (can't get her to play with duplo though!)

I don't really mind there being a beauty parlour. My son plays with his friends Sylvanian family one more than she does! But with Sylvanian there seems to be less focus on gendering the toys. This new lego seems to sharply focus who they expect to lay with it.

Regarding the lego men - I'm not sure I agree!

I was looking at the ones we have and other than the beardy ones the others could all be women! The thing is that we are all used to the female toys having long eyelashes, or lipstick, or long hair. I put the head of a fireman with sunglasses on to the body of the person with the flowery top and it didn't look like a mans head then! I think i will refer to the facially neutral ones as she in future and see what DS says! Maybe it is my ingrained prejudice that defines a lego person with no visible hair and make up as a man!

Regarding their race - it has never occurred to me that they are anything other than yellow lego people from legoland. I always thought of them in the same way you may think of smurfs or aliens.

OP posts:
Himalaya · 06/01/2012 13:00

Yes I agree, i think it is fairly difficult to 'tell' the gender or ethnicity of a yellow lego head....a bit like this Smile

I am sure I read somwehere that lego said it was a policy decision not to have specific different ethnicities to their minifigs, unless they were specifically meant to represent particular actual people.

OneHandWavingFree · 06/01/2012 13:33

Hi SnowyEyed

I see your point re: the minifigures not being particularly gendered, but when I was counting the numbers of male and female figures (God, I need to get a life) I was using the official minifigures.lego.com website, where there's a little blurb about each of the characters. The ones I called 'male' were the ones referred to as 'he', and the ones I called female were the ones referred to as 'she'. All the ones referred to as 'she' did have different facial features, like shaped eyebrows, lashes and more prominent eyes.

It wasn't based on my own perception of male and female roles, clothing, appearance etc.

These are the figures put out in the last five years, again, the time period when Lego itself acknowledges that they were marketing for boys. I remember loving the minifigures as a kid, when my brother and I were Lego obsessives, and they were all identical, plain :) faces. I agree that the classic yellow Lego head doesn't look like one or the other, and there's no reason that kids can't play with it as a female character. But sadly that's not because Lego is trying to be gender-neutral or inclusive. Most of them don't look like that anymore; they've either got five o'clock shadow, or eyeshadow and lipstick to indicate which gender they are.

There are a handful of non-human figures (robots, aliens) that don't look particularly male or female, but these too are referred to on the Lego website as 'he'.

I'm afraid that the introduction of these new, different-looking, differently-shaped, skinnier figures to represent the females is going to mean that the blocky, classic, normal version is now going to be used for male figures only. I'm curious to see whether the new shape will be phased in for female figures outside the 'Friends' series.

IslaDoit · 06/01/2012 13:40

This is how they used to advertise lego a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/397445_10150440365398303_9171233302_8853826_2146337768_n.jpg

What a shame they were more progressive 30 years ago than today Sad

EverybodysSnowyEyed · 06/01/2012 13:49

OneHand - sorry - I wasn't suggesting you had made the distinction. i think Lego as a company has definitely lost the plot when it comes to the neutrality of its toys and the minifigures show that.

What I liked about lego was that it gave you a a lot of scope for imagination. The little people were almost genderless and race less. I stil think a lot of the faces are neutral. DH did comment the other day that they seemed to be moving towards more 'angry' faces. Which again is odd - is that supposed to attract testosterone?

I hope they don't change the lego people anymore. i find it really annoying that they have introduced characters as well (harry potter etc)

Isla - interesting advert and I think that says a lot about the company in the 70's and it reflecting the social changes in northern europe at the time. It is a sad reflection of todays society that they think they can make more money from this girls range than by marketing the classic toy as gender neutral.

I wonder if any toy company has produced an ad like that in the last 10 years?

OP posts:
KRITIQ · 06/01/2012 14:41

Cynical me - I think alot of it IS about hoping to make double profits by selling two lots of toys, games, clothes, etc. to families that have both boys and girls - and having no sense of social responsibility in doing so.

Although there have been significant gains in terms of gender equality in the past 30 or 40 years, there does seem to have been that worrying shift to strict gender demarcation in toys, games, clothing, activities and even attitudes in the past 10 years or so. What worries me is the impact this will have on children's lives, relationships and society in general in the future. It's like a gender apartheid of sorts.

The old LEGO advert made me a bit dewy eyed, thinking back to what it was like when I was little. I honestly don't think it's just a rose coloured glasses thing. Here's a photo of a summer "playgroup" I attended circa summer 1975 (same year the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in the UK!). Seriously, can you imagine any group of children dressing in such a unisex manner today?

EverybodysSnowyEyed · 06/01/2012 14:52

That photo takes me back! The clothes in the 70s were dreadful but you are right that there was no colour demarcation. I wore a lot of browns!!

I think this new product takes them too close to playmobil and bratz as there doesn't seem to be much construction involved. Wonder if that will impact sales

OP posts:
IslaDoit · 06/01/2012 15:12

That photo's brilliant KRITIQ. The child on the far right (I don't know if it's a boy or girl!) is probably wearing hand-me-downs and looks a bit like a Bay City Roller. Especially with the way the hair is captured just at that second so it looks like a side burn Grin

I wonder if the age of austerity that's supposedly coming will see more hand-me downs and less gendering. We won't be buying twice, once for each gender - we'll be buying once and making it last.

EverybodysSnowyEyed · 06/01/2012 15:15

I hope so Isla.

I always bought toys for dc1 on the basis that dc2 could play with them. Eg neutral scooter. Dd wears a lot of blues and browns. Theres no way I'm buying new snowsuits etc just because they're blue!

OP posts:
KRITIQ · 06/01/2012 15:36

Ha ha Isla - as I recall her name was Anita! Yes, tartan flares, omg! Grin

I also noticed the little boy at the front on the right wearing what seems to be a (gasp) pink shirt - although it could have been a faded red shirt of course.

It would actually be great if in the push to reuse, reduce and recycle in these difficult economic times, folks would stop buying into all that gendering in children's clothing, toys and activities.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/01/2012 15:47

And, I too wish Lego had not moved from basic bricks and imagination to prescriptive, character-based sets.

But you can still buy basic bricks, surely - you don't have to buy any of the prescriptive stuff. And even then - my DD has a few Bellville sets in among her basic bricks and 'gadgety' bits but she doesn't use them in any 'prescribed' way.

EverybodysSnowyEyed · 06/01/2012 15:50

You can't get the variety of bricks you used to though. I really wish I'd kept mine!

My ds likes to make the set and then that is all we are allowed to make from those bricks (really annoying of you lose the instructions or a piece!) so I do prefer the flexibility of a box of bricks.

I think our kids will cringe when they see their childhood photos too!

OP posts:
BeeBawBabbity · 06/01/2012 16:34

Well I don't know, it doesn't seem that bad to me. They look inoffensive, Lego have done lots of research, and I'd happily give them to my kids. What's wrong with a beauty parlour? If it appeals to some kids, great. For those really interested in space, etc., I dont think a blue box will put them off. I would like to see such toys mixed up on the shelves though (perhaps an issue for the shop rather than Lego), and more female figures in all ranges, and more girls in the adverts.

Our girls should be raised in the awareness that they can do whatever they want when they grow up, but that shouldn't be achieved by denying them certain toys if they happen to appeal. I also think we might be overestimating the effect toys have on adult decisions. I hated Lego, played constantly with my dolls, and ended up studying Engineering Smile.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/01/2012 16:34

Maybe they're not in the shops (which is a shame, to be sure) but surely you can still get anything and everything from the website?

EverybodysSnowyEyed · 06/01/2012 20:56

Unfortunately not - ebay is the best bet

OP posts:
rosy71 · 06/01/2012 21:27

I've been thinking about this recently. My first reaction to seeing lego friends advertised was that it looked quite good. It was an advert for a house; I can remember building lots of lego houses and town as a child and there don't seem to be very many kits of that type around.

However, thinking about it more, I find the pink and lilac bricks a bit depressing. Houses aren't that colour for a start. Also, whenever ds2 sees it, he says, "that's lego for girls." (He seems to say that type of thing a lot whereas ds1 has never said anything like that. Confused) I think lego has been marketed as a "boys' toy" and the manufacturers are trying to widen their customer base by providing something which they can market at girls. Obviously it reflects ideas current in society.

Incidentally, you can still buy boxes of bricks. Ds2 had 2 for Christmas. They seem to be for a younger age group - 4+ - whilst the kits are 5/6/7+. If you look at the photo a pp linked to, the advert said age 3-7 or 4-7, I think. Perhaps lego started to market kits at an older age group at some point. I certainly don't remember playing with lego once I had passed 7 or 8.

The lego figures change all the time too. When I was very young, lego people were very different. When the little, mini-figure type came in, there were male and female ones. The female ones had sort of long hair.

Overall, I'm not sure what my opinion is Confused. Apparantly lego spent years researching the market. Perhaps a wider range of lego is good, but I don't see why it needs to be all pink and purple.

LynetteScavo · 06/01/2012 21:38

I'm sure they did spend years reseaching the market.

They are trying to get people who would other wise buy a barbie or Bratz, or Sylvanian Families, ect to buy lego instead.

I can totally understand why they have done it. I am pretty sure some of this will be given to my DC for her birthday this year, rather than the items mentioned above. People see Lego and think good, wholesome, educational toy. They see girly product, and think Little Suzy would like that (even thought they haven't seen little Suzy for 2 years and don't know she spends all day rolling in mud; she's a girls so she must like pink) And so buy it.

Acutally my DD loves mud and pink, so would adore this Lego...Ninjago seems to have no interest for her. And Logo city doesn't seem to have enough dimensions, she likes to faff with Sylvanians and their little bits and pieces.

It seem Lego are giving the people what they want.

Whether that is what little girls people need is another question.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/01/2012 21:40

Sure you can! - if you look for pick a brick you can get whatever bricks you want (or wheels, axles etc etc etc). When DH was getting DD her first batch, he got a load of red bricks (mostly 2x6 I think), some greens and a load of roof tiles. He should have got doors and windows too - you can get a pack of those here

crunchbag · 06/01/2012 21:43

rosy71 my sister and I had those! We also had furniture, bathroom set, kitchen set and the likes :o

GrimmaTheNome · 06/01/2012 21:47

Even back then, girls in miniskirts tch tch

EverybodysSnowyEyed · 06/01/2012 21:50

you now it wouldn't let me go to that page so thanks for the link!

However, it still doesn't have the pieces I want (eg a base plate that is the same thickness as the bricks and about 10x20 or bigger)

DS has a bricks box and the doors and windows but you just can't get floors and DS likes to build apartment blocks!

Anyway, i digress. The problem with the beauty parlour is that it is so clearly aimed at girls. it doesn't have to be pink etc. I am equally annoyed that my DS is effectively being excluded from it

OP posts:
crunchbag · 06/01/2012 21:59

www.worldbricks.com/lego/lego-instructions/by-number/200-299/263-complete-kitchen.html

1974 and clearly marketing girls :) Or 'little homemakers' as the were called in the catalogues

rosy71 · 06/01/2012 22:04

I had that lego kitchen!